Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro

Reply
Thread Tools

How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro

 
 
Phil B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2010
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:36:40 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 11/07/10 8:16 AM, Bruce wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> However, I do recognise that probably>99% of digital camera users
>> have not the faintest idea what dynamic range is, nor why it is so
>> important. All they seem to understand, and judge cameras by, is the
>> numbers of megapixels that are crammed on to their very tiny sensors.

>
>Which is why RAW support was dropped from most P&S models. Canon even
>dropped RAW from their G series for one generation (the G7) which was
>pretty stupid considering the target market for that line is people who
>actually do know what dynamic range is. Thank goodness for CHDK.


Yes, thank goodness for CHDK, because we found out WHY they dropped RAW
support in many of these P&S cameras. Do you know why? No you don't. You
just proved that.

IT IS BECAUSE THE FULL DYNAMIC RANGE WAS ALREADY BEING REPRESENTED IN THE
JPG OUTPUT OF THESE CAMERAS. IF YOU DO THAT PROPERLY *IN-CAMERA* THEN
THERE'S NO NEED TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA. (Except in only rare
situations that are far beyond the average photographer, e.g.
astrophotography. And certainly of zero use to the snapshooters and
crapshooters, like those that infest these newsgroups who pretend to be
"pros", what a laugh.) THESE INEXPENSIVE BUT HIGH-QUALITY CAMERAS DO
SOMETHING BETTER THAN ALL DSLRS CAN EVER DO, THEY DO THE RAW TO JPG
CONVERSION PROPERLY IN-CAMERA.

Proving ONCE AGAIN, that you have NEVER BEEN NEAR *ANY* CAMERA THAT USES
CHDK AND HAVE NEVER FOLLOWED ANY PART OF ITS DEVELOPMENT OR YOU WOULD KNOW
THIS ABOUT ALL CHDK COMPATIBLE CAMERAS.

>
>It's rather ironic that the cameras with the worst dynamic range, that
>would benefit the most from RAW, usually don't have RAW, while the
>D-SLRs all have it but don't gain (in terms of percentages) nearly as
>much dynamic range as the P&S models.
>


It's rather ironic that you don't know what the **** you are talking about,
yet you insist on spewing your role-playing pretend-photographer's supreme
ignorance upon the world and somehow think that those who actually OWN
cameras would swallow your bullshit.


>The new APS-C mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras should have good
>dynamic range. They'll still lack some of the other advantages of D-SLRs
>though.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2010
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:20:09 -0700, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:02:25 -0700 (PDT), in
><(E-Mail Removed)>, -hh
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 9, 1:05*pm, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
>>>
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> > >The automotive analogy here is also illustrative: *take a look at our
>>> > >car's sound system controls: *originally, our old analog radio systems
>>> > >used a dial-based volume control ... a potentiometer. *With
>>> > >digitalization, this analog dial component was replaced with up/down
>>> > >pushbuttons. * But look now at today's controls and we find that
>>> > >they've gotten rid of the volume pushbuttons and *gone back to a human
>>> > >interface for the radio's volume control that's once again a dial.
>>> > >Hmmm...
>>>
>>> > Mine has buttons for stations, seek and scan, plus buttons on the
>>> > steering wheel for station change. *I can't remember the last time
>>> > I twisted a volume knob. *I'm guessing they are for Luddites that can't
>>> > learn new things.
>>>
>>> pejorative comment noted.

>>
>>And yet John conveniently failed to mention how his car's radio's
>>**volume** control is actually performed.

>
>The volume I use is two pushbuttons on the steering wheel.


What a weasel. Is there, or is there not, a volume knob on the radio?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >From a UI perspective, buttons are better for some things, but that
> >doesn't automatically mean that a 'button' UI is better for ALL
> >inputs. The exercise is left to the reader to go replace a car's
> >steering _wheel_ with Left & Right buttons

>
> Fly by wire with a joystick works quite well, and has been used in some
> cars.


right on cue.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2010
"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:20:09 -0700, John Navas
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:02:25 -0700 (PDT), in
>><(E-Mail Removed)>, -hh
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 9, 1:05 pm, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
>>>>
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> > >The automotive analogy here is also illustrative: take a look at our
>>>> > >car's sound system controls: originally, our old analog radio
>>>> > >systems
>>>> > >used a dial-based volume control ... a potentiometer. With
>>>> > >digitalization, this analog dial component was replaced with up/down
>>>> > >pushbuttons. But look now at today's controls and we find that
>>>> > >they've gotten rid of the volume pushbuttons and gone back to a
>>>> > >human
>>>> > >interface for the radio's volume control that's once again a dial.
>>>> > >Hmmm...
>>>>
>>>> > Mine has buttons for stations, seek and scan, plus buttons on the
>>>> > steering wheel for station change. I can't remember the last time
>>>> > I twisted a volume knob. I'm guessing they are for Luddites that
>>>> > can't
>>>> > learn new things.
>>>>
>>>> pejorative comment noted.
>>>
>>>And yet John conveniently failed to mention how his car's radio's
>>>**volume** control is actually performed.

>>
>>The volume I use is two pushbuttons on the steering wheel.

>
> What a weasel. Is there, or is there not, a volume knob on the radio?
>



He's playing with his joystick

--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2010
John Navas wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:59:36 -0700, in
> <i0svh9$554$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, John McWilliams
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >nospam wrote:


<edited for brevity>

> >> olympus calls their own cameras 'feature rich point and shoot cameras.'
> >> it's hardly pejorative when the maker themselves use the term.
> >>
> >> <http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital.asp?section=sp>

> >
> >You're right, but it's perjorative to John. I've been writing "compact"
> >for a while. It doesn't hurt.

>
> Point and shoot as used here is pejorative, as I'm sure you know.
>
> Canon does not use "point and shoot" for its high-end models, only its
> lower models. Likewise Olympus.
>
> Nikon uses the term "digital compact cameras".
>
> Pansonic uses the term "digital camera".
>
> etc. etc.



Kodak lists different digicam categories, at its Web store.

KODAK EASYSHARE Digital Cameras
<http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/list/Digital_Cameras/categoryID.28887600>

Here they are, in the same vertical and horizontal orders, as they appear
on the above page:

"SLICE"

"Performance"

"Sleek & Stylish"

"Point & Shoot"

----

"SLICE" "Performance" "Sleek & Stylish" "Point & Shoot"

Thus, it appears that "Point & Shoot" brings up the rear (with "super zoom"
models dominating the "Performance" group).

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2010
Pete wrote:
>
> On 2010-07-05 15:10:20 +0100, John Navas said:
>
> > "Point and shoot" is a pejorative when applied to high-end bridge
> > cameras here, and "pretty much everyone" is a wild exaggeration, as I'm
> > sure you know.

>
> From what I've understood from reading several Usenet photography
> groups since last November, my initial reaction would be to disagree.
> However, you did say "here" so I stay open-minded.
>
> My perception is that hatred of DSLR owners in the various groups seems
> to be an order of magnitude worse than the pejorative remarks in the
> other direction. Owning both an old (but very nice) P&S and a DSLR
> makes me dislike all of the arguments. It appears that you may have
> thought I was a DSLR nutter and I thought you were an anti-DSLR person.


As to my own observations, I'd say that so-called "P&S" digicams are
ridiculed, far more often that DSLR models.

> I get the impression that polarization of views is not helped by
> starting a thread topic in the wrong group(s). The only few threads
> I've started were in alt.photography because I guessed the ensuing
> discussions would go off-topic for more specific rec.photo groups.
>
> I would love to have a high-end bridge camera (what is the correct
> short-name for these?), but my inescapable limitations make it
> impossible for me to use one properly. Luckily, I didn't find the time
> to sell my old SLR lenses when I had to give up photography 12 years
> ago: I now manage to enjoy my passion for night and twilight
> photography, just bumbling along step-by-step.


The "super zoom" camera market is a very crowded one, and DSLR sales
still haven't caught up to it.

> My wish that the petty arguments will end is as ridiculous as me
> writing to Santa asking for a new lens. The only person I can change is
> myself - it's a pity there's no equivalent of GPS to point me in the
> right direction. Some may say that Usenet will send me off-course
> faster than anything else, yet my interaction during the last 8 months
> has been an interesting journey: both confusing and valuable. I have
> changed!


Personally, I've been reading this newsgroup (and sporadically posting
to it), since April of 2006. I've learned a lot, here -- and I'm sure
you will, too.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2010
Neil Harrington wrote:
>
> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:36:44 -0500, Phil B.
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>Those who use high-end superzoom cameras see

> >
> > "Superzoom" is another term that fails to describe what people use it
> > to describe. Early-on, when "point and shoot" cameras first came out,
> > they "zoomed" to 3X and 4X. (Higher with the worthless digital zoom)

>
> The first point-and-shoot cameras did not zoom at all; they had FFL lenses.
> I still have one, a Konica Big Mini. I also had a Yashica T4, and before
> that a Minolta AF-C. All of those and most other P&S at the time were fixed
> focal length. The flood of P&S zooms came later.



Check these staggering specifications of >my< original digicam (Largan
"Lmini 350"):

* 350,000 pixels

* f/6-44mm lens (fixed-focus and barely bigger than a pinhole)

* electronic shutter (1/30th - 1/1000th second)

* 2MB internal flash memory (no card slot)

* optical viewfinder (no LCD VF)

* serial connector

* CR123A lithium battery (3V)

It was a Christmas Eve, 2000 purchase, from Insight.com. A paltry
$46.52 USD ($39.99 + $6.53 shipping), and my humble introduction
to digital photography.

I haven't used the Lmini 350, since late April of 2002. About two
months beforehand, I'd bought a Kodak DC3200 (fixed-focused camera),
and against its "awesome" 1 MP resolution, 1.5" color LCD VF and CF
card slot, my poor Largan beast became grossly overmatched.

Seriously, the DC3200's superiority was quite stunning. The bigger
images were more pleasing to behold, and Kodak's renowned color put
the Lmini 350's pix to shame. (The latter are adequate, if there's
nothing better to compare them with.)

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
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
Re: How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro nospam Digital Photography 2 07-09-2010 10:16 PM
Quality Web Video from a seasoned and powerful staff! christopher.dixon44@gmail.com Digital Photography 1 05-28-2008 10:50 AM
rank amateur needs advice on Antarctic trip WilsonMarkT@googlemail.com Digital Photography 8 10-05-2006 03:54 PM
need advice from seasoned B & H buyers... TD Digital Photography 15 07-17-2003 05:52 PM



Advertisments