Dpreview REALLY scraping the barrel bottom now!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 6, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    LOL!, Jul 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp


    Boy, I bet this part burns you to no end:

    "Despite entry-level DSLRs getting cheaper and cheaper the super zoom
    models are as popular as ever."

    LOL!


    Oh, and DO take note of this:

    "Compact Camera Group Test:
    SLR-like 'super zoom' cameras"

    I don't see "P&S" used anywhere in that heading, do you?

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 6, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Sysop Guest

    "LOL!" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >

    > "Compact Camera Group Test:
    > SLR-like 'super zoom' cameras"
    >
    > I don't see "P&S" used anywhere in that heading, do you?
    >

    Pretty well almost every camera made is auto focus, and has live view, so
    everything is a P&S. They put live view, and video on dSLR cameras so P&S
    who are arfraid to look through the optical viewfinder would use them.
     
    Sysop, Jul 6, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:03:57 -0400, "Sysop" <> wrote:

    >They put live view, and video on dSLR cameras so P&S
    >who are arfraid to look through the optical viewfinder would use them.
    >


    You've never used many or any cameras much, have you.

    Live view is invaluable for judging exposure, color balance, shutter-speed
    preview, 100% framing (as opposed to the kludgy and inaccurate framing in
    nearly all optical viewfinders), being able to ramp-up the gain in dim
    lighting conditions for framing and focusing where an optical viewfinder
    has long since become useless, DOF preview without dimming the image,
    providing for manual-focus assist methods where central areas are zoomed in
    to almost pixel level to judge focusing accuracy, real-time histograms,
    zebra over/under exposure area alerts (under/over areas highlighted in
    contrasting colors so you know if you can sacrifice those portions of your
    image for the more important subject), etc. etc.

    But that's okay. You go on pretending to know something about cameras. It's
    highly entertaining every time you idiots post these displays, making total
    fools of yourselves.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 6, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    SMS Guest

    On 06/07/10 3:03 PM, Sysop wrote:
    > "LOL!"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>>

    >> "Compact Camera Group Test:
    >> SLR-like 'super zoom' cameras"
    >>
    >> I don't see "P&S" used anywhere in that heading, do you?
    >>

    > Pretty well almost every camera made is auto focus, and has live view, so
    > everything is a P&S. They put live view, and video on dSLR cameras so P&S
    > who are arfraid to look through the optical viewfinder would use them.


    Probably not. So many people complain about the lack of an optical
    viewfinder on P&S cameras that it's unlikely that a lot of people are
    afraid of them. Other than those people that have began using a camera
    in the past five to eight years, no one is afraid of OVFs.

    I've been at stores and seen people (besides me) looking for P&S cameras
    with OVFs, and have handed my P&S cameras to people that were amazed
    that there were still P&S cameras with a viewfinder and wanted to write
    down the model number. OVFs are sorely missed by most users, but the
    manufacturers don't want to spend the money on them. EVFs are better
    than nothing, but can't compare to an OVF in terms of usability in
    bright light.

    Adding live view to a D-SLR is a good idea but when you turn on live
    view you switch to CDAF which is much slower than PDAF.
     
    SMS, Jul 7, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 6, 5:30 pm, LOL! <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp

    >
    > Boy, I bet this part burns you to no end:
    >
    > "Despite entry-level DSLRs getting cheaper and cheaper the super zoom
    > models are as popular as ever."
    >
    > LOL!
    >
    > Oh, and DO take note of this:
    >
    > "Compact Camera Group Test:
    > SLR-like 'super zoom' cameras"
    >
    > I don't see "P&S" used anywhere in that heading, do you?
    >
    > LOL!


    Dpreview's job is to sell, which is why Amazon bought them.
     
    Rich, Jul 7, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 6, 6:44 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT), in
    > <>,
    >
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > It's you that's really scraping the barrel.
    >
    > Do you really have so much free time that you have to troll incesantly
    > to fill it up?
    >
    > >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp

    >
    >    Image quality: outdoors / daylight
    >    * Best of the bunch: Canon PowerShot SX 20 IS, Panasonic FZ35
    >


    Image "quality?" Is that what the examples in that group show?
     
    Rich, Jul 7, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Rich <> wrote:

    > Dpreview's job is to sell, which is why Amazon bought them.


    really now? what does dpreview sell?

    if they really want to increase sales, they wouldn't spend 6 weeks for
    one single review. the group tests are new, well after they were
    bought.
     
    nospam, Jul 7, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    Russ D Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:31:28 -0700, John Navas <>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:30:59 -0700 (PDT), in
    ><>, Rich
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Jul 6, 6:44 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT), in
    >>> <>,
    >>>
    >>> RichA <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> It's you that's really scraping the barrel.
    >>>
    >>> Do you really have so much free time that you have to troll incesantly
    >>> to fill it up?
    >>>
    >>> >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp
    >>>
    >>>    Image quality: outdoors / daylight
    >>>    * Best of the bunch: Canon PowerShot SX 20 IS, Panasonic FZ35

    >>
    >>Image "quality?" Is that what the examples in that group show?

    >
    >"Read 'em and weep." ;)


    The image quality in that FZ35 is really impressive for a super-zoom, even
    at high ISOs for the night shots. But with CHDK already in beta phase for
    the SX20 it would be a tough call on which I'd suggest for others to buy or
    to buy for myself. If there was no CHDK on the table it wouldn't be a
    contest, the FZ35 definitely. Buying one of each would be the only solution
    at this point.
     
    Russ D, Jul 7, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >Dpreview's job is to sell, which is why Amazon bought them.

    >
    > That may be the silliest thing I've seen you say.


    then you've missed some of the better ones.
     
    nospam, Jul 7, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 6, 10:31 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:30:59 -0700 (PDT), in
    > <>, Rich
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Jul 6, 6:44 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    > >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT), in
    > >> <>,

    >
    > >> RichA <> wrote:

    >
    > >> It's you that's really scraping the barrel.

    >
    > >> Do you really have so much free time that you have to troll incesantly
    > >> to fill it up?

    >
    > >> >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp

    >
    > >>    Image quality: outdoors / daylight
    > >>    * Best of the bunch: Canon PowerShot SX 20 IS, Panasonic FZ35

    >
    > >Image "quality?"  Is that what the examples in that group show?

    >
    > "Read 'em and weep."  ;)
    >


    I looked at the test images and cried. But not with joy. In truth,
    at least a couple of them seem to have controlled the hideous
    chromatic aberration that plagues most of those overtaxed lenses those
    cameras sport.
     
    Rich, Jul 7, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 6, 10:46 pm, Russ D <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:31:28 -0700, John Navas <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:30:59 -0700 (PDT), in
    > ><>, Rich
    > ><> wrote:

    >
    > >>On Jul 6, 6:44 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    > >>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT), in
    > >>> <>,

    >
    > >>> RichA <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> It's you that's really scraping the barrel.

    >
    > >>> Do you really have so much free time that you have to troll incesantly
    > >>> to fill it up?

    >
    > >>> >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp

    >
    > >>>    Image quality: outdoors / daylight
    > >>>    * Best of the bunch: Canon PowerShot SX 20 IS, Panasonic FZ35

    >
    > >>Image "quality?"  Is that what the examples in that group show?

    >
    > >"Read 'em and weep."  ;)

    >
    > The image quality in that FZ35 is really impressive for a super-zoom, even
    > at high ISOs for the night shots. But with CHDK already in beta phase for
    > the SX20 it would be a tough call on which I'd suggest for others to buy or
    > to buy for myself. If there was no CHDK on the table it wouldn't be a
    > contest, the FZ35 definitely. Buying one of each would be the only solution
    > at this point.


    Panasonic, to its credit have held the line on horrific noise
    reduction applied by some of the others. Nothing more disgusting than
    an image that looks like it's been washed in battery acid. I'll take
    some noise, good looking noise over that any day.
     
    Rich, Jul 7, 2010
    #13
  14. "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp



    Delighted to see the Panasonic FZ35/FZ38 at the top of the tree, along
    with the Canon SX20 IS (whose ISO 1600 images didn't look as sharp to me).
    We have used cameras from that range in the past, and been pleased with
    the capabilities and results.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 7, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:45:50 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    wrote:
    >
    >Panasonic, to its credit have held the line on horrific noise
    >reduction applied by some of the others. Nothing more disgusting than
    >an image that looks like it's been washed in battery acid. I'll take
    >some noise, good looking noise over that any day.



    The reason the Panasonic shows some noise is almost certainly that no
    noise reduction system has yet been invented that can cope with all
    the noise from Panasonic's smaller sensors.

    And I speak as a current Panasonic user (GF-1) who has previously used
    their high end DMC-LX2 and LX3 models and found the noise levels
    intolerably high. That was a pity, because they were otherwise
    excellent products.
     
    Bruce, Jul 7, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    SMS Guest

    On 07/07/10 1:00 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:45:50 -0700 (PDT), Rich<>
    > wrote:
    >>
    >> Panasonic, to its credit have held the line on horrific noise
    >> reduction applied by some of the others. Nothing more disgusting than
    >> an image that looks like it's been washed in battery acid. I'll take
    >> some noise, good looking noise over that any day.

    >
    >
    > The reason the Panasonic shows some noise is almost certainly that no
    > noise reduction system has yet been invented that can cope with all
    > the noise from Panasonic's smaller sensors.
    >
    > And I speak as a current Panasonic user (GF-1) who has previously used
    > their high end DMC-LX2 and LX3 models and found the noise levels
    > intolerably high. That was a pity, because they were otherwise
    > excellent products.


    That's always been Panasonic's problem unfortunately. Compelling
    products based on the specs and features, but you have to put up with
    very high noise. Either you destroy the image with excessive noise
    reduction, or live with the noise.
     
    SMS, Jul 7, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    whisky-dave Guest

    "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:4c349269$0$22132$...
    > On 07/07/10 1:00 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:45:50 -0700 (PDT), Rich<>
    >> wrote:
    >>>


    >, but you have to put up with very high noise. Either you destroy the image
    >with excessive noise reduction, or live with the noise.


    Reminds me of a friend and his beautiful bride.
    I should have brought him earplugs as a wedding present :)


    >
     
    whisky-dave, Jul 7, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:08:21 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >Be interesting to see some of the lesser, noise-reduced in-camera images
    >versus the Panasonic's before and after the application of software-based
    >NR. IMO, the Panasonic images would be superior. The in-camera NR shown
    >in those models is ham-fisted, to say the least.



    What I found very surprising was that the Panasonic's RAW performance
    was actually marked significantly *lower* than its JPEG performance.
    It is usually the case that post processing RAW files outside the
    camera gives far superior image quality.

    The Panasonic was one of only a few models tested that offered RAW -
    it was notable that the Canon and Nikon models did not - so it was
    disturbing to see that shooting RAW would have been pointless.
     
    Bruce, Jul 7, 2010
    #18
  19. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
    > I also thought that odd. I think that is because the manufacturers know
    > their target market is never going to use RAW, let alone know what RAW
    > is. So why make any effort to add a feature they know will never be
    > used.


    Or perhaps this is due to the fact that most compact cameras now correct
    the images for lens flaws (eg pincushion/barrel distortion) when
    generating JPGs, but if you pull up their RAW output, you'll have to
    apply the corection manually.. and the corrections would likely change
    at each combination of zoom stepping and focal distance.

    So unless the manufacturer provides an official RAW converter, that's a
    hell of a lot of work to get a non-distorted image...

    - Solomon
    --
    Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
    Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
     
    Stuffed Crust, Jul 8, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <4c350e28$0$4840$>,
    Stuffed Crust <> wrote:

    > > I also thought that odd. I think that is because the manufacturers know
    > > their target market is never going to use RAW, let alone know what RAW
    > > is. So why make any effort to add a feature they know will never be
    > > used.

    >
    > Or perhaps this is due to the fact that most compact cameras now correct
    > the images for lens flaws (eg pincushion/barrel distortion) when
    > generating JPGs, but if you pull up their RAW output, you'll have to
    > apply the corection manually.. and the corrections would likely change
    > at each combination of zoom stepping and focal distance.
    >
    > So unless the manufacturer provides an official RAW converter, that's a
    > hell of a lot of work to get a non-distorted image...


    the manufacturers do provide official raw converters that can read the
    metadata.

    the reason that raw is not in low end cameras is because the target
    market doesn't care and the sensor isn't good enough for it to matter
    that much.
     
    nospam, Jul 8, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?VGludGluTWlsb3U=?=

    Scheduling a screen-scraping progam on a locked PC?

    =?Utf-8?B?VGludGluTWlsb3U=?=, Jan 5, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    556
    =?Utf-8?B?QnJhbmRlbg==?=
    Jan 12, 2005
  2. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Herv=E9_Sai?==?I

    barrel correctors on macos?

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rique_=26_Herv=E9_Sai?==?I, Jan 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    608
    Florian
    Jan 11, 2004
  3. Jen
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    369
    Ed Kirstein
    Feb 20, 2004
  4. Lisa Horton

    Hamas is scraping the bottom of the barrel now LOL

    Lisa Horton, Apr 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    389
    Awbawabi
    Apr 20, 2004
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    bash.org scraping

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 20, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    502
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Mar 20, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page