My ranking of the mirrorless (because of various attributes)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Sony NEX. Best images (with a good lens) least noise. Focus ok.
    Pixel count 24M in 7. Weak control set on older models. Weakest
    point? Lenses.
    2. Panasonic GH2 Very good images, good lenses, good noise control,
    blazing focus
    3. Panasonic G3 Same as above, not quite at the same level. Very
    fast focus.
    4. Olympus E-P3. Fast focus, sensor old but not bad, only 12M
    5. Samsung NX200. Sight unseen, old sensor was noisy, but it is APS
    and lenses are ok. Focus so-so. Pixel count 20M.
    6. Olympus E-PL3. As above, slower focus. Cheaper build.
    7. Samsung NX11, NX5, NX100. Only chart because of APS sensor.
    Noisy, focus slowish, lenses good.
    8. Fuji X100. Good images, not as good as Sony, fixed lens and slow
    focusing. Expensive.
    9. Nikon J1 and V1. TINY sensor, innovative in other areas, but
    image quality trumps bells and whistles.
    10. Pentax Q. Sensor as small as a long-zoom P&S worth $250.
     
    RichA, Sep 22, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/22/2011 3:50 PM, RichA wrote:


    <snip>
    >


    I light of your past misstatements; failure to give reasonable answers
    to pointed questions; lack of showing of valid testing methodology,
    I hope nobody here is dumb enough to pay serous attention to your opinion
    You even rank cameras you admit to not testing.

    That is just my opinion, that I can support.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 22, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/22/2011 8:17 PM, Rich wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote in news:4e7bbb4b$0$5556
    > $-secrets.com:
    >
    >> On 9/22/2011 3:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I light of your past misstatements; failure to give reasonable answers
    >> to pointed questions; lack of showing of valid testing methodology,
    >> I hope nobody here is dumb enough to pay serous attention to your

    > opinion
    >> You even rank cameras you admit to not testing.
    >>
    >> That is just my opinion, that I can support.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > There is enough information out there to verify what I wrote. But if you
    > feel that some of what I said was wrong, feel free to correct it.



    You made the affirmative statement, and it's your obligation to prove it
    with specifics, not generalities.
    I never said you were right or wrong, Just not trustworthy. My point is
    a warning to anyone who may take you seriously.
    I don't feel qualified to rank cameras, and candidly I certainly would
    never rely on you, for the reasons I originally stated.



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 23, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 23/09/2011 12:17 p.m., Rich wrote:

    > There is enough information out there to verify what I wrote. But if you
    > feel that some of what I said was wrong, feel free to correct it.


    No there isn't. To verify the "rankings" - which seems to be the point
    of your post, more insight would be needed into the confused state of
    your mind.
    A camera with a good sensor, but only an "OK" AF system, and a weak
    point being quality of available lenses ranks as number 1?
    By that description, it sounds like a useless piece of shit - for the
    purpose of photography.
    So why is that your #1?
    No - forget it. It doesn't matter. Your answer's bound to add to the
    perception I have - that you've lost your marbles.
     
    Me, Sep 23, 2011
    #4
  5. "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 1. Sony NEX. Best images (with a good lens) least noise. Focus ok.
    > Pixel count 24M in 7. Weak control set on older models. Weakest
    > point? Lenses.
    > 2. Panasonic GH2 Very good images, good lenses, good noise control,
    > blazing focus
    > 3. Panasonic G3 Same as above, not quite at the same level. Very
    > fast focus.
    > 4. Olympus E-P3. Fast focus, sensor old but not bad, only 12M
    > 5. Samsung NX200. Sight unseen, old sensor was noisy, but it is APS
    > and lenses are ok. Focus so-so. Pixel count 20M.
    > 6. Olympus E-PL3. As above, slower focus. Cheaper build.
    > 7. Samsung NX11, NX5, NX100. Only chart because of APS sensor.
    > Noisy, focus slowish, lenses good.
    > 8. Fuji X100. Good images, not as good as Sony, fixed lens and slow
    > focusing. Expensive.
    > 9. Nikon J1 and V1. TINY sensor, innovative in other areas, but
    > image quality trumps bells and whistles.
    > 10. Pentax Q. Sensor as small as a long-zoom P&S worth $250.


    You need to include whether in-lens image stabilisation is available, as
    it is a major contributor to final image quality in may circumstances.
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 23, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Sep 22, 11:43 pm, Me <> wrote:
    > On 23/09/2011 12:17 p.m., Rich wrote:
    >
    > > There is enough information out there to verify what I wrote.  But ifyou
    > > feel that some of what I said was wrong, feel free to correct it.

    >
    > No there isn't.  To verify the "rankings" - which seems to be the point
    > of your post, more insight would be needed into the confused state of
    > your mind.
    > A camera with a good sensor, but only an "OK" AF system, and a weak
    > point being quality of available lenses ranks as number 1?


    Image quality is the first priority. People have been taking pictures
    for 150 years with all kinds of cameras with all kinds of
    capabilities, and ultimately, if it can deliver a good image, that is
    what matters. Besides, the mirrorless cameras can adapt to all kinds
    of different lenses so I can't really consider 2 lenses (that I know
    of, the 18-55mm and the 16mm) being not so good as being a game-ending
    hinderance to using it. You simply buy an adapter and attach a better
    lens. I didn't do the ratings for people migrating from P&S's.
     
    RichA, Sep 23, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Sep 22, 11:22 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 9/22/2011 8:17 PM, Rich wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > PeterN<>  wrote in news:4e7bbb4b$0$5556
    > > $-secrets.com:

    >
    > >> On 9/22/2011 3:50 PM, RichA wrote:

    >
    > >> <snip>

    >
    > >> I light of your past misstatements; failure to give reasonable answers
    > >> to pointed questions; lack of showing of valid testing methodology,
    > >> I hope nobody here is dumb enough to pay serous attention to your

    > > opinion
    > >> You even rank cameras you admit to not testing.

    >
    > >> That is just my opinion, that I can support.

    >
    > > There is enough information out there to verify what I wrote.  But ifyou
    > > feel that some of what I said was wrong, feel free to correct it.

    >
    > You made the affirmative statement, and it's your obligation to prove it
    > with specifics, not generalities.
    > I never said you were right or wrong, Just not trustworthy.  My point is
    > a warning to anyone who may take you seriously.
    > I don't feel qualified to rank cameras, and candidly I certainly would
    > never rely on you, for the reasons I originally stated.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    I agree, I doubt you are qualified to rank cameras, at least not these
    ones. I've used them. Some quite a bit. Stick with DSLRs, you'll be
    fine.
     
    RichA, Sep 23, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/23/2011 8:57 AM, RichA wrote:
    > On Sep 22, 11:22 pm, PeterN<> wrote:


    >>>> <snip>

    >>
    >>>> I light of your past misstatements; failure to give reasonable answers
    >>>> to pointed questions; lack of showing of valid testing methodology,
    >>>> I hope nobody here is dumb enough to pay serous attention to your
    >>> opinion
    >>>> You even rank cameras you admit to not testing.

    >>
    >>>> That is just my opinion, that I can support.

    >>
    >>> There is enough information out there to verify what I wrote. But if you
    >>> feel that some of what I said was wrong, feel free to correct it.

    >>
    >> You made the affirmative statement, and it's your obligation to prove it
    >> with specifics, not generalities.
    >> I never said you were right or wrong, Just not trustworthy. My point is
    >> a warning to anyone who may take you seriously.
    >> I don't feel qualified to rank cameras, and candidly I certainly would
    >> never rely on you, for the reasons I originally stated.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >
    > I agree, I doubt you are qualified to rank cameras, at least not these
    > ones. I've used them. Some quite a bit. Stick with DSLRs, you'll be
    > fine.



    The issue is YOUR lack of qualifications, not mine.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 23, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Sep 23, 9:51 am, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 9/23/2011 8:57 AM, RichA wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 22, 11:22 pm, PeterN<>  wrote:
    > >>>> <snip>

    >
    > >>>> I light of your past misstatements; failure to give reasonable answers
    > >>>> to pointed questions; lack of showing of valid testing methodology,
    > >>>> I hope nobody here is dumb enough to pay serous attention to your
    > >>> opinion
    > >>>> You even rank cameras you admit to not testing.

    >
    > >>>> That is just my opinion, that I can support.

    >
    > >>> There is enough information out there to verify what I wrote.  But if you
    > >>> feel that some of what I said was wrong, feel free to correct it.

    >
    > >> You made the affirmative statement, and it's your obligation to prove it
    > >> with specifics, not generalities.
    > >> I never said you were right or wrong, Just not trustworthy.  My point is
    > >> a warning to anyone who may take you seriously.
    > >> I don't feel qualified to rank cameras, and candidly I certainly would
    > >> never rely on you, for the reasons I originally stated.

    >
    > >> --
    > >> Peter

    >
    > > I agree, I doubt you are qualified to rank cameras, at least not these
    > > ones.  I've used them.  Some quite a bit.  Stick with DSLRs, you'll be
    > > fine.

    >
    > The issue is YOUR lack of qualifications, not mine.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    I know mirrorless cameras. I've owned them since they were
    introduced. You don't.
     
    RichA, Sep 23, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/23/2011 12:01 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On Sep 23, 9:51 am, PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 9/23/2011 8:57 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> On Sep 22, 11:22 pm, PeterN<> wrote:
    >>>>>> <snip>

    >>
    >>>>>> I light of your past misstatements; failure to give reasonable answers
    >>>>>> to pointed questions; lack of showing of valid testing methodology,
    >>>>>> I hope nobody here is dumb enough to pay serous attention to your
    >>>>> opinion
    >>>>>> You even rank cameras you admit to not testing.

    >>
    >>>>>> That is just my opinion, that I can support.

    >>
    >>>>> There is enough information out there to verify what I wrote. But if you
    >>>>> feel that some of what I said was wrong, feel free to correct it.

    >>
    >>>> You made the affirmative statement, and it's your obligation to prove it
    >>>> with specifics, not generalities.
    >>>> I never said you were right or wrong, Just not trustworthy. My point is
    >>>> a warning to anyone who may take you seriously.
    >>>> I don't feel qualified to rank cameras, and candidly I certainly would
    >>>> never rely on you, for the reasons I originally stated.

    >>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Peter

    >>
    >>> I agree, I doubt you are qualified to rank cameras, at least not these
    >>> ones. I've used them. Some quite a bit. Stick with DSLRs, you'll be
    >>> fine.

    >>
    >> The issue is YOUR lack of qualifications, not mine.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >
    > I know mirrorless cameras. I've owned them since they were
    > introduced. You don't.


    Let's keep to YOUR qualifications:

    Here's another question. Please describe exactly what tests you performed.

    Oh! yes. How long have you owned the Nikon?

    Which mirrorless cameras have you owned? And for how long have you owned
    each one?



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 23, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/23/2011 10:29 PM, Rich wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote in
    > news:4e7ce6f9$0$30298$-secrets.com:
    >
    >>
    >> Let's keep to YOUR qualifications:
    >>
    >> Here's another question. Please describe exactly what tests you
    >> performed.
    >>
    >> Oh! yes. How long have you owned the Nikon?

    >
    > Oh dear...You really do thrive on spouting histrionics.


    Suggest you learned the meaning of the word you used.
    What was your testing methodology?

    You have never owned the Nikons? How can you rank them.
    Again, what methodology have you used for testing?


    >
    >> Which mirrorless cameras have you owned? And for how long have you
    >> owned each one?
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Owned. G1, GF1, GF2, GH2. Used, GH1, E-P1, E-PL1. Still have the G1.
    >
    >




    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 24, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:34:59 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 9/23/2011 10:29 PM, Rich wrote:
    >> PeterN<> wrote in
    >> news:4e7ce6f9$0$30298$-secrets.com:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Let's keep to YOUR qualifications:
    >>>
    >>> Here's another question. Please describe exactly what tests you
    >>> performed.
    >>>
    >>> Oh! yes. How long have you owned the Nikon?

    >>
    >> Oh dear...You really do thrive on spouting histrionics.

    >
    >Suggest you learned the meaning of the word you used.
    >What was your testing methodology?
    >
    >You have never owned the Nikons? How can you rank them.
    >Again, what methodology have you used for testing?


    Maybe it was a meta-analysis of others' reviews.

    >>
    >>> Which mirrorless cameras have you owned? And for how long have you
    >>> owned each one?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Owned. G1, GF1, GF2, GH2. Used, GH1, E-P1, E-PL1. Still have the G1.
    >>
    >>
     
    John A., Sep 24, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/23/2011 11:45 PM, John A. wrote:
    > On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:34:59 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 9/23/2011 10:29 PM, Rich wrote:
    >>> PeterN<> wrote in
    >>> news:4e7ce6f9$0$30298$-secrets.com:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Let's keep to YOUR qualifications:
    >>>>
    >>>> Here's another question. Please describe exactly what tests you
    >>>> performed.
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh! yes. How long have you owned the Nikon?
    >>>
    >>> Oh dear...You really do thrive on spouting histrionics.

    >>
    >> Suggest you learned the meaning of the word you used.
    >> What was your testing methodology?
    >>
    >> You have never owned the Nikons? How can you rank them.
    >> Again, what methodology have you used for testing?

    >
    > Maybe it was a meta-analysis of others' reviews.
    >


    Or a figment analysis. I don't recall any time he has answered a
    question about his qualifications and methodology, without evasion, or
    distraction.

    If indeed he is relying on others' analysis, then intellectual integrity
    demands he disclose the sources. If it is original work, then he should
    show the testing methodology used, so his work can be duplicated. Think
    cold fusions.

    I just feel sorry for anyone who relies on his pontifications.




    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 24, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:13:49 -0400, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : ... I don't recall any time [Rich] has answered a question about
    : his qualifications and methodology, without evasion, or distraction.
    :
    : If indeed he is relying on others' analysis, then intellectual
    : integrity demands he disclose the sources. If it is original work,
    : then he should show the testing methodology used, so his work can
    : be duplicated. Think cold fusions.
    :
    : I just feel sorry for anyone who relies on his pontifications.

    The number of those who do is probably small enough that you needn't worry.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 25, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 22/09/2011 6:48 PM, PeterN wrote:
    > On 9/22/2011 3:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    >
    >
    > <snip>
    >>

    >
    > I light of your past misstatements; failure to give reasonable answers
    > to pointed questions; lack of showing of valid testing methodology,
    > I hope nobody here is dumb enough to pay serous attention to your opinion
    > You even rank cameras you admit to not testing.
    >
    > That is just my opinion, that I can support.
    >


    He's is basing his opinion on DPReview's reviews, what ever they say in
    Rich's eyes is wrong, so he'll say the opposite!!


    Mike
     
    Mike, Sep 25, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/24/2011 11:09 PM, Rich wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote in news:4e7d41da$0$5485
    > $-secrets.com:
    >
    >
    >>> Oh dear...You really do thrive on spouting histrionics.

    >>
    >> Suggest you learned the meaning of the word you used.
    >> What was your testing methodology?

    >
    > Experience over time?


    Experience doing what?
    You still have not told us you methodology.

    With all the testing you claim to do, how do you have time to read and post?


    >
    >> You have never owned the Nikons? How can you rank them.
    >> Again, what methodology have you used for testing?

    >
    > You are talking about the new, mirrorless units, the ones that haven't
    > been released? The ranking is based on their specifications and the
    > images we've seen so far from them. However, if you think Nikon is going
    > to bend the laws of physics and make a tiny sensor perform like a larger
    > one, you'd be mistaken. Therefore, my conclusions are accurate, even not
    > having used the cameras yet.
    >


    Because you have no understanding of the engineering, you diss the cameras.
    Gimme a break.





    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 25, 2011
    #16
    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. Arild

    Ranking in Search Engines

    Arild, Aug 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    447
    Plato
    Aug 30, 2005
  2. Martin Howell

    online ranking ladder needed

    Martin Howell, Sep 11, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    463
    Martin Howell
    Sep 11, 2006
  3. Ali_ggl

    Detacting website page ranking.

    Ali_ggl, Dec 15, 2007, in forum: General Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    629
    Ali_ggl
    Dec 15, 2007
  4. Who is this

    Super computer made from Macs (top 5 ranking?)

    Who is this, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    837
    Philip Roy
    Sep 10, 2003
  5. Me
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    388
Loading...

Share This Page