Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11

 
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2008
ReplyingToFools <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:22:10 -0500, Stephen Bishop <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Ever hear the phrase, "Jack of all trades, master of none?" A dslr
>>is a specialized tool that can be configured for whatever you need,
>>and it will do a much better job than any "do everything" portable
>>camera.

>
>Ever hear the phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and believing a
>foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing" ?
>
>You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver, as well
>as an excellent macro-scope, video-cam, CD-quality stereo sound recorder,
>thermometer (CHDK cameras also tell you the temperature and time, yes, it's
>true), etc. etc. etc. Just because one camera can do it all doesn't mean it does
>them all with lesser quality.


Yes, it does mean that.

--
Ray Fischer
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2008
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:55:27 -0600, AlderWeathermore
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
>easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs


Uh, yeah. That's why scale models are always *so* much more highly
detailed than the full-size originals. :/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2008
ChaseOslo <coslo@.org> wrote:
> John A.


>>>Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
>>>easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs

>>
>>Uh, yeah. That's why scale models are always *so* much more highly
>>detailed than the full-size originals. :/

>
>Come back again after you've hand-ground and polished a diffraction-limited 16"
>diameter mirror for a telescope and a diffraction-limited 6" diameter one.


Vastly easier than doing the same for a lens that's 1.5mm in diameter.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2008
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Dale Tems
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:42:47 +0000 (UTC), Stuffed Crust
><pizza@spam.****theusers.org> wrote:
>
>>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Stephen Bishop <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> But I will observe that he seems to be a perfect example of someone,
>>> who in the timeless words of Jerry Clower, is educated beyond his
>>> intelligence.

>>
>>... gah, tell me about it. It wasn't even remotely worth trying to
>>re-demonstrate the fundamental fallacy in that drivel.
>>
>> - Solomon

>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>1. P&S cameras


If P&S are that good why don't the places that have the technology to
tell the difference not use them?

You would have thought that people doing satellites and spy planes would
be using P&S technology. Likewise the surveillance teams for the
security services and armed forces. Yet they all use DSLR technology.

Incidentally the BBC (for their news teams) looked at using
camera-phones and P&S and decided they weren't good enough.

It is strange that despite it being "obvious" that P&S are better all
those with the ability to test this claim spend more money on DSLRs and
use them... Is EVERYONE that stupid?


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2008
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Craig-Bolts
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:26:30 +0000, Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Dale Tems
>><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:42:47 +0000 (UTC), Stuffed Crust
>>><pizza@spam.****theusers.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Stephen Bishop
>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> But I will observe that he seems to be a perfect example of someone,
>>>>> who in the timeless words of Jerry Clower, is educated beyond his
>>>>> intelligence.
>>>>
>>>>... gah, tell me about it. It wasn't even remotely worth trying to
>>>>re-demonstrate the fundamental fallacy in that drivel.
>>>>
>>>> - Solomon
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>
>>> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>>>newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>>>1. P&S cameras

>>
>>If P&S are that good why don't the places that have the technology to
>>tell the difference not use them?
>>
>>You would have thought that people doing satellites and spy planes would
>>be using P&S technology. Likewise the surveillance teams for the
>>security services and armed forces. Yet they all use DSLR technology.

>
>Uh huh, SUUUURRE they do. They use DSLRs in spy-planes and satellites.
>I bet you
>run around the rings of Saturn in your Nike sneakers too.


Actually NASA uses Nikon DSLRs both in the ground and in space. Also
they use DSLR technology in UVA's I know I worth with one of the
companies doing it.

>Security services? Armed forces? Oh, I got you there, read below. I'm glad you
>mentioned that. Your thinking that any of those people would use DSLRs makes
>your statement as oxymoronic as it gets. You didn't quite think things through
>before posting your troll, did you.


Yes. Both the US and UK Security Forces and use DSLRs for surveillance
work.

>>Incidentally the BBC (for their news teams) looked at using
>>camera-phones and P&S and decided they weren't good enough.
>>
>>It is strange that despite it being "obvious" that P&S are better all
>>those with the ability to test this claim spend more money on DSLRs and
>>use them... Is EVERYONE that stupid?

>
>Pretty much! Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity.

Well you are showing that to be accurate.
The BBC have more than a passing idea of what they are doing.

So far al you have been doing is repeating rubbish with nothing to back
it up. Not even the easy step of posting pictures to prove it.


>Maybe if they knew how to shop for cameras and what to look for in them they
>would realize the advantages of P&S cameras.


P&S do have advantages. I have one.

>Isn't it odd though, in some news items from the Iraq war I spied quite
>a few of
>the armed security personnel carrying one of my more favorite P&S cameras that
>has a titanium shell, snuggly strapped around their neck and shoulder and
>hanging alongside their ammunition belts.


Why do you think they call then Grunts? If you saw them they were not
doing surveillance. In their situation I would use a P&S as it is small
and easy to use in one hand. Also it is cheap. It takes "passable"
pictures.
The average grunt would not carry a DSLR in that situation.

Only snipers carry a sniper rifle and machine gunners a machine gun.
This is despite the average grunt only carrying an M16.

Your argument is similar. Because all the grunts carry P&S there is no
need for a Machine gun or a Sniper.

I certainly now what the Intelligence and recce teams use for
photography and it ain't P&S....

>They understand the value of precision
>optics housed in durable. They also understand the value of being perfectly
>silent when its important.


My experience of the US military is that the Grunts understand very
little. I doubt any know what "optics" are out side a bar. As for
being silent.. DSLR's can be. However you will not be taking photos if
you are that close. If you are that close it usually means you have
made a cock up.

If the best you can do is "I watch some news reports" It ain't worth
****.

What I can tell you is that for recce WE carried DSLR's in the Middle
East. NOT P&S But then we weren't grunts and we weren't taking snaps to
impress the girlfriend back home.

>Maybe you too should learn to do what your DSLR cannot do.


I do know. I also know what my P&S can and can not do.

>While you're learning how to remain silent when working (what your
>camera cannot
>do), educate yourself, make good use of that time.


Physician heal thyself.

You have no idea what you are talking about.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2008
Collin Barger <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 25 Nov 2008 06:12:37 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>ChaseOslo <coslo@.org> wrote:
>>> John A.

>>
>>>>>Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
>>>>>easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs
>>>>
>>>>Uh, yeah. That's why scale models are always *so* much more highly
>>>>detailed than the full-size originals. :/
>>>
>>>Come back again after you've hand-ground and polished a diffraction-limited 16"
>>>diameter mirror for a telescope and a diffraction-limited 6" diameter one.

>>
>>Vastly easier than doing the same for a lens that's 1.5mm in diameter.

>
>Not necessarily so,


Yes, "necesssarily" so.

> there are "tricks" to grinding some smaller lenses. In fact,
>one of Leeuwenhoek's tricks to "grinding" single objective lenses that can
>magnify up to ~100x was to simply draw a long thread of glass. Heating that
>thread's end in a flame until it melted into a small ball on the end of the
>thread, then feeding the rest of that thread into the molten miniature ball of
>glass held at the edge of a flame. As the ball grew larger it would take on a
>perfect spherical shape due to the cohesion properties of glass molecules. No
>different than how a drop of water will form a perfect sphere in a weightless
>atmosphere when allowed to come to rest.


Which is hardly a "diffraction-limited" lens, is it?

[...]
>There are other opticians tricks for smaller lenses. But I'm not privy to most
>of those methods. I just know they exist. There seems to be a cost-effective
>"sweet spot" to grinding curvatures in glass. Too large and it becomes extremely
>difficult to obtain and attain a perfect figure. Too small and it becomes
>equally difficult. This could be why the P&S camera fares so well commercially,
>to get excellent camera AND excellent diffraction-limited lenses for such a low
>cost, most of the optical components are well within that "sweet-spot" size.


Except that they're obviously not "excellent diffraction-limited
lenses". P&S cameras sell well because they're cheap and convenient.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2008
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, PlacerJohan
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>I certainly now what the Intelligence and recce teams use for
>>photography and it ain't P&S....

>
>Oh yes, you're so intelligent that you'll be using a camera for surveillance in
>war conditions where the noise from your camera will get you killed. You are SO
>intelligent.


I am. I HAVE used an SLR for surveillance work in a war zone. Any your
experience is?

>>What I can tell you is that for recce WE carried DSLR's in the Middle
>>East. NOT P&S But then we weren't grunts and we weren't taking snaps to
>>impress the girlfriend back home.

>
>No, your commanders were trying to get rid of you by alerting anyone to your
>position as you shot photos.


Hadly. It is clear you have never used an SLR out doors let alone in a
war zone.

Incidentally the ONLY people to shoot at us were the US "friendly"
forces and we weren't taking pictures at the time,

>>>Maybe you too should learn to do what your DSLR cannot do.

>>I do know. I also know what my P&S can and can not do.

>Apparently not enough. You weren't even bright enough to realize someone was
>trying to get you killed. This may eventually work to everyone's advantage.
>Darwinism to the rescue.


Quite. Dawinisum. We got in. took the pictures and got out.
Survival of the fittest.

You on the other hand have only ever seen warfare on the TV

>>You have no idea what you are talking about.

>
>Quite the contrary. You don't even have any idea of what's happening
>around you.


Well I have the photos to prove it. Which is more than you do


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2008
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Collin Barger <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2008 06:12:37 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Ray Fischer) wrote:


>>ChaseOslo <coslo@.org> wrote:
>>> John A.

>>
>>>>>Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
>>>>>easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs
>>>>
>>>>Uh, yeah. That's why scale models are always *so* much more highly
>>>>detailed than the full-size originals. :/
>>>
>>>Come back again after you've hand-ground and polished a diffraction-limited 16"
>>>diameter mirror for a telescope and a diffraction-limited 6" diameter one.

>>
>>Vastly easier than doing the same for a lens that's 1.5mm in diameter.


> Not necessarily so, there are "tricks" to grinding some smaller lenses. In fact,
> one of Leeuwenhoek's tricks to "grinding" single objective lenses that can
> magnify up to ~100x was to simply draw a long thread of glass. Heating that
> thread's end in a flame until it melted into a small ball on the end of the
> thread, then feeding the rest of that thread into the molten miniature ball of
> glass held at the edge of a flame. As the ball grew larger it would take on a
> perfect spherical shape due to the cohesion properties of glass molecules. No
> different than how a drop of water will form a perfect sphere in a weightless
> atmosphere when allowed to come to rest. The glass having stronger bonds will
> fight the pull of gravity easier and can be made larger without any distortion
> here on earth. Using the molecular properties of glass itself to form a perfect
> lens.


> When as a child and I needed a quick pocket microscope for a trip into the
> swamps, meadows, and woods, I would sometimes make one of these and mount the
> lens in a same-sized hole in a piece of thin cardboard. You'd be surprised at
> the optical power and visual clarity you can obtain through a lens made in this
> manner. It takes practice, a very steady hand, keeping the forming glass ball at
> just the proper melt-temperature and many trials and error to know how large of
> a lens you can make this way. As well as different glasses have different
> degrees of viscosity to them when melted. Some glasses would hold in a perfect
> sphere up to 3-4mm in dia. according to memory of childhood experiments. That's
> quite a bit of aperture to peer through when held up to the eye. I also recall,
> that by my rough way-back-when estimates against some of my "store bought"
> microscopes (in parens because I always modified them and made them better)
> these single-lens microscopes made from a thread of melted glass would average
> anywhere from 80x to 120x magnification when compared to known subjects and
> known magnifications. The caveat being the smaller (<2mm dia.) more perfect
> sphere was the higher power but required intense light to make it useful.
> Backlit sunlight was handy in the meadow, that's why it works so well for a
> simple, inexpensive, impromptu pocket-microscope. Needing nothing more than a
> bit of lab glass-tubing to draw into a thread, an alcohol lamp, a piece of
> cardboard, and a bit of tape to hold the stem of the spherical-lens to the
> cardboard (the spherical lens inserted into a hole in the cardboard, just like
> Leeuwenhoek's metal plate would hold one).


> Some of Leeuwenhoek's more powerful single-lens microscopes were made in a
> different manner, but I've not heard of anyone learning what method he used to
> grind and polish those lenses. It might have been a different method of melting
> them into perfect spheres or he used small diameter tubes to grind them to
> perfect shapes. When a ball of glass is held to a tube's end that is spun with
> diamond powder on it, and then ball of glass is rotated against that spinning
> tube's end, you get perfectly spherical glass form. This is also how decorative
> and spiritualist's crystal-balls are made in large sizes.


> There are other opticians tricks for smaller lenses. But I'm not privy to most
> of those methods. I just know they exist. There seems to be a cost-effective
> "sweet spot" to grinding curvatures in glass. Too large and it becomes extremely
> difficult to obtain and attain a perfect figure. Too small and it becomes
> equally difficult. This could be why the P&S camera fares so well commercially,
> to get excellent camera AND excellent diffraction-limited lenses for such a low
> cost, most of the optical components are well within that "sweet-spot" size.


A similar method I used as a boy was waterdrop lenses. The same forces
of surface tension make a small drop of water into an approximate
sphere. The question is how to hold it without distorting the lens
shape of the ends too much. The answer was to drive a gramophone
needle, a fat smoothly tapered highly polished steel needle, just a
little through a copper coin, leaving a hole on one side, a smaller
one on the other, and a beautifully smooth and curved cone between
them. Anyone remember that clever trick? It involved a sawn-off wine
bottle cork.

You then dropped your water drip into the smooth polished conical hole
thus formed. That formed the objective lens of a microscope, and a
conventional multi-element high power magnifier formed the eyepiece.
In a cold humid atmosphere you could get five to ten minutes of good
microscopy from it before evaporation went far enough to spoil the
optical geometry.

--
Chris Malcolm



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2008
In message <gghap8$2i2$(E-Mail Removed)>, Stuffed Crust
<pizza@spam.****theusers.org> writes
>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems PlacerJohan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Certainly not from within any distance where they can be heard from a
>> block away snapping off pictures.

>
>...or you can use a P&S and be heard two blocks off by the whine of the
>focus and zoom motors. Whatever.


Especially at night. This is why you use manual focus if noise is THAT
much of a problem

If noise IS a problem the mirror is not a problem on a DSLR as you can
get around that. However it is VERY unusual if you are that close and it
is that quite... in my personal experience in the field not watching the
TV .

>> You must be a pretty poor shopper if you don't realize the many more
>> advantages over a DSLR.

>
>A (compact) P&S camera has exactly one undisputable advantage over a
>DSLR -- size/weight.


Yes. Very useful for work where you are doing very close surveillance
in a confined apace. That said there are other much better covert
cameras about.

> But then a tiny P&S camera has very few of the
>"25" advantages you so thoughtfully regurgitate so often. Indeed, is
>there any one camera out there that hits all, or even 2/3rds of that
>list?


None. More to the point he can't list any.

>
>> Oh yes, you're so intelligent that you'll be using a camera for
>> surveillance in war conditions where the noise from your camera will
>> get you killed. You are SO intelligent.

>
>It's more intelligent to conduct surveillence at the greatest
>distance possible.


So true. In fact from the sort of places a P&S can not give you a decent
picture of the target.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2008
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Howie Coldan
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:27:09 +0000, Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In message <gghap8$2i2$(E-Mail Removed)>, Stuffed Crust
>><pizza@spam.****theusers.org> writes
>>>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems PlacerJohan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Certainly not from within any distance where they can be heard from a
>>>> block away snapping off pictures.
>>>
>>>...or you can use a P&S and be heard two blocks off by the whine of the
>>>focus and zoom motors. Whatever.

>>
>>Especially at night. This is why you use manual focus if noise is THAT
>>much of a problem
>>
>>If noise IS a problem the mirror is not a problem on a DSLR as you can
>>get around that. However it is VERY unusual if you are that close and it
>>is that quite... in my personal experience in the field not watching the
>>TV .

>
>Thanks. You've just outted yourself as just another pretend-photographer troll.
>
>First of all any decent P&S camera is totally silent when focusing. Better ones
>are also totally silent when zooming.
>
>"Especially at night"? LOL! You can't even see through that OVF at night to
>frame and focus.


I think that ends the conversation. You don't know what you are talking
about.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11 Sherry Miller Digital Photography 19 12-19-2008 04:02 PM
Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - OFF TOPIC Colin.D Digital Photography 6 12-07-2008 04:53 PM
Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11 Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 3 12-01-2008 05:20 AM
Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11 Ray Fischer Digital Photography 11 11-25-2008 07:47 PM
Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11 Steve Digital Photography 2 11-20-2008 11:55 PM



Advertisments