P&S superzooms and sheer contempt for their users

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Oct 15, 2010.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated. But some mfgs's
    (Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    of these types of cameras. In any case, despite the author's
    softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_superzoom_shootout.shtml
    Rich, Oct 15, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated.


    More elitist snobbery.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Oct 15, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated. But some mfgs's
    >(Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    >panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    >of these types of cameras. In any case, despite the author's
    >softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    >their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.
    >
    >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_superzoom_shootout.shtml



    As usual, the review gives a completely different conclusion to yours:
    According to Reichmann "You really won't go far wrong with either
    camera."

    The vast majority of camera owners will never need anything more than
    a good superzoom camera can offer. Most of them would be more than
    adequately served by an inexpensive P&S compact camera. Let's face
    it, nearly all of them do little more than take execrable snapshots of
    their family, their pets, their locality and their vacation.

    Yet millions of people buy expensive DSLRs and lenses that they really
    haven't the faintest idea how to use, then criticise superzoom and P&S
    compact cameras on the basis of some irrelevant technobabble.

    Next.
    Bruce, Oct 15, 2010
    #3
  4. On 10/15/10 PDT 11:11 AM, Val Hallah wrote:
    > On Oct 15, 6:25 am, Rich<> wrote:
    >> Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated. But some mfgs's
    >> (Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    >> panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    >> of these types of cameras. In any case, despite the author's
    >> softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    >> their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.
    >>
    >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_superzoom_shootou...

    >
    > I never use RAW....


    Is that something of which you are proud, ashamed, or perhaps ignorant?

    In other words, what is behind this assertion, please?

    --
    lsmft
    John McWilliams, Oct 15, 2010
    #4
  5. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Oct 15, 2:12 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > Rich  <> wrote:
    > >Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated.

    >
    > More elitist snobbery.
    >


    It's not elitist, you moron. You can BUY an entry-level DSLR for the
    SAME price!
    Rich, Oct 15, 2010
    #5
  6. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Oct 15, 8:52 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Rich <> wrote:
    > >Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated.  But some mfgs's
    > >(Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    > >panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    > >of these types of cameras.  In any case, despite the author's
    > >softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    > >their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.

    >
    > >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_superzoom_shootou...

    >
    > As usual, the review gives a completely different conclusion to yours:
    > According to Reichmann "You really won't go far wrong with either
    > camera."


    Sales talk.
    Rich, Oct 15, 2010
    #6
  7. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Oct 15, 2:11 pm, Val Hallah <> wrote:
    > On Oct 15, 6:25 am, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    > > Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated.  But some mfgs's
    > > (Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    > > panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    > > of these types of cameras.  In any case, despite the author's
    > > softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    > > their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.

    >
    > >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_superzoom_shootou...

    >
    > I never use RAW....


    You are missing out. If you can't get a better image out of RAW than
    the best in-camera JPEG, you can learn to.
    Rich, Oct 15, 2010
    #7
  8. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Oct 15, 4:11 pm, SMS <> wrote:
    > On 10/14/2010 9:25 PM, Rich wrote:
    >
    > > Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated.  But some mfgs's
    > > (Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    > > panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    > > of these types of cameras.

    >
    > Yes, it would help, though so would features like bracketing. At least
    > there's CHDK to work around some of the limitations of the superzooms.
    >
    > > In any case, despite the author's
    > > softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    > > their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.

    >
    > Everything is inter-related. They get away with the tiny sensors by
    > rationalizing that the lenses are such that a larger sensor would not
    > help. They get away with the compromised lenses by rationalizing that
    > the sensor is such that better lenses would not help.


    Here's my idea. Available cheap ED glass and molded aspherics have
    allowed lenses to be shrunk down by a considerable volume today. I'm
    not talking about fast normal to long lenses, for those you still need
    specific apertures that make such lenses as large on small sensors as
    on FF sensors, (e.g., a 50mm f1.4 lens still needs a front element
    36mm across) so you can't avoid it. But, if they could just see their
    way clear to re-incorporating 2/3" sensors, with modern processing and
    sensor technology into P&Ss, things would be quite acceptable, even at
    reasonably high ISOs (400-800) and image quality at low ISO's would be
    improved. I believe they could do this while keeping the thing the
    size of the largest fixed-lens P&S's and smaller DSLR's today. An
    18-300mm lens would be doable in a reasonably small package. Would
    its image quality be compromised? Somewhat, but not as much as
    current P&S's.
    Rich, Oct 15, 2010
    #8
  9. "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Oct 15, 8:52 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> >Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated. But some mfgs's
    >> >(Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    >> >panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    >> >of these types of cameras. In any case, despite the author's
    >> >softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    >> >their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.

    >>
    >> >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_superzoom_shootou...

    >>
    >> As usual, the review gives a completely different conclusion to yours:
    >> According to Reichmann "You really won't go far wrong with either
    >> camera."

    >
    > Sales talk.


    Reality for most of the population, who aren't professional or even
    amateur photographers. The cameras work well enough for them.

    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 16, 2010
    #9
  10. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >On Oct 15, 2:12 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >> Rich  <> wrote:
    >> >Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated.

    >>
    >> More elitist snobbery.

    >
    >It's not elitist, you moron.


    Don't lie to me, asshole. You're an elitist snob who bitches about
    plastic, who bitches about P&S cameras, who bitches about the Chinese,
    who bitches about any choice that doesn't conform with yours.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Oct 16, 2010
    #10
  11. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:

    >On Oct 15, 8:52 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> >Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated.  But some mfgs's
    >> >(Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    >> >panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    >> >of these types of cameras.  In any case, despite the author's
    >> >softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    >> >their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.

    >>
    >> >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_superzoom_shootou...

    >>
    >> As usual, the review gives a completely different conclusion to yours:
    >> According to Reichmann "You really won't go far wrong with either
    >> camera."

    >
    >Sales talk.



    Reichmann isn't trying to sell anything. He's just pointing out that
    either of the cameras tested will satisfy the needs of the vast
    majority of camera buyers.

    Perhaps no-one else will notice that the thrust of his article is the
    precise opposite of your "summary" of it. ;-)
    Bruce, Oct 16, 2010
    #11
  12. Rich

    peter Guest

    On 10/15/2010 3:22 PM, Val Hallah wrote:
    > On Oct 15, 8:37 pm, John McWilliams<> wrote:
    >> On 10/15/10 PDT 11:11 AM, Val Hallah wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Oct 15, 6:25 am, Rich<> wrote:
    >>>> Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated. But some mfgs's
    >>>> (Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    >>>> panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    >>>> of these types of cameras. In any case, despite the author's
    >>>> softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    >>>> their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.

    >>
    >>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_superzoom_shootou...

    >>
    >>> I never use RAW....

    >>
    >> Is that something of which you are proud, ashamed, or perhaps ignorant?
    >>
    >> In other words, what is behind this assertion, please?
    >>
    >> --
    >> lsmft

    >
    > statement of fact...JPEG's are fine


    If they work for you, fine. Other folk have different needs, or desires.

    --
    Peter
    peter, Oct 16, 2010
    #12
  13. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >On Oct 15, 2:12 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >> Rich  <> wrote:
    >> >Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated.

    >>
    >> More elitist snobbery.
    >>

    >
    >It's not elitist, you moron. You can BUY an entry-level DSLR for the
    >SAME price!



    You might get an entry-level DSLR body (only) for the same price. An
    entry-level DSLR with a junk 18-55mm lens that is incapable of
    producing sharp and contrasty images will cost rather more. An
    entry-level DSLR with an 10.7X 18-200mm lens (one that still won't
    even approach the 18X or greater range of a P&S superzoom) will cost
    at least twice as much.

    There is a compelling case for superzooms that offer zoom ranges up to
    30X, image stabilisation, live view, LCD and EVF viewing and 1080P
    video together with image quality that is far better than similar
    cameras offered only a couple of years ago.

    For the average camera buyer, what's not to like? A superzoom is more
    than good enough for 90% of camera owners who take snapshots of their
    family, friends, pets, events in their locality and vacations.
    Bruce, Oct 16, 2010
    #13
  14. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    bobwilliams <> wrote:
    >Bruce wrote:
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >>> Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated. But some mfgs's
    >>> (Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    >>> panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    >>> of these types of cameras. In any case, despite the author's
    >>> softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    >>> their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_superzoom_shootout.shtml

    >>
    >>
    >> As usual, the review gives a completely different conclusion to yours:
    >> According to Reichmann "You really won't go far wrong with either
    >> camera."
    >>
    >> The vast majority of camera owners will never need anything more than
    >> a good superzoom camera can offer. Most of them would be more than
    >> adequately served by an inexpensive P&S compact camera. Let's face
    >> it, nearly all of them do little more than take execrable snapshots of
    >> their family, their pets, their locality and their vacation.
    >>
    >> Yet millions of people buy expensive DSLRs and lenses that they really
    >> haven't the faintest idea how to use, then criticise superzoom and P&S
    >> compact cameras on the basis of some irrelevant technobabble.
    >>
    >> Next.
    >>

    >That is soooo true.
    >I am constantly amazed at how many of my well heeled friends who have to
    >have "THE BEST", buy DSLRs.
    >They have DSLR pocketbooks and Instamatic photographic talents.
    >The learn how to use 5-10% of the features of the camera that they
    >originally touted as "must have" features and stated as primary reasons
    >for buying the camera in the first place
    >Somehow, many persons cling to the belief that a high end DSLR will
    >magically produce killer photos for them..........Sigh
    >Bob Williams



    Thanks, Bob. My point exactly.
    Bruce, Oct 16, 2010
    #14
  15. On 10/16/10 PDT 6:36 AM, peter wrote:
    > On 10/15/2010 3:22 PM, Val Hallah wrote:
    >> On Oct 15, 8:37 pm, John McWilliams<> wrote:
    >>> On 10/15/10 PDT 11:11 AM, Val Hallah wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Oct 15, 6:25 am, Rich<> wrote:
    >>>>> Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated. But some mfgs's
    >>>>> (Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    >>>>> panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    >>>>> of these types of cameras. In any case, despite the author's
    >>>>> softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    >>>>> their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.
    >>>
    >>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_superzoom_shootou...
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>>> I never use RAW....
    >>>
    >>> Is that something of which you are proud, ashamed, or perhaps ignorant?
    >>>
    >>> In other words, what is behind this assertion, please?


    >>
    >> statement of fact...JPEG's are fine

    >
    > If they work for you, fine. Other folk have different needs, or desires.


    So, it is ignorance on his part, then.

    --
    john mcwilliams

    "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like
    Norman Einstein."
    - Football commentator and former player Joe Theismann, 1996
    John McWilliams, Oct 16, 2010
    #15
  16. On 10/16/10 PDT 10:39 AM, Val Hallah wrote:
    > On Oct 16, 6:37 pm, John McWilliams<> wrote:
    >> On 10/16/10 PDT 6:36 AM, peter wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> On 10/15/2010 3:22 PM, Val Hallah wrote:
    >>>> On Oct 15, 8:37 pm, John McWilliams<> wrote:
    >>>>> On 10/15/10 PDT 11:11 AM, Val Hallah wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>> On Oct 15, 6:25 am, Rich<> wrote:
    >>>>>>> Not me, I just think their users are ill-educated. But some mfgs's
    >>>>>>> (Canon here) display contempt by omitting RAW, which while not a
    >>>>>>> panacea would help in dealing with the undesirable image shortcomings
    >>>>>>> of these types of cameras. In any case, despite the author's
    >>>>>>> softening of the language, these cameras are still terribly hobbled by
    >>>>>>> their sensors and over-reaching lens designs.

    >>
    >>>>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_superzoom_shootou...

    >>
    >>>>>> I never use RAW....

    >>
    >>>>> Is that something of which you are proud, ashamed, or perhaps ignorant?

    >>
    >>>>> In other words, what is behind this assertion, please?

    >>
    >>>> statement of fact...JPEG's are fine

    >>
    >>> If they work for you, fine. Other folk have different needs, or desires.

    >>
    >> So, it is ignorance on his part, then.
    >>
    >> --
    >> john mcwilliams
    >>
    >> "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like
    >> Norman Einstein."
    >> - Football commentator and former player Joe Theismann, 1996

    >
    > this'll help you relax john
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/2scpoe



    Oh well, I never go to tiny urls in general, unless someone I know has
    been there and said it is worthwhile.
    John McWilliams, Oct 17, 2010
    #16
  17. SMS <> wrote:

    > Everything is inter-related.


    Like small and cheap doesn't buy large sensors and lenses?

    > They get away with the tiny sensors by
    > rationalizing that the lenses are such that a larger sensor would not
    > help. They get away with the compromised lenses by rationalizing that
    > the sensor is such that better lenses would not help. They leave off an
    > OVF rationalizing that OVFs are only approximations of what the sensor
    > sees, when in fact they simply don't want the complexity of well
    > designed OVF.


    Oh, and let's not forget small and cheap and light.

    > P&S users are often very disappointed with the results they get, but
    > they usually do not understand the reasons because all they know about
    > is megapixels and zoom range, and lack any understanding of pixel size
    > or auto-focus systems.


    How about missing basic photographic knowledge?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 18, 2010
    #17
  18. Rich

    Rich Guest


    > For the average camera buyer, what's not to like?  A superzoom is more
    > than good enough for 90% of camera owners who take snapshots of their
    > family, friends, pets, events in their locality and vacations.  


    No, it's not, it's one reason (that, and their lack of discernment)
    that people would rather do Hitler salutes with their cellphones than
    use real cameras. Lets remember that in the film era, even people
    with cheap P&S's were more or less on level footing with SLR users
    because, film was film. That's not the case anymore. There is a vast
    sea of difference and it's based on sensor size and quality.
    Rich, Oct 19, 2010
    #18
  19. Rich

    SMS Guest

    On 10/17/2010 10:07 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > SMS<> wrote:
    >
    >> Everything is inter-related.

    >
    > Like small and cheap doesn't buy large sensors and lenses?
    >
    >> They get away with the tiny sensors by
    >> rationalizing that the lenses are such that a larger sensor would not
    >> help. They get away with the compromised lenses by rationalizing that
    >> the sensor is such that better lenses would not help. They leave off an
    >> OVF rationalizing that OVFs are only approximations of what the sensor
    >> sees, when in fact they simply don't want the complexity of well
    >> designed OVF.

    >
    > Oh, and let's not forget small and cheap and light.
    >
    >> P&S users are often very disappointed with the results they get, but
    >> they usually do not understand the reasons because all they know about
    >> is megapixels and zoom range, and lack any understanding of pixel size
    >> or auto-focus systems.

    >
    > How about missing basic photographic knowledge?


    Yet they lacked that knowledge when they were using 35mm compact cameras
    and got better results than they're getting now. When they bought full
    frame (or even APS) ASA 400 sensors on a strip they got far better
    results with far less AF lag. Outside in bright light they still do
    okay, but the low light capability of the P&S cameras is abysmal. Sure
    you could by a Canon G series and get an external flash as big as the
    camera, but few P&S users do that.

    The reason why D-SLRs are selling as well as they are is that so many
    digital P&S users finally came to their senses.
    SMS, Oct 19, 2010
    #19
  20. SMS <> wrote:
    > On 10/17/2010 10:07 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    [P&S users]

    >> How about missing basic photographic knowledge?


    > Yet they lacked that knowledge when they were using 35mm compact cameras
    > and got better results than they're getting now.


    I doubt that. Technically, yes, they might have gotten better
    results with film in certain circumstances. But the low number
    of shots and the long turn around times meant it was comparatively
    hard to learn from ones' actions, unlike today.

    > When they bought full
    > frame (or even APS) ASA 400 sensors on a strip they got far better
    > results with far less AF lag.


    You mean ... fixed focus? Yes, that certainly has far less
    AF lag.

    > Outside in bright light they still do
    > okay, but the low light capability of the P&S cameras is abysmal. Sure
    > you could by a Canon G series and get an external flash as big as the
    > camera, but few P&S users do that.


    If you know what to do you can get interesting results even
    in low light from P&S cameras. It certainly is harder to get
    them than using a DSLR, but most DSLRs don't fit into a pocket.
    Which is why I still have an old (4MPix) P&S even though I've
    got vastly superior gear.

    > The reason why D-SLRs are selling as well as they are is that so many
    > digital P&S users finally came to their senses.


    No. The same P&S users that formerly used film formerly didn't
    think of shooting at night, indoors, making hundreds of photos
    for fun on one party. Film is expensive. Digital allows easy
    experimentation. And only through that experimentation they get
    to the point where they outgrow a P&S.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 20, 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. Magic347
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,213
    Wm James
    Jul 3, 2003
  2. Hugh
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    468
    Plato
    May 19, 2004
  3. Dan Sullivan
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,315
    Dan Sullivan
    Jan 4, 2004
  4. Rich

    The UGLY output from P&S superzooms

    Rich, Dec 22, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    828
    Kalinka
    Dec 23, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    693
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page