P&S's still have rotten quality (Canon G10)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Nov 11, 2009.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
    image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
    reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
    from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
    can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.

    http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg
     
    Rich, Nov 11, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    Glen Guest

    Another rich one.

    Tee Hee Hee <smirk> Hee Hee Hee.
     
    Glen, Nov 11, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
    >image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    >cropped,


    Idiot.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 11, 2009
    #3
  4. Rich wrote:
    > No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11.
    > This
    > image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    > cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image
    > size-
    > reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF
    > it came
    > from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it
    > still
    > can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
    >
    > http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg


    For god's sake, get a life!

    P&Ses are not intended to compete with DSLRs for low noise level,
    especially at high ISOs. They are meant to fill another need. Why
    can't you get that through your thick skull?
     
    Pointless Posts, Nov 11, 2009
    #4
  5. "bugbear" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Rich wrote:
    >> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
    >> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    >> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
    >> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
    >> from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
    >> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
    >>
    >> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg

    >
    > I think there's a problem with the blogs sub sampling;
    >
    > evidence here:
    >
    > http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/09/canon-g10-shooting-g10-at-iso-800-and.html
    >
    > BugBear


    ... but it's still the noise in the shadow regions which shows up
    particularly badly at such high ISOs. I'm delighted that Canon has
    finally "seen the light" in reducing the pixel count - although it's at a
    high price right now.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 11, 2009
    #5
  6. On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:47:18 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
    >image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    >cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
    >reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
    >from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
    >can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
    >
    >http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg


    1/40th of a second? A subject like that could have been easily shot
    handheld tack-sharp at 1/10th of a second at a clean ISO400. Hang on, let
    me find some piss-poor examples from snapshooter DSLR owners (the net is
    drowning with them) that can prove the same as you are trying to prove ...

    (Hint: I won't waste my time. Nobody is as insecure as DSLR-Trolls.)

    You'd be in so much trouble if P&S camera owners were as desperate as you
    to try to prove their camera choice was better by posting links to all the
    pathetically poor DSLR images inundating the net. And there's some real
    doozies I've seen.

    Though, with this link being handy, I do like it for pure entertainment
    value:

    http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg

    Showing the image morphing rubberizing effects of any camera with a
    focal-plane shutter. A favorite of many similar DSLR images flooding the
    net because the shadow of the tail-rotor is 90-degrees from its true
    orientation. The snail's-pace travel of any focal-plane shutter's curtains
    causing a rift in the time-space continuum. Too fuckin' funny.

    While you're at it, look for some more images to troll for attention for
    yourself. Your desperate attempt to fill that fathomless attention-deficit
    void of yours isn't obvious enough to the world yet.

    The problem with trolls: Nobody in real life ever wants to be around them
    (with good reason), so any words they get in reply are like a glass of
    water to someone dying of thirst. The above is his deserved drop of
    arsenic-tainted water.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Nov 11, 2009
    #6
  7. On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:07:22 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    wrote:

    >Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:47:18 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
    >>> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    >>> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
    >>> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
    >>>from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
    >>> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
    >>>
    >>> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg

    >>
    >> 1/40th of a second? A subject like that could have been easily shot
    >> handheld tack-sharp at 1/10th of a second at a clean ISO400. Hang on, let
    >> me find some piss-poor examples from snapshooter DSLR owners (the net is
    >> drowning with them) that can prove the same as you are trying to prove ...
    >>
    >> (Hint: I won't waste my time. Nobody is as insecure as DSLR-Trolls.)

    >
    >In other words, you couldn't find any. So much for your lame claim that
    >"the net is drowning in them". ;^)



    Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
    Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
    alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
    Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."

    <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>

    "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
     
    Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up., Nov 11, 2009
    #7
  8. Rich

    Fred Guest

    "Pointless Posts" <> wrote in message
    news:hddvtj$lnb$-september.org...
    > Rich wrote:
    >> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
    >> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    >> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
    >> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
    >> from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
    >> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
    >>
    >> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg

    >
    > For god's sake, get a life!
    >
    > P&Ses are not intended to compete with DSLRs for low noise level,
    > especially at high ISOs. They are meant to fill another need. Why can't
    > you get that through your thick skull?
    >

    This is his sad little life, he has none beyond this group.

    He probably wouldn't have a clue what to do with a DSLR even if he owned
    one.

    He's obviously not a photographer, as all they're interested in is taking
    photos, not sniping and back-stabbing to boost their miniscule little egos.
     
    Fred, Nov 11, 2009
    #8
  9. On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:17:15 -0000, "Fred" <> wrote:

    >"Pointless Posts" <> wrote in message
    >news:hddvtj$lnb$-september.org...
    >> Rich wrote:
    >>> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
    >>> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    >>> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
    >>> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
    >>> from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
    >>> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
    >>>
    >>> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg

    >>
    >> For god's sake, get a life!
    >>
    >> P&Ses are not intended to compete with DSLRs for low noise level,
    >> especially at high ISOs. They are meant to fill another need. Why can't
    >> you get that through your thick skull?
    >>

    >This is his sad little life, he has none beyond this group.
    >
    >He probably wouldn't have a clue what to do with a DSLR even if he owned
    >one.
    >
    >He's obviously not a photographer, as all they're interested in is taking
    >photos, not sniping and back-stabbing to boost their miniscule little egos.
    >


    I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily
    compete with and beat images from DSLRs:

    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml

    But that non-stabilized P&S cameras even compete with medium format
    Hasselblads securely mounted on a tripod, something that not even DSLRs can
    accomplish:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Nov 11, 2009
    #9
  10. Rich

    RustY © Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    At 1600 ISO, , there should be almost no noise visible,

    Trolls need to be more subtle - not stupid.
     
    RustY ©, Nov 11, 2009
    #10
  11. Rich

    Bob Larter Guest

    Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:47:18 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
    >> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    >> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
    >> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
    >>from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
    >> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
    >>
    >> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg

    >
    > 1/40th of a second? A subject like that could have been easily shot
    > handheld tack-sharp at 1/10th of a second at a clean ISO400. Hang on, let
    > me find some piss-poor examples from snapshooter DSLR owners (the net is
    > drowning with them) that can prove the same as you are trying to prove ...
    >
    > (Hint: I won't waste my time. Nobody is as insecure as DSLR-Trolls.)


    In other words, you couldn't find any. So much for your lame claim that
    "the net is drowning in them". ;^)


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Nov 11, 2009
    #11
  12. Rich

    Bob Larter Guest

    Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote:
    > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:07:22 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:47:18 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
    >>>> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    >>>> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
    >>>> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
    >>> >from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
    >>>> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg
    >>> 1/40th of a second? A subject like that could have been easily shot
    >>> handheld tack-sharp at 1/10th of a second at a clean ISO400. Hang on, let
    >>> me find some piss-poor examples from snapshooter DSLR owners (the net is
    >>> drowning with them) that can prove the same as you are trying to prove ...
    >>>
    >>> (Hint: I won't waste my time. Nobody is as insecure as DSLR-Trolls.)

    >> In other words, you couldn't find any. So much for your lame claim that
    >> "the net is drowning in them". ;^)

    >
    >
    > Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
    > Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
    > alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
    > Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
    >
    > <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
    >
    > "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."


    *sniff*

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Nov 11, 2009
    #12
  13. Fred wrote:
    > "Pointless Posts" <> wrote in message
    > news:hddvtj$lnb$-september.org...
    >> Rich wrote:
    >>> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11.
    >>> This
    >>> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not
    >>> even
    >>> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image
    >>> size-
    >>> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible,
    >>> IF it
    >>> came from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500
    >>> and
    >>> it still can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
    >>>
    >>> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg

    >>
    >> For god's sake, get a life!
    >>
    >> P&Ses are not intended to compete with DSLRs for low noise
    >> level,
    >> especially at high ISOs. They are meant to fill another need.
    >> Why
    >> can't you get that through your thick skull?
    >>

    > This is his sad little life, he has none beyond this group.
    >
    > He probably wouldn't have a clue what to do with a DSLR even if
    > he
    > owned one.
    >
    > He's obviously not a photographer, as all they're interested in
    > is
    > taking photos, not sniping and back-stabbing to boost their
    > miniscule
    > little egos.


    We've often seen pro-P&S posts claiming that DSLR owners have a
    need to constantly justify their purchase because, deep down,
    thay feel that they wasted money needlessly with expensive DSLR
    gear. I used to think that this was just sarcasm on their part,
    but with the constant stream of anti-P&S nonsense spewed by
    people like Rich, I'm beginning to suspect that such claims have
    a core of truth, at least with *some* DSLR owners.
     
    Pointless Posts, Nov 11, 2009
    #13
  14. Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:

    > I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily
    > compete with and beat images from DSLRs:


    > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml


    > But that non-stabilized P&S cameras even compete with medium format
    > Hasselblads securely mounted on a tripod, something that not even DSLRs can
    > accomplish:


    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml


    You still haven't read that, have you, despite having been told by
    several folk that it doesn't say what you think it does!

    I guess if there's no such thing as a web page which supports your
    claims, you have to make do with web pages which don't :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Nov 11, 2009
    #14
  15. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Nov 11, 4:21 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    > > No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11.  This
    > > image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    > > cropped, but LOOK at the noise!  At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
    > > reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
    > > from a DSLR, which it didn't.  That Canon cost over $500 and it still
    > > can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.

    >
    > >http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg

    >
    > I think there's a problem with the blogs sub sampling;
    >
    > evidence here:
    >
    > http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/09/canon-g10-shooting-g10-at-i...
    >
    >    BugBear


    Please! As if any sub-sampling issue cause that noise. The camera is
    the culprit.
     
    Rich, Nov 11, 2009
    #15
  16. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Pointless Posts <> wrote:
    >Rich wrote:
    >> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11.
    >> This
    >> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    >> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image
    >> size-
    >> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF
    >> it came
    >> from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it
    >> still
    >> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
    >>
    >> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg

    >
    >For god's sake, get a life!
    >
    >P&Ses are not intended to compete with DSLRs for low noise level,
    >especially at high ISOs. They are meant to fill another need. Why
    >can't you get that through your thick skull?


    You answered your own question in those last two words.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 11, 2009
    #16
  17. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Trolls ! <> wrote:
    > "Fred" <> wrote:
    >>"Pointless Posts" <> wrote in message
    >>> Rich wrote:
    >>>> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
    >>>> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
    >>>> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
    >>>> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
    >>>> from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
    >>>> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg
    >>>
    >>> For god's sake, get a life!
    >>>
    >>> P&Ses are not intended to compete with DSLRs for low noise level,
    >>> especially at high ISOs. They are meant to fill another need. Why can't
    >>> you get that through your thick skull?
    >>>

    >>This is his sad little life, he has none beyond this group.
    >>
    >>He probably wouldn't have a clue what to do with a DSLR even if he owned
    >>one.
    >>
    >>He's obviously not a photographer, as all they're interested in is taking
    >>photos, not sniping and back-stabbing to boost their miniscule little egos.
    >>

    >I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily
    >compete with and beat images from DSLRs:


    You're lying again, asshole troll.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 11, 2009
    #17
  18. On 11 Nov 2009 16:49:06 GMT, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:

    >Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    >
    >> I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily
    >> compete with and beat images from DSLRs:

    >
    >> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml

    >
    >> But that non-stabilized P&S cameras even compete with medium format
    >> Hasselblads securely mounted on a tripod, something that not even DSLRs can
    >> accomplish:

    >
    >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

    >
    >You still haven't read that, have you, despite having been told by
    >several folk that it doesn't say what you think it does!


    Your ability to not read all the text on a report is truly amazing. The
    same way that you read most posts on usenet no doubt.

    You better not read this one in total too.

    http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/

    You might have to ignore all the parts where a Canon G9 and G11 P&S cameras
    are keeping pace with and bettering the images from the new Canon 7D DSLR,
    as well as keeping pace with all the other DSLRs they compared.

    We all await your DSLR-Trolls' insecure cries of "boo hoo, that's NOT what
    it says!" No matter what anyone says the images posted there sure do say
    that.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Nov 12, 2009
    #18
  19. Rich

    Dale Connors Guest

    On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:34:17 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2009-11-11 16:54:00 -0800, Outing Trolls is FUN!
    ><> said:
    >
    >> On 11 Nov 2009 16:49:06 GMT, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily
    >>>> compete with and beat images from DSLRs:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
    >>>
    >>>> But that non-stabilized P&S cameras even compete with medium format
    >>>> Hasselblads securely mounted on a tripod, something that not even DSLRs can
    >>>> accomplish:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
    >>>
    >>> You still haven't read that, have you, despite having been told by
    >>> several folk that it doesn't say what you think it does!

    >>
    >> Your ability to not read all the text on a report is truly amazing. The
    >> same way that you read most posts on usenet no doubt.
    >>
    >> You better not read this one in total too.
    >>
    >> http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/
    >>
    >> You might have to ignore all the parts where a Canon G9 and G11 P&S cameras
    >> are keeping pace with and bettering the images from the new Canon 7D DSLR,
    >> as well as keeping pace with all the other DSLRs they compared.
    >>
    >> We all await your DSLR-Trolls' insecure cries of "boo hoo, that's NOT what
    >> it says!" No matter what anyone says the images posted there sure do say
    >> that.

    >
    >
    >
    >Actually what it says, if you read it all the way through, is the Nikon
    >D300s is the performance winner.
    >
    >You were probably focused on these quotes;
    > "The little $575 G11 point-n-shoot can definitely hold its own against
    >the 7D in terms of quality."
    >and
    >"The G11 gives very vibrant colours even when the RAW files are
    >processed with the exact same settings as the 7D. We're not sure why.
    >Disregarding the colour differences it looks like the little G11
    >produces files to compete with the bigger sensor on the 7D."
    >
    >However you needed to read on to get to these;
    > "In this comparison the D300s easily wins in our opinion. The fine
    >detail is really nice, the tonal changes are subtle. The Canon 7D file
    >has a characteristic mushy look."
    >and
    >"In the next test we interpolated the Nikon D300s file up to 18MP. Then
    >we tried to match the colours and contrast of the two files for a
    >finished image." " Even at a disadvantage the interpolated Nikon file
    >simply trumps the Canon file. In our opinion there is no contest, the
    >Nikon D300s produces better files than the Canon 7D."
    >
    >That article is certainly more of a condemnation of the 7D as compared
    >with the G11, but not of the G11 trouncing all DSLRs, especially the
    >D300s.


    What you fail to do is compare the images yourself with an unbiased point
    of view. The G11 image quality and resolution clearly beat or equaled those
    of a few of the other DSLRs tested against it.

    If everyone is laughing about P&S cameras, why are P&S cameras able to
    provide better images than those from many DSLRs these days? A $440 P&S
    camera consistently beating the image quality from a $1500 DSLR. In the
    other CameraLabs review a super-zoom P&S camera clearly beating another
    DSLR in image quality. In the Luminous-Landscape review using a blind-test
    they couldn't tell 13"x19" prints apart from a lowly P&S camera and those
    taken with a medium format Hasselblad. Prints much larger than most any
    average photographer will ever print theirs.

    Three different groups of people comparing and reviewing them in those
    links above. All consistently showing that P&S cameras can and indeed do
    win over, if not at least keep paces with, many DSLRs made today. So why
    the big stink being made by DSLR-Trolls about P&S cameras? According to all
    the DSLR-Trolls there is NO WAY that a P&S camera can even come close to
    producing DSLR image quality. Yet here are three different reviews being
    done where they not only come close, but they in fact even beat the images
    from some DSLRs.

    So why the incessant big stink from all the DSLR-Trolls?
     
    Dale Connors, Nov 12, 2009
    #19
  20. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    >On 11 Nov 2009 16:49:06 GMT, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >
    >>Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily
    >>> compete with and beat images from DSLRs:

    >>
    >>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml

    >>
    >>> But that non-stabilized P&S cameras even compete with medium format
    >>> Hasselblads securely mounted on a tripod, something that not even DSLRs can
    >>> accomplish:

    >>
    >>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

    >>
    >>You still haven't read that, have you, despite having been told by
    >>several folk that it doesn't say what you think it does!

    >
    >Your ability to not


    Your ability to be a lying troll is tiresome.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 12, 2009
    #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. Canon G10, SX10 IS and SX1 IS

    , Oct 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,831
    Dudley Hanks
    Oct 23, 2008
  2. Sheila

    Canon G10

    Sheila, Oct 28, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    3,994
    Sheila
    Nov 18, 2008
  3. Ian

    Canon Powershot G10

    Ian, Dec 3, 2008, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,152
  4. Canon G10 & how to get the most IQ

    , Mar 23, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,045
    Robert Coe
    Mar 28, 2009
  5. HL

    Canon G10

    HL, May 8, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    413
Loading...

Share This Page