Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2008
John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:55:53 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
> <tfc4l.10673$(E-Mail Removed)> :
>
>>> I rest my case. I think your bias is clear, whether you honestly
>>> don't see it or not, and will take that into account in the future.

>> John, as you objected to "small-sensor", and said that "compact" was not
>> appropriate (IIRC), ...

>
> Come on, David, at least be above putting words in my mouth. I did not
> say "compact" was not appropriate. I use the term myself. How could
> you possibly have missed that?
>

Well, gentlemen: I did switch to "compact" sometime in the past year,
and have generally avoided referring to PC's as "Virus collection
boxes"... so I hope you are both pleased with me.

I've also used my DSLR as a p+s, and my compact camera in fully manual
mode (the great Canon G3).... lots of strokes for lotsa folks.

Happy Holidays to all.

--
John McWilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dj_nme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2008
Paul Furman wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <VmW3l.11288$(E-Mail Removed)>, Paul Furman
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> The terms do evolve but 'SLR' would be completely meaningless used
>>> for the G1. I'd rather call it a digital rangefinder which is also
>>> wrong <g>. The distinction is interchangeable lens and that separates
>>> it from P&S.

>>
>> but it's closer to an slr than it is to anything else.

>
> Well I'd say it's about half way between an SLR & a P&S so 'Bridge' if
> you want to lump it somewhere.
>
> '4/3 format interchangeable lens camera'


It's actually Micro 4/3, so that (unfortunately) scans as wrong from the
get-go.
I personally like what the user "chuxter" on the depreview.com forums
came up with:
"EVIL camera" (EVIL = Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens).

Chuxter has been running a gedanken along a very similar line to what
Panasonic and Olympus came up with as their first Micro FourThirds
cameras for about a year and a half.
<http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/?page_id=27>
I don't believe that he actually has the facilities to go into
production and I'd be very surprised if Panasonic or Olympus would want
to pay an outside designer.
Interesting, none the less.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2008
dj_nme wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <VmW3l.11288$(E-Mail Removed)>, Paul Furman
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The terms do evolve but 'SLR' would be completely meaningless used
>>>> for the G1. I'd rather call it a digital rangefinder which is also
>>>> wrong <g>. The distinction is interchangeable lens and that
>>>> separates it from P&S.
>>>
>>> but it's closer to an slr than it is to anything else.

>>
>> Well I'd say it's about half way between an SLR & a P&S so 'Bridge' if
>> you want to lump it somewhere.
>>
>> '4/3 format interchangeable lens camera'

>
> It's actually Micro 4/3, so that (unfortunately) scans as wrong from the
> get-go.
> I personally like what the user "chuxter" on the depreview.com forums
> came up with:
> "EVIL camera" (EVIL = Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens).
>
> Chuxter has been running a gedanken along a very similar line to what
> Panasonic and Olympus came up with as their first Micro FourThirds
> cameras for about a year and a half.
> <http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/?page_id=27>
> I don't believe that he actually has the facilities to go into
> production and I'd be very surprised if Panasonic or Olympus would want
> to pay an outside designer.
> Interesting, none the less.

Hmmmmm, my browser threw up...
==========================
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 6 pages that we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4
page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed
without user consent. The last time that Google visited this site was on
2008-12-18, and the last time that suspicious content was found on this
site was on 2008-12-18.
Malicious software includes 12 trojan(s), 4 scripting exploit(s).
Successful infection resulted in an average of 3 new processes on the
target machine.
Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including 61.155.8.0/.
This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS8560 (SCHLUND).
==========================

I went anyway and survived.. (O: But frankly, he just goes and on and
on.. Can I lazily ask what his camera has/does that the G1 (and it's
likely successors) doesn't/won't?

EVIL will never catch on. With the diversity of camera designs
nowadays, and the already confusing and inappropriate use of dslr, p&s,
compact, bridge, zlr, etc, new terms are unlikely to become widely
adopted *unless* a manufacturer is very successful with a particular
range and promotes it by using a useful term. And they won't pick
'evil', I suspect...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
Mark Thomas wrote:
> dj_nme wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <VmW3l.11288$(E-Mail Removed)>, Paul Furman
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The terms do evolve but 'SLR' would be completely meaningless used
>>>>> for the G1. I'd rather call it a digital rangefinder which is also
>>>>> wrong <g>. The distinction is interchangeable lens and that
>>>>> separates it from P&S.
>>>>
>>>> but it's closer to an slr than it is to anything else.
>>>
>>> Well I'd say it's about half way between an SLR & a P&S so 'Bridge'
>>> if you want to lump it somewhere.
>>>
>>> '4/3 format interchangeable lens camera'

>>
>> It's actually Micro 4/3, so that (unfortunately) scans as wrong from
>> the get-go.
>> I personally like what the user "chuxter" on the depreview.com forums
>> came up with:
>> "EVIL camera" (EVIL = Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens).
>>
>> Chuxter has been running a gedanken along a very similar line to what
>> Panasonic and Olympus came up with as their first Micro FourThirds
>> cameras for about a year and a half.
>> <http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/?page_id=27>
>> I don't believe that he actually has the facilities to go into
>> production and I'd be very surprised if Panasonic or Olympus would
>> want to pay an outside designer.
>> Interesting, none the less.

> Hmmmmm, my browser threw up...
> ==========================
> What happened when Google visited this site?
> Of the 6 pages that we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4
> page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed


I got:
Reported Attack Site!
This web site at www.here-ugo.com has been reported as an attack site
and has been blocked based on your security preferences.

Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use
your computer to attack others, or damage your system.

Some attack sites intentionally distribute harmful software, but many
are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.

> ==========================
>
> I went anyway and survived.. (O: But frankly, he just goes and on and
> on.. Can I lazily ask what his camera has/does that the G1 (and it's
> likely successors) doesn't/won't?


That thing reminds more of the new Red camera because of the add-on
accessories. People tend to call that a SLR mistakenly.


> EVIL will never catch on. With the diversity of camera designs
> nowadays, and the already confusing and inappropriate use of dslr, p&s,
> compact, bridge, zlr, etc, new terms are unlikely to become widely
> adopted *unless* a manufacturer is very successful with a particular
> range and promotes it by using a useful term. And they won't pick
> 'evil', I suspect...



--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, savvo
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> > and the panasonic g1 is considered an slr even though it lacks a
>> > mirror. it's more like an slr than it is any other category. the
>> > terms evolve.

>>
>> Not by Panasonic or, well, anyone really.
>>
>> It's more like a compact because that's what it is.


> no, it's more like an slr. the g1 is closer to something like a nikon
> d40 than it is any compact camera. the main difference is that there's
> an evf and no mirror. otherwise, it feels like a small dslr.


This is rather like arguing whether a hermaphrodite is a man or a woman.

--
Chris Malcolm



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:


>> p.s. Do you really not see how illogical it is to say you're open to
>> "scientific reason", acknowledge that cameras like the FZ8 are really
>> no more P&S than dSLRs, and then conclude that you'll continue to use
>> the term P&S?? That's a big part of why it seems biased.


> I'm simply not going to waste my time writing or your time reading "a
> small-sensor camera which has a fixed lens" when P&S will do.


What do you write when it's a big sensor camera with a fixed lens?

--
Chris Malcolm



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:55:53 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
>>> <tfc4l.10673$(E-Mail Removed)> :
>>>
>>>>> I rest my case. I think your bias is clear, whether you honestly
>>>>> don't see it or not, and will take that into account in the future.
>>>> John, as you objected to "small-sensor", and said that "compact" was
>>>> not appropriate (IIRC), ...
>>>
>>> Come on, David, at least be above putting words in my mouth. I did not
>>> say "compact" was not appropriate. I use the term myself. How could
>>> you possibly have missed that?
>>>

>> Well, gentlemen: I did switch to "compact" sometime in the past year,


> 'Compact' is a good term. It also describes the sensor size in an obliqu
> way. So, is that the official new non-discriminatory PC term for P&S?


"Compact" isn't a suitable term for large heavy fixed lens cameras
with big sensors

--
Chris Malcolm



 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:

>
>>> p.s. Do you really not see how illogical it is to say you're open to
>>> "scientific reason", acknowledge that cameras like the FZ8 are really
>>> no more P&S than dSLRs, and then conclude that you'll continue to use
>>> the term P&S?? That's a big part of why it seems biased.

>
>> I'm simply not going to waste my time writing or your time reading "a
>> small-sensor camera which has a fixed lens" when P&S will do.

>
> What do you write when it's a big sensor camera with a fixed lens?


'Sony R1'

Is there another model like that?



--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Stephen Bishop
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It's still beyond me why anyone would consider a commonly used
> description of a camera type to be derogatory in any way.


no kidding.

> It's just a camera. If the classification that most people give it
> offends you, then I'd suggest that you're into photography for the
> wrong reasons.


agreed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
HEMI-Powered wrote:
[]
> During our recent election cycle, Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin
> was critized as being a racist for using terms like "hockey mom" and
> "Joe sixpack" because those allegedly connoted white people. It was
> jokingly suggested that she use "basketball mom" and "Joe crack" as
> those connote black people, but that didn't go over too well, either.
> Point being exactly what you said: about ANY word or term can be
> viewed as derrogatory or offensive by SOMEONE, so absent truly
> offensive terminology, why not go with words and terms that are most
> universally understood? And, although I agree with you that "small
> sensor camera" MIGHT be a good descriptor for smaller cameras like P
> & S, ultra- compact or even some advanced EVF/ZLR, one could also
> argue that most all non-full frame DSLRs could also called "small
> sensor". Isn't it still true that beauty is in the eye of the
> beholder?
>
> Cheers!


Interesting, Jerry. The difference in the "mom" terms would be lost to
many over here, including me. I pause, and think of the many benefits
diversity brings - in cameras too. I think that "offense", as well as
"beauty" are in the eye of the beholder!

Cheers,
David

 
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: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S dj_nme Digital Photography 2 12-26-2008 01:44 PM
Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S SMS Digital Photography 65 12-25-2008 12:17 AM
Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S Ray Fischer Digital Photography 3 12-22-2008 06:47 AM
Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S Mark Thomas Digital Photography 2 12-21-2008 12:33 AM



Advertisments