Dpreview's review of 12 pieces of P&S s---

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Jun 17, 2010.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    The fact 2 third-tier companies won this "contest" shows that no one
    gives a crap about how P&S's (aside from maybe Panasonic and Canon)
    perform. Sad note? Fuji has no more DSLRs....Just junk.

    http://dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/
     
    Rich, Jun 17, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    ransley Guest

    On Jun 16, 8:06 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > The fact 2 third-tier companies won this "contest" shows that no one
    > gives a crap about how P&S's (aside from maybe Panasonic and Canon)
    > perform.  Sad note?  Fuji has no more DSLRs....Just junk.
    >
    > http://dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/


    Thats what competition is all about. So Samsung is improving, years
    ago they were a nobody but now im looking at their tvs, Sonys results
    were also tops in photo quality and thats not suprising.
     
    ransley, Jun 17, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:06:06 -0700, Rich wrote:

    > The fact 2 third-tier companies won this "contest" shows that no one
    > gives a crap about how P&S's (aside from maybe Panasonic and Canon)
    > perform. Sad note? Fuji has no more DSLRs....Just junk.
    >
    > http://dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/


    When viewed at full size, image quality is horrible in all cases. They
    all sacrifice a lot of fine detail to keep noise levels down even at the
    lowest ISO settings.
    Then again, when resizing the images to fit my screen, the loss of detail
    is barely visible. So they should be good enough for screens and small
    prints, which means they're good enough for most people.

    But I certainly prefer my Powershot S80 over all of them for snapshots,
    with its bigger sensor and 'only' 8 MP.
    http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_0869.JPG

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Jun 17, 2010
    #3
  4. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:06:06 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    wrote:
    >The fact 2 third-tier companies won this "contest" shows that no one
    >gives a crap about how P&S's (aside from maybe Panasonic and Canon)
    >perform. Sad note? Fuji has no more DSLRs....Just junk.
    >
    >http://dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/



    For at least 90% of camera owners, one of these "travel zoom" P&S
    compacts will be more than good enough for their needs. They aren't
    junk - they are perfectly competent cameras.

    Meanwhile, at least 90% of DSLR owners don't have the skills to
    exploit the superior quality which their cameras could deliver in the
    hands of a competent photographer.
     
    Bruce, Jun 17, 2010
    #4
  5. Rich

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:29:37 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:06:06 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    >wrote:
    >>The fact 2 third-tier companies won this "contest" shows that no one
    >>gives a crap about how P&S's (aside from maybe Panasonic and Canon)
    >>perform. Sad note? Fuji has no more DSLRs....Just junk.
    >>
    >>http://dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/

    >
    >
    >For at least 90% of camera owners, one of these "travel zoom" P&S
    >compacts will be more than good enough for their needs. They aren't
    >junk - they are perfectly competent cameras.
    >
    >Meanwhile, at least 90% of DSLR owners don't have the skills to
    >exploit the superior quality which their cameras could deliver in the
    >hands of a competent photographer.


    I suppose I'm one of the 90% of dslr owner who don't have the skills
    to exploit the superior quality of a dslr. However, owning a dslr
    allows me to improve my skills and move towards the 10% group.

    I just hope that, if I ever do reach that special group of skilled
    users, that I don't become as arrogant and puffed-up as you seem to
    be.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jun 17, 2010
    #5
  6. On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:17:36 -0700, John Navas wrote:

    > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:02:18 +0200, in
    > <388e8$4c19c87a$546ac3cf$>, Robert Spanjaard
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:06:06 -0700, Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>> The fact 2 third-tier companies won this "contest" shows that no one
    >>> gives a crap about how P&S's (aside from maybe Panasonic and Canon)
    >>> perform. Sad note? Fuji has no more DSLRs....Just junk.
    >>>
    >>> http://dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/

    >>
    >>When viewed at full size, image quality is horrible in all cases. They
    >>all sacrifice a lot of fine detail to keep noise levels down even at the
    >>lowest ISO settings.

    >
    > "as you can see from the various examples that we've included in this
    > review, even when viewed at 100%, most of these models give excellent
    > results, given the limitations inherent in their compact designs."


    Exactly. Given the limitations inherent in their compact designs.

    A webcam can give excellent results given the limitations of its compact
    design too. But it's crap even compared to the compacts in this test.


    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Jun 17, 2010
    #6
  7. Rich

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> "as you can see from the various examples that we've included in this
    > >> review, even when viewed at 100%, most of these models give excellent
    > >> results, given the limitations inherent in their compact designs."

    > >
    > >Exactly. Given the limitations inherent in their compact designs.
    > >
    > >A webcam can give excellent results given the limitations of its compact
    > >design too. But it's crap even compared to the compacts in this test.

    >
    > Nonsense.


    so webcams are better than compacts?
     
    nospam, Jun 17, 2010
    #7
  8. Rich

    Jeff Jones Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:07:04 -0400, nospam <> wrote:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> "as you can see from the various examples that we've included in this
    >> >> review, even when viewed at 100%, most of these models give excellent
    >> >> results, given the limitations inherent in their compact designs."
    >> >
    >> >Exactly. Given the limitations inherent in their compact designs.
    >> >
    >> >A webcam can give excellent results given the limitations of its compact
    >> >design too. But it's crap even compared to the compacts in this test.

    >>
    >> Nonsense.

    >
    >so webcams are better than compacts?


    It depends on how they are used. If they are being used for astronomical
    planetary imaging using their high frame-rates, then yes.

    Are you always this much of an ignorant pretend-photographer troll?

    We all know the answer to that, I only ask it for effect.
     
    Jeff Jones, Jun 17, 2010
    #8
  9. Rich

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:52:37 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >James Nagler <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:04:57 -0400, tony cooper
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:29:37 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:06:06 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>>The fact 2 third-tier companies won this "contest" shows that no one
    >>>>>gives a crap about how P&S's (aside from maybe Panasonic and Canon)
    >>>>>perform. Sad note? Fuji has no more DSLRs....Just junk.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>For at least 90% of camera owners, one of these "travel zoom" P&S
    >>>>compacts will be more than good enough for their needs. They aren't
    >>>>junk - they are perfectly competent cameras.
    >>>>
    >>>>Meanwhile, at least 90% of DSLR owners don't have the skills to
    >>>>exploit the superior quality which their cameras could deliver in the
    >>>>hands of a competent photographer.
    >>>
    >>>I suppose I'm one of the 90% of dslr owner who don't have the skills
    >>>to exploit the superior quality of a dslr. However, owning a dslr
    >>>allows me to improve my skills and move towards the 10% group.
    >>>

    >>
    >> If you ever to get that skilled then you'll find out that you didn't
    >> need the DSLR in the first place. Consider a DSLR like a tricycle with
    >> training wheels, it forces you to learn what all those adjustable
    >> parameters are for. (Well, if any of you crapshooters would ever have
    >> the balls to actually take them off of their auto-everything settings
    >> once in a while.) Any high quality P&S camera with P, Tv, Av, & M
    >> modes will be more than you'll ever need if you have the talent and
    >> skill to use any camera properly.
    >>
    >> I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a
    >> Brownie-Box camera if I so desire. Can't you?
    >>
    >> In fact I keep a mint condition Brownie-Box camera on my shelves in
    >> plain sight, to always remind me--it's NEVER the camera that will ever
    >> deserve the praise. When you finally figure that out you can ditch
    >> those DSLR-shaped training wheels of yours.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >That's a nice, romantic theory, but it is nonsense. If a camera is
    >capable of at any given instance producing a better shot in the same
    >conditions than another camera, then that gives even the rank amateur a
    >better chance at producing a good image. People who think tool quality
    >doesn't matter are simply wrong.


    That's a nice psychotic tech-head's, crapshooter's, snapshooter's, hardware
    worshipper's, auto-everything dependent, beginner novice's theory but it is
    total nonsense.

    Keep trying to justify why you can't take a picture without auto-focus nor
    auto-exposure capability in every one of your cameras.

    Because .... YOU'RE FUCKIN' LOSER CRAPSHOOTER!

    That's why. It's that fuckin' simple!

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jun 18, 2010
    #9
  10. Rich

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:52:37 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >James Nagler <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:04:57 -0400, tony cooper
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:29:37 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:06:06 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>>The fact 2 third-tier companies won this "contest" shows that no one
    >>>>>gives a crap about how P&S's (aside from maybe Panasonic and Canon)
    >>>>>perform. Sad note? Fuji has no more DSLRs....Just junk.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>For at least 90% of camera owners, one of these "travel zoom" P&S
    >>>>compacts will be more than good enough for their needs. They aren't
    >>>>junk - they are perfectly competent cameras.
    >>>>
    >>>>Meanwhile, at least 90% of DSLR owners don't have the skills to
    >>>>exploit the superior quality which their cameras could deliver in the
    >>>>hands of a competent photographer.
    >>>
    >>>I suppose I'm one of the 90% of dslr owner who don't have the skills
    >>>to exploit the superior quality of a dslr. However, owning a dslr
    >>>allows me to improve my skills and move towards the 10% group.
    >>>

    >>
    >> If you ever to get that skilled then you'll find out that you didn't
    >> need the DSLR in the first place. Consider a DSLR like a tricycle with
    >> training wheels, it forces you to learn what all those adjustable
    >> parameters are for. (Well, if any of you crapshooters would ever have
    >> the balls to actually take them off of their auto-everything settings
    >> once in a while.) Any high quality P&S camera with P, Tv, Av, & M
    >> modes will be more than you'll ever need if you have the talent and
    >> skill to use any camera properly.
    >>
    >> I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a
    >> Brownie-Box camera if I so desire. Can't you?
    >>
    >> In fact I keep a mint condition Brownie-Box camera on my shelves in
    >> plain sight, to always remind me--it's NEVER the camera that will ever
    >> deserve the praise. When you finally figure that out you can ditch
    >> those DSLR-shaped training wheels of yours.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >That's a nice, romantic theory, but it is nonsense. If a camera is
    >capable of at any given instance producing a better shot in the same
    >conditions than another camera, then that gives even the rank amateur a
    >better chance at producing a good image. People who think tool quality
    >doesn't matter are simply wrong.


    That's a nice psychotic tech-head's, crapshooter's, snapshooter's, hardware
    worshipper's, auto-everything dependent, beginner novice's theory but it is
    total nonsense.

    Keep trying to justify why you can't take a picture without auto-focus nor
    auto-exposure capability in every one of your cameras.

    Because .... YOU'RE A FUCKIN' LOSER CRAPSHOOTER!

    That's why. It's that fuckin' simple!

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jun 18, 2010
    #10
  11. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 17, 9:55 pm, LOL! <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:52:37 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    > >James Nagler <> wrote in
    > >news::

    >
    > >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:04:57 -0400, tony cooper
    > >> <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:29:37 +0100, Bruce <>
    > >>>wrote:

    >
    > >>>>On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:06:06 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    > >>>>wrote:
    > >>>>>The fact 2 third-tier companies won this "contest" shows that no one
    > >>>>>gives a crap about how P&S's (aside from maybe Panasonic and Canon)
    > >>>>>perform.  Sad note?  Fuji has no more DSLRs....Just junk.

    >
    > >>>>>http://dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/

    >
    > >>>>For at least 90% of camera owners, one of these "travel zoom" P&S
    > >>>>compacts will be more than good enough for their needs.  They aren't
    > >>>>junk - they are perfectly competent cameras.

    >
    > >>>>Meanwhile, at least 90% of DSLR owners don't have the skills to
    > >>>>exploit the superior quality which their cameras could deliver in the
    > >>>>hands of a competent photographer.

    >
    > >>>I suppose I'm one of the 90% of dslr owner who don't have the skills
    > >>>to exploit the superior quality of a dslr.  However, owning a dslr
    > >>>allows me to improve my skills and move towards the 10% group.

    >
    > >> If you ever to get that skilled then you'll find out that you didn't
    > >> need the DSLR in the first place. Consider a DSLR like a tricycle with
    > >> training wheels, it forces you to learn what all those adjustable
    > >> parameters are for. (Well, if any of you crapshooters would ever have
    > >> the balls to actually take them off of their auto-everything settings
    > >> once in a while.) Any high quality P&S camera with P, Tv, Av, & M
    > >> modes will be more than you'll ever need if you have the talent and
    > >> skill to use any camera properly.

    >
    > >> I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a
    > >> Brownie-Box camera if I so desire. Can't you?

    >
    > >> In fact I keep a mint condition Brownie-Box camera on my shelves in
    > >> plain sight, to always remind me--it's NEVER the camera that will ever
    > >> deserve the praise. When you finally figure that out you can ditch
    > >> those DSLR-shaped training wheels of yours.

    >
    > >That's a nice, romantic theory, but it is nonsense.  If a camera is
    > >capable of at any given instance producing a better shot in the same
    > >conditions than another camera, then that gives even the rank amateur a
    > >better chance at producing a good image. People who think tool quality
    > >doesn't matter are simply wrong.

    >
    > That's a nice psychotic tech-head's, crapshooter's, snapshooter's, hardware
    > worshipper's, auto-everything dependent, beginner novice's theory but it is
    > total nonsense.
    >
    > Keep trying to justify why you can't take a picture without auto-focus nor
    > auto-exposure capability in every one of your cameras.
    >
    > Because .... YOU'RE FUCKIN' LOSER CRAPSHOOTER!
    >
    > That's why. It's that fuckin' simple!
    >
    > LOL!


    P&S's are kitchen-sink cameras, everything attempted to be thrown into
    one crappy package, jacks of all trade, master's of none. So, who is
    dependent on what?
     
    Rich, Jun 18, 2010
    #11
  12. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:55:27 -0500, LOL! <> wrote:
    >That's a nice psychotic tech-head's, crapshooter's, snapshooter's, hardware
    >worshipper's, auto-everything dependent, beginner novice's theory but it is
    >total nonsense.
    >
    >Keep trying to justify why you can't take a picture without auto-focus nor
    >auto-exposure capability in every one of your cameras.
    >
    >Because .... YOU'RE FUCKIN' LOSER CRAPSHOOTER!
    >
    >That's why. It's that fuckin' simple!
    >
    >LOL!



    Probably the greatest benefit of your repetitive posting style is that
    you can very quickly copy and paste your latest message from a small
    selection of standard insults.
     
    Bruce, Jun 18, 2010
    #12
  13. Rich

    whisky-dave Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > People who think tool quality doesn't matter are simply wrong.


    Is that what she keeps telling you ;-)
     
    whisky-dave, Jun 18, 2010
    #13
  14. John Navas wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:15:41 -0500, in
    > <>, James Nagler
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:31:53 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    >> wrote:

    >
    >>> P&S's are kitchen-sink cameras, everything attempted to be thrown into
    >>> one crappy package, jacks of all trade, master's of none. So, who is
    >>> dependent on what?

    >> I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a
    >> Brownie-Box camera if I so desire. Can't you?

    >
    > "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."


    Well, "James" will never show his images or his tools.
    The quote: one of my favs.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 18, 2010
    #14
  15. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >The fact 2 third-tier companies won this "contest" shows that no one
    >gives a crap about how P&S's (aside from maybe Panasonic and Canon)
    >perform. Sad note? Fuji has no more DSLRs....Just junk.


    More elitist snobbery.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jun 19, 2010
    #15
  16. Ted Banks <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:09:59 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >>John Navas <> wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:15:41 -0500, in
    >>> <>, James Nagler
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:31:53 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>P&S's are kitchen-sink cameras, everything attempted to be thrown into
    >>>>>one crappy package, jacks of all trade, master's of none. So, who is
    >>>>>dependent on what?
    >>>>
    >>>>I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a
    >>>>Brownie-Box camera if I so desire. Can't you?
    >>>
    >>> "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

    >>
    >>B.S. Try repairing a car with $10 tool sets from China from Walmart. Give
    >>the tools their due.


    > In the hands of a skilled mechanic they will recognize their limitations
    > and work accordingly, producing the very same results as those using
    > titanium tools.


    I wouldn't even bother trying to use any tools made of a tool metal no
    better than titanium!

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 20, 2010
    #16
  17. Rich

    John Turco Guest

    James Nagler wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > In fact I keep a mint condition Brownie-Box camera on my shelves in plain
    > sight, to always remind me--it's NEVER the camera that will ever deserve
    > the praise. When you finally figure that out you can ditch those
    > DSLR-shaped training wheels of yours.



    I, too, still own quite of few of those "Brownies" (and equivalents).
    During the mid-1980's, I shot a roll of Kodak color film, with one of
    them.

    Pretty pleasing prints resulted, due to the large size of the negative
    frames. Not needing as much enlargement as 35mm ones, grain was barely
    noticeable.

    Unfortunately, sharpness was lacking (because of the camera's crude,
    single-element lens).

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jun 30, 2010
    #17
  18. Rich

    John Turco Guest

    James Nagler wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:11:52 -0500, John Turco <> wrote:
    >
    > >James Nagler wrote:
    > >
    > ><heavily edited for brevity>
    > >
    > >> In fact I keep a mint condition Brownie-Box camera on my shelves in plain
    > >> sight, to always remind me--it's NEVER the camera that will ever deserve
    > >> the praise. When you finally figure that out you can ditch those
    > >> DSLR-shaped training wheels of yours.

    > >
    > >
    > >I, too, still own quite of few of those "Brownies" (and equivalents).
    > >During the mid-1980's, I shot a roll of Kodak color film, with one of
    > >them.
    > >
    > >Pretty pleasing prints resulted, due to the large size of the negative
    > >frames. Not needing as much enlargement as 35mm ones, grain was barely
    > >noticeable.
    > >
    > >Unfortunately, sharpness was lacking (because of the camera's crude,
    > >single-element lens).

    >
    > They use two lenses, good ones, in a Ramsden configuration. This allows for
    > the flat focal-plane. If you had a problem with sharpness it was probably
    > due to your shutter-release technique.



    This was in 1984, and my memory of the event has faded. I think it
    may have been a Kodak folding camera, instead of a Bakelite Brownie
    of the 1950's and 1960's.

    Still, didn't those latter models contain single-element lenses? It
    certainly seemed so, to me; I don't have one readily available, to
    check.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jul 20, 2010
    #18
    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. gilbert grape

    Phil's Sony 828 Review Is Up In Dpreview Site

    gilbert grape, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    729
  2. BG250

    D70 review now up on dpreview

    BG250, Apr 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    1,092
    Bill Funk
    Apr 24, 2004
  3. Bill Tuthill

    Dpreview's review of Olympus E-300

    Bill Tuthill, Jan 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    152
    Views:
    2,084
    Ton Maas
    Jan 25, 2005
  4. Paul Rubin

    dpreview powershot 620 review up

    Paul Rubin, Nov 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    251
    Paul Rubin
    Nov 29, 2005
  5. Rita Berkowitz

    Re: D300 review at DPReview

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 13, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    819
    Ray Fischer
    Mar 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page