P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" between makers

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Aug 8, 2008.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Disgusting. Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.

    Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
    specifications as supplied by Nikon:

    Effective pixels: 13.5 million
    Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million

    Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR,
    a cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.
     
    Rich, Aug 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    ransley Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" betweenmakers

    On Aug 7, 9:17 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > Disgusting.  Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.
    >
    > Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
    >   specifications as supplied by Nikon:
    >
    > Effective pixels: 13.5 million
    > Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million
    >
    > Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR,
    > a cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.


    Grow the f up and wait for a review. I bet you said this same crap at
    7mp.
     
    ransley, Aug 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    SMS Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > Disgusting. Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.
    >
    > Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
    > specifications as supplied by Nikon:
    >
    > Effective pixels: 13.5 million
    > Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million
    >
    > Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR,
    > a cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.


    This is true. It's all marketing of megapixels and zoom range. Actual
    photo quality is irrelevant, as are other important features.
     
    SMS, Aug 8, 2008
    #3
  4. Rich

    ransley Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" betweenmakers

    On Aug 7, 10:28 pm, "Richard" <> wrote:
    > "ransley" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > On Aug 7, 9:17 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    > > Disgusting. Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.

    >
    > > Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
    > > specifications as supplied by Nikon:

    >
    > > Effective pixels: 13.5 million
    > > Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million

    >
    > > Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR,
    > > a cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.
    > >Grow the f up and wait for a review. I bet you said this same crap at
    > >7mp.

    >
    > Why?  Do you think Nikon has figured out what no other makers have, how to
    > bend physics?


    Nikon just doesnt make crap, so wait and taste the milk before
    shooting the cow.
     
    ransley, Aug 8, 2008
    #4
  5. Rich

    Fred Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote his usual crap
    news:...

    Did you wet your diaper again? Ah diddums.
     
    Fred, Aug 8, 2008
    #5
  6. Richard wrote:
    []
    > All current P&S's produce sub-par images. No major breakthrough has
    > come from the sensors (I'd know long before the camera makers used
    > them) therefore a review is a waste of time, unless other things than
    > imaging quality matter as much to some people.


    I would have thought that "par" was the average of what current cameras
    produce.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 10, 2008
    #6
  7. Rich

    ray Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" betweenmakers

    On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:17:39 -0700, Rich wrote:

    > Disgusting. Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.
    >
    > Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
    > specifications as supplied by Nikon:
    >
    > Effective pixels: 13.5 million
    > Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million
    >
    > Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR, a
    > cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.


    I have a great idea! Since you seem to not like P&Ss, I suggest you don't
    use one! Now you can stop your rants.
     
    ray, Aug 10, 2008
    #7
  8. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" betweenmakers

    On Aug 10, 10:30 am, ray <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:17:39 -0700, Rich wrote:
    > > Disgusting.  Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.

    >
    > > Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
    > >   specifications as supplied by Nikon:

    >
    > > Effective pixels: 13.5 million
    > > Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million

    >
    > > Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR, a
    > > cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.

    >
    > I have a great idea! Since you seem to not like P&Ss, I suggest you don't
    > use one! Now you can stop your rants.


    So you are free to suggest P&S models for people to buy, but others
    aren't free to point out why that's a bad idea?
    Why is the image quality of a P&S any less important than its
    portability, what colour it is, etc?
     
    Rich, Aug 10, 2008
    #8
  9. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" betweenmakers

    On Aug 10, 2:24 am, "David J Taylor" <-
    this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > Richard wrote:
    >
    > []
    >
    > > All current P&S's produce sub-par images.  No major breakthrough has
    > > come from the sensors (I'd know long before the camera makers used
    > > them) therefore a review is a waste of time, unless other things than
    > > imaging quality matter as much to some people.

    >
    > I would have thought that "par" was the average of what current cameras
    > produce.
    >
    > David


    You're right. Par for P&S's would be like par for the weekend golfer
    versus the pro.
     
    Rich, Aug 10, 2008
    #9
  10. Rich

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" between makers

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:36:18 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >On Aug 10, 2:24 am, "David J Taylor" <-
    >this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >> Richard wrote:
    >>
    >> []
    >>
    >> > All current P&S's produce sub-par images.  No major breakthrough has
    >> > come from the sensors (I'd know long before the camera makers used
    >> > them) therefore a review is a waste of time, unless other things than
    >> > imaging quality matter as much to some people.

    >>
    >> I would have thought that "par" was the average of what current cameras
    >> produce.
    >>
    >> David

    >
    >You're right. Par for P&S's would be like par for the weekend golfer
    >versus the pro.


    Par is based on the individual course. While par is usually around 72
    strokes for a "standard" 18-hole course, it does vary from course to
    course.

    Par is the same for both the pros and the weekend hackers on a given
    course.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 10, 2008
    #10
  11. Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" between makers

    tony cooper wrote:

    > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:36:18 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>On Aug 10, 2:24 am, "David J Taylor" <-
    >>this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >>> Richard wrote:
    >>>
    >>> []
    >>>
    >>> > All current P&S's produce sub-par images.  No major breakthrough has
    >>> > come from the sensors (I'd know long before the camera makers used
    >>> > them) therefore a review is a waste of time, unless other things than
    >>> > imaging quality matter as much to some people.
    >>>
    >>> I would have thought that "par" was the average of what current cameras
    >>> produce.
    >>>
    >>> David

    >>
    >>You're right. Par for P&S's would be like par for the weekend golfer
    >>versus the pro.

    >
    > Par is based on the individual course. While par is usually around 72
    > strokes for a "standard" 18-hole course, it does vary from course to
    > course.
    >
    > Par is the same for both the pros and the weekend hackers on a given
    > course.


    Don't they each use different tee lines?


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Aug 10, 2008
    #11
  12. Rich

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" between makers

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:58:37 -0700, Blinky the Shark
    <> wrote:

    >tony cooper wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:36:18 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Aug 10, 2:24 am, "David J Taylor" <-
    >>>this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>> Richard wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> []
    >>>>
    >>>> > All current P&S's produce sub-par images.  No major breakthrough has
    >>>> > come from the sensors (I'd know long before the camera makers used
    >>>> > them) therefore a review is a waste of time, unless other things than
    >>>> > imaging quality matter as much to some people.
    >>>>
    >>>> I would have thought that "par" was the average of what current cameras
    >>>> produce.
    >>>>
    >>>> David
    >>>
    >>>You're right. Par for P&S's would be like par for the weekend golfer
    >>>versus the pro.

    >>
    >> Par is based on the individual course. While par is usually around 72
    >> strokes for a "standard" 18-hole course, it does vary from course to
    >> course.
    >>
    >> Par is the same for both the pros and the weekend hackers on a given
    >> course.

    >
    >Don't they each use different tee lines?


    The golf course I live on has a red tee box (women), a white tee box
    (for the average golfer), and a blue tee box (for the better golfer),
    and gold for the better better golfers. Each further from the green
    than the previous one listed.

    There is no rule that I know of that requires any golfer to use a
    specific tee box in daily play. In daily play it's usually decided by
    the group which tee box to use if betting is involved, or up to the
    individual golfer. In a club tournament, the rules of the tournament
    may dictate which box to use.

    There is no "box". The box is imaginary, and determined by the
    placement of some kind of markers on the tee. In the image I used
    http://www.pbase.com/tony_cooper/image/101424286 , you can see one of
    the white markers just to the left of the crane's head. That's a par 3
    hole, so you can see the green from the tee. It's about 190 to 200
    yards. The total for all 18 holes is between 6,150 to 6,450 yards.

    The boxes will be set up at different spots each day to reduce wear on
    one spot on the tee. The total yardage of the course will remain the
    same, but the individual holes will change. The holes are moved, too.

    In a pro tournament, like you see on TV, there will be just one tee
    box. Even in a pro-am, there's just one.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 11, 2008
    #12
  13. Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" between makers

    tony cooper wrote:
    > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:58:37 -0700, Blinky the Shark
    > <> wrote:
    >>tony cooper wrote:


    >>> Par is the same for both the pros and the weekend hackers on a given
    >>> course.

    >>
    >>Don't they each use different tee lines?

    >
    > The golf course I live on has a red tee box (women), a white tee box
    > (for the average golfer), and a blue tee box (for the better golfer),
    > and gold for the better better golfers. Each further from the green
    > than the previous one listed.


    Your crane was workin' the white tee.

    > There is no rule that I know of that requires any golfer to use a
    > specific tee box in daily play. In daily play it's usually decided by
    > the group which tee box to use if betting is involved, or up to the
    > individual golfer. In a club tournament, the rules of the tournament
    > may dictate which box to use.
    >
    > There is no "box". The box is imaginary, and determined by the
    > placement of some kind of markers on the tee. In the image I used
    > http://www.pbase.com/tony_cooper/image/101424286 , you can see one of
    > the white markers just to the left of the crane's head. That's a par 3


    Observant I am... :)

    > hole, so you can see the green from the tee. It's about 190 to 200
    > yards. The total for all 18 holes is between 6,150 to 6,450 yards.


    ....but I didn't realize that that was the green for that same hole.

    > The boxes will be set up at different spots each day to reduce wear on
    > one spot on the tee. The total yardage of the course will remain the
    > same, but the individual holes will change. The holes are moved, too.
    >
    > In a pro tournament, like you see on TV, there will be just one tee
    > box. Even in a pro-am, there's just one.


    I played for about four years right after I got out of college the first
    time. I started out pretty good for a rookie (I was told), but never
    improved. That frustrated me, so I walked away.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Aug 11, 2008
    #13
  14. Rich

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" between makers

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:28:27 -0400, "Richard" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:36:18 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Aug 10, 2:24 am, "David J Taylor" <-
    >>>this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>> Richard wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> []
    >>>>
    >>>> > All current P&S's produce sub-par images. No major breakthrough has
    >>>> > come from the sensors (I'd know long before the camera makers used
    >>>> > them) therefore a review is a waste of time, unless other things than
    >>>> > imaging quality matter as much to some people.
    >>>>
    >>>> I would have thought that "par" was the average of what current cameras
    >>>> produce.
    >>>>
    >>>> David
    >>>
    >>>You're right. Par for P&S's would be like par for the weekend golfer
    >>>versus the pro.

    >>
    >> Par is based on the individual course. While par is usually around 72
    >> strokes for a "standard" 18-hole course, it does vary from course to
    >> course.
    >>
    >> Par is the same for both the pros and the weekend hackers on a given
    >> course.

    >
    >Yes, but P&S users are playing with a larger "handicap."
    >

    Pros don't have handicaps. It's assumed that they can all shoot par
    (scratch), so they aren't assigned a handicap. Once you've carried a
    pro card, you have to wait for a certain number of years (five, I
    think) before you can be assigned a handicap.

    Amateurs, though, when asked what our handicap is, are supposed to
    come up with some line like "My backswing" or "My putting".
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 11, 2008
    #14
  15. Rich

    ray Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" betweenmakers

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:35:42 -0700, Rich wrote:

    > On Aug 10, 10:30 am, ray <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:17:39 -0700, Rich wrote:
    >> > Disgusting.  Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.

    >>
    >> > Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
    >> >   specifications as supplied by Nikon:

    >>
    >> > Effective pixels: 13.5 million
    >> > Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million

    >>
    >> > Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a
    >> > DSLR, a cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.

    >>
    >> I have a great idea! Since you seem to not like P&Ss, I suggest you
    >> don't use one! Now you can stop your rants.

    >
    > So you are free to suggest P&S models for people to buy, but others
    > aren't free to point out why that's a bad idea? Why is the image quality
    > of a P&S any less important than its portability, what colour it is,
    > etc?


    "pointing out" is one thing - "ranting" is another. I leave it to a vote
    of the people.
     
    ray, Aug 11, 2008
    #15
  16. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" betweenmakers

    On Aug 11, 5:08 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > Richard wrote:
    >
    > > All current P&S's produce sub-par images. No major breakthrough has come
    > > from the sensors (I'd know long before the camera makers used them)
    > > therefore a review is a waste of time, unless other things than imaging
    > > quality matter as much to some people.

    >
    > Excellent. Do you think the Haselblad
    > backs are adequate, or should I
    > go for a phase-one p65, or perhaps
    > a Betterlight?


    Depends on what you are doing. If you want to print images many feet
    wide, then a medium format back is a good idea. If you aren't a pro
    and don't give a s--- about image quality, stick to the camera in your
    cell phone.
     
    Rich, Aug 11, 2008
    #16
  17. Rich

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" between makers

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:07:34 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

    >>You're right. Par for P&S's would be like par for the weekend golfer
    >>versus the pro.

    >
    > Par is based on the individual course. While par is usually around 72
    > strokes for a "standard" 18-hole course, it does vary from course to
    > course.


    Brett is the ng's resident snapper that is known for taking many
    sub par* shots. I especially like the ones of the real Annika.
    Others like Spike.

    * 'sub' par can be taken to mean better or worse than average, or as
    Ms.1980 might say, context RULES!
     
    ASAAR, Aug 13, 2008
    #17
  18. Rich

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" betweenmakers

    bugbear wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    >> On Aug 11, 5:08 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >>> Richard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> All current P&S's produce sub-par images. No major breakthrough has
    >>>> come
    >>>> from the sensors (I'd know long before the camera makers used them)
    >>>> therefore a review is a waste of time, unless other things than imaging
    >>>> quality matter as much to some people.
    >>> Excellent. Do you think the Haselblad
    >>> backs are adequate, or should I
    >>> go for a phase-one p65, or perhaps
    >>> a Betterlight?

    >>
    >> Depends on what you are doing. If you want to print images many feet
    >> wide, then a medium format back is a good idea. If you aren't a pro
    >> and don't give a s--- about image quality, stick to the camera in your
    >> cell phone.
    >>

    >
    > Do you agree that the current range of DSLR are a compromise
    > on image quality?


    There are much better sensors made for scientific use.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 14, 2008
    #18
  19. Rich

    Scott W Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" betweenmakers

    On Aug 7, 4:17 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > Disgusting.  Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.
    >
    > Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
    >   specifications as supplied by Nikon:
    >
    > Effective pixels: 13.5 million
    > Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million
    >
    > Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR,
    > a cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.


    I was just looking at some of the test shots from a Canon G7, which
    also has a 1/1.7" sensor and has just a few less pixels at 12.1. I
    got to say the image at low ISO look pretty darn good.
    <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/canonG9/samples/comparedto/
    canonG9_ISO80.JPG>

    You make it sound like you can't get a good image from a sensor that
    small no matter what, I don't belive this is true.

    Sure there are many cases where the DSLR is going to blow away what a
    P&S can do, but for some cases a P&S can produce a very good looking
    print.

    I much prefer using my DSLR when I can, but to try and say all images
    from a P&S are crap is a bit silly, IMO.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Aug 14, 2008
    #19
  20. Rich

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" betweenmakers

    bugbear wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Do you agree that the current range of DSLR are a compromise
    >>> on image quality?

    >>
    >> There are much better sensors made for scientific use.

    >
    > And, indeed medium and up photographic use, as I posted
    > earlier.


    I'm not certain but I think those MF sensors are quite compromised in
    order to be affordable at that size. The get a MF sensor of the same
    quality as a normal DSLR would probably cost 100s of thousands of
    dollars. Of course just being that large overcomes the compromises.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 14, 2008
    #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. Guest
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    746
    Peter
    Jan 23, 2007
  2. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    613
    Guest
    Jan 23, 2007
  3. Guest
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    457
  4. Tony

    P2P Software Makers now Liable.

    Tony, Jun 28, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    411
    Shane
    Jun 29, 2005
  5. Wog George

    Google Chrome - Crap or Crap??

    Wog George, Jan 4, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    5,001
    O-Cyanovinyl-Hydroxypiperidino-FluorophenolPhenyl-
    Jan 4, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page