Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Want to see how bad P&S's really are?

Reply
Thread Tools

Want to see how bad P&S's really are?

 
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008

"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:12:51 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in <TN56l.1163$z%.65@edtnps82>:
>
>>"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Check out DXO tests. Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
>>> Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
>>> They all beat it when it comes to image quality. Now, do you really
>>> want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
>>> any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?
>>>
>>> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...base/Panasonic

>>
>>The funny thing here, Rich, is that P&S sales will continue to go through
>>the roof regardless of your opinion simply because P&S's fit in your
>>pocket...

>
> And because they consistently produce good to very good images, with the
> best consistently producing excellent images.
>
> --
> Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
> John


At an affordable price...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
Dudley Hanks wrote:

> But, compare the absolutes, and then try to tell yourself that DSLRs are
> more popular than P&S cams...


Of course they're not. It's just as in the days of film. More people
bought Brownies, 110 & 126 Instamatics, Disc cameras, and P&S 35mm
cameras than film SLRs, due to cost and size.

But what's different this time is that the 35mm P&S cameras were closer
in capability to the film SLRs than the digital P&S cameras are to the
digital SLRs.

A lot of people don't realize the tremendous advantages of a D-SLR
because they've just accepted the limitation of the digital P&S and may
not realize that they don't have to live with the unbearable AF lag and
the poor low-light performance.

At a banquet I was at last night we were doing the traditional banging
on the glasses with spoons to get the newlyweds to kiss. It was rather
amusing to look at the photos from the P&S cameras since none of them
were fast enough to capture the scene.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:20:03 -0800, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:15:42 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in <it86l.1239$z%.642@edtnps82>:
>
>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..

>
>>> That has more to do with the market being saturated with inexpensive
>>> P&S cameras and the fact that the P&S was the first inexpensive way
>>> for the average snapshot-taker to shoot digital and make their own
>>> prints at home. That market was bound to level off.
>>>
>>> Many of the early buyers of P&S cameras have become more interested
>>> in, and proficient in, photography because of P&S cameras. They're
>>> now upgrading to dslrs.
>>>
>>> Saying "upgrading" is not intended to denigrate the P&S. The

>
>Saying "P&S" is denigrating to better compact cameras, intended or not.


That's nonsense, John. "P&S" is the accepted and recognizable term to
describe a particular style of camera. It carries no baggage.
"Compact" is not an accepted and recognizable term.

I understand that you are particularly sensitive to perceived slurs
about P&S cameras, but trying to extend your perception to the world
in general is silly.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Charles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Better compact digital cameras have no AF lag, and perform very well in
> normal indoor lighting.


Which ones? I have yet to find any like that. When you are used to a
DSLR the AF lag on compact digital cameras is excruciating. As far as
normal indoor lighting to me that means ASA 800 with little noise. I
think such are coming, and in the next couple of years, but from what I
have found compact digital cameras that have no AF lag and acceptable
low light capabilities don't exist yet.

--
Charles
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
In article <4i96l.9056$(E-Mail Removed)>, SMS
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> At a banquet I was at last night we were doing the traditional banging
> on the glasses with spoons to get the newlyweds to kiss. It was rather
> amusing to look at the photos from the P&S cameras since none of them
> were fast enough to capture the scene.


or maybe they were lousy photographers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>Saying "P&S" is denigrating to better compact cameras, intended or not.

> >
> >That's nonsense, John. "P&S" is the accepted and recognizable term to
> >describe a particular style of camera. It carries no baggage.
> >"Compact" is not an accepted and recognizable term.

>
> I totally disagree.


then you need to get out more. p&s is what most people call it
including major camera sellers and even the manufacturers themselves.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Charles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> As always, YMMV -- I find the f/2.8 lens speed and optical image
> stabilization of the FZ8 able to handle normal indoor lighting quite
> well -- typically 1/30 sec exposure at ISO 200. Noise is pretty good
> out of camera, and very low after processing with Neat Image.


That would not cut it for me. I need ASA 400 or 800 with a f/2.8 lens
speed. If the camera companies stop the megapixel race in the next two
years I think we will see that in the compact cameras.

--
Charles
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
HEMI - Powered wrote:
> Charles added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John
>> Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Better compact digital cameras have no AF lag, and perform very
>>> well in normal indoor lighting.

>> Which ones? I have yet to find any like that. When you are used
>> to a DSLR the AF lag on compact digital cameras is excruciating.
>> As far as normal indoor lighting to me that means ASA 800 with
>> little noise. I think such are coming, and in the next couple
>> of years, but from what I have found compact digital cameras
>> that have no AF lag and acceptable low light capabilities don't
>> exist yet.
>>

> Personally, Charles, I have never seen ANY digital with zero AF
> lag.


This is true, though for all intents and purposes, the AF lag on a D-SLR
is so short that it's essentially zero.

> The question really is: how much is too much? And, besides the
> obvious differences in camera type and the sophistication of the
> algorithm(s) used, exactly where the AF point(s) are aimed and the
> type of lighting plays a big part in whether there is a fast,
> accurate lock or a lot of hunting around.


The difference between phase detection auto-focus and contrast detection
auto-focus is the key issue. Ricoh did put phase detection auto-focus on
a couple of P&S models, but dropped it due to the expense.

Of course there are no compact digital cameras with no AF lag, I don't
know where anyone got that idea.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
On Dec 29, 10:39*am, John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:12:05 -0500, Charles <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> <291220081512055840%(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
> ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> Better compact digital cameras have no AF lag, and perform very well in
> >> normal indoor lighting.

>
> >Which ones? I have yet to find any like that. When you are used to a
> >DSLR the AF lag on compact digital cameras is excruciating.

>
> Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and other FZ models). *Digital Photography Review
> says, "the actual delay between pressing the button and the shot being
> taken is almost instantaneous". *The Panasonic spec is 0.005 second
> shutter release time lag (the time between pressing the button on the
> camera and the photo being taken).


That sounds like the time if the camera is pre-focused. The full
autofocus time is more like 0.50 seconds.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ8/FZ8A6.HTM


> >As far as
> >normal indoor lighting to me that means ASA 800 with little noise. *....

>
> As always, YMMV -- I find the f/2.8 lens speed and optical image
> stabilization of the FZ8 able to handle normal indoor lighting quite
> well -- typically 1/30 sec exposure at ISO 200. *Noise is pretty good
> out of camera, and very low after processing with Neat Image.


I do a fair bit of shooting at ISO 800 and F/2.8 and 1/30 or slower.

I have both a DSLR and a P&S, I use the one that works best for the
conditions.

Scott
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
On Dec 29, 7:36*pm, Scott W <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 10:39*am, John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:12:05 -0500, Charles <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> > <291220081512055840%(E-Mail Removed)>:

>
> > >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
> > ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > >> Better compact digital cameras have no AF lag, and perform very well in
> > >> normal indoor lighting.

>
> > >Which ones? I have yet to find any like that. When you are used to a
> > >DSLR the AF lag on compact digital cameras is excruciating.

>
> > Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and other FZ models). *Digital Photography Review
> > says, "the actual delay between pressing the button and the shot being
> > taken is almost instantaneous". *The Panasonic spec is 0.005 second
> > shutter release time lag (the time between pressing the button on the
> > camera and the photo being taken).

>
> That sounds like the time if the camera is pre-focused. *The full
> autofocus time is more like 0.50 seconds.http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ8/FZ8A6.HTM
>
> > >As far as
> > >normal indoor lighting to me that means ASA 800 with little noise. *....

>
> > As always, YMMV -- I find the f/2.8 lens speed and optical image
> > stabilization of the FZ8 able to handle normal indoor lighting quite
> > well -- typically 1/30 sec exposure at ISO 200. *Noise is pretty good
> > out of camera, and very low after processing with Neat Image.

>
> I do a fair bit of shooting at ISO 800 and F/2.8 and 1/30 or slower.
>
> I have both a DSLR and a P&S, I use the one that works best for the
> conditions.
>
> Scott


And under what "conditions" would you use the P&S rather than the
DSLR?
 
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: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
Bad media, bad files or bad Nero? John Computer Information 23 01-08-2008 09:17 PM
ActiveX apologetic Larry Seltzer... "Sun paid for malicious ActiveX code, and Firefox is bad, bad bad baad. please use ActiveX, it's secure and nice!" (ok, the last part is irony on my part) fernando.cassia@gmail.com Java 0 04-16-2005 10:05 PM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 12 02-23-2005 03:28 AM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 0 02-19-2005 01:10 AM



Advertisments