Re: Canon and Panasonic: updated models

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dave Cohen, May 27, 2010.

  1. Dave Cohen

    Dave Cohen Guest

    On 5/26/2010 6:19 PM, F wrote:
    > I'm looking to replace my ageing Panasonic FZ30 and am considering the
    > Canon SX1 IS and the Panasonic FZ38. Does anyone know whether or not
    > either of these is likely to be replaced in the next couple of months?
    >
    > TIA
    >

    According to the Canon site, the SX1 IS is replaced by SX20 IS. This
    seems to be essentially the same except for HD video and more pixels
    which it didn't need anyway. There may also be an update to the
    processor. Although Canon dosen't list the SX1 IS, reviews state it's
    still available. My A95 went kaput and I'm back to using the old A40, a
    2mp camera that takes excellent shots withing it's limitations. It's
    that 2mp that convinces me that ever more pixels are just a marketing
    gimmick plus the reinforcement of comments in this group from people who
    are more dedicated photographers than myself.
    If I do upgrade again, I would get the SX20 unless the SX1 IS were
    available at worthwhile cost saving. I don't find the AA batteries to be
    a disadvantage except for a little more size and weight and I insist on
    having some form of viewfinder, something that seems to be omitted from
    more and more p&s's.
     
    Dave Cohen, May 27, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave Cohen

    SMS Guest

    On 27/05/10 8:07 AM, Dave Cohen wrote:
    > On 5/26/2010 6:19 PM, F wrote:
    >> I'm looking to replace my ageing Panasonic FZ30 and am considering the
    >> Canon SX1 IS and the Panasonic FZ38. Does anyone know whether or not
    >> either of these is likely to be replaced in the next couple of months?
    >>
    >> TIA
    >>

    > According to the Canon site, the SX1 IS is replaced by SX20 IS. This
    > seems to be essentially the same except for HD video and more pixels
    > which it didn't need anyway.


    The SX1 IS does higher resolution HD video than the SX20 IS.

    > There may also be an update to the
    > processor. Although Canon dosen't list the SX1 IS, reviews state it's
    > still available. My A95 went kaput and I'm back to using the old A40, a
    > 2mp camera that takes excellent shots withing it's limitations.


    Yeah, I have an old A60 that I got my son many years ago. Great camera,
    but I upgraded the kids to two of the A570 IS because of the IS and the
    video capability. There's also no CHDK available for the A60, and since
    I helped write the documentation for CHDK I wanted cameras that it
    supported.

    > It's
    > that 2mp that convinces me that ever more pixels are just a marketing
    > gimmick plus the reinforcement of comments in this group from people who
    > are more dedicated photographers than myself.


    There's definitely some negatives as the pixel count goes up and the
    pixel size goes down, but it wasn't reached at 2MP for the P&S cameras.
    I really like the Canon models with the 7.1MP sensor, a sweet spot in
    P&S for Canon. I also have an SD800 IS which was the only pocket camera
    with a wide angle lens AND an optical viewfinder. It was also the only
    P&S I ever saw go UP in price during its lifteime, because it was in
    very high demand. There is no replacement for it--there are pocket
    models with wide angle-lens but no viewfinder, and models with a
    viewfinder but no wide-angle lens.

    > If I do upgrade again, I would get the SX20 unless the SX1 IS were
    > available at worthwhile cost saving. I don't find the AA batteries to be
    > a disadvantage except for a little more size and weight and I insist on
    > having some form of viewfinder, something that seems to be omitted from
    > more and more p&s's.


    Good points, though I find a Li-Ion battery preferable because a) it
    lasts much longer, b) it's more reliable in terms of the physical design
    of the contacts and battery holder, and c) you get a much better
    indication of the remaining energy in the battery because the Li-Ion
    battery has a linear voltage/capacity curve. If there are after-market
    Li-Ion packs for the camera they're also generally cheaper than buying
    the same capacity in Sanyo Eneloops or other low-discharge AA NiMH cells.

    Even with the CHDK battery feature on AA powered Canon cameras, which
    gives you more information about the state of the battery, it still
    can't fix the inherent flat discharge curve of an NiMH battery (if you
    use disposable Lithium AA batteries then you don't have the problem).

    I'd be very wary of the SX20 IS in terms of noise. It uses a higher
    resolution sensor, and it's CCD not CMOS. The SX1 IS is pretty good in
    terms of noise because of the CMOS sensor and because they didn't go
    crazy in terms of megapixels.

    In any case, the original poster should just get the SX1 IS. The battery
    type is a minor issue. Even if Panasonic comes out with an FZ-38
    replacement it will likely suffer the same noise problems as the FZ-38
    unless Panasonic does some radical shift in their designs. It's a shame
    about Panasonic because if you look just at the specifications they have
    some compelling models that seem like just the perfect camera with
    combinations of features that you often can't get from other
    manufacturers. But they just have never been able to get a handle on
    their noise problems. The most amusing review I read of the FZ-38 was
    the faint praise that 'the noise is not much higher than the FZ-28'!
    Yeah, I guess that's a good thing, LOL.

    One problem with these super-zooms is that their often unfairly compared
    to D-SLRs rather than to P&Ss. Of course they'll never be able to be as
    good as D-SLR with a much larger, much lower noise sensor, and the
    AF/lag will never be as good with contrast detection AF as it is with
    phase detect AF. Guess one should "never say never" but it's hard to get
    around the basic physics.
     
    SMS, May 27, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave Cohen

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >One problem with these super-zooms is that their often unfairly compared
    > >to D-SLRs rather than to P&Ss. Of course they'll never be able to be as
    > >good as D-SLR with a much larger, much lower noise sensor, and the
    > >AF/lag will never be as good with contrast detection AF as it is with
    > >phase detect AF. Guess one should "never say never" but it's hard to get
    > >around the basic physics.

    >
    > Total nonsense.


    it's not nonsense.
     
    nospam, May 27, 2010
    #3
  4. Dave Cohen

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:47:28 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >
    >Yeah, I have an old A60 that I got my son many years ago. Great camera,
    >but I upgraded the kids to two of the A570 IS because of the IS and the
    >video capability. There's also no CHDK available for the A60, and since
    >I helped write the documentation for CHDK I wanted cameras that it
    >supported.



    You don't have it on any camera. You can't even tell someone how it works.
    We've already tested and proved that about you. And the WIKI history PROVES
    that you've NEVER contributed even ONE WORD to the documentation, you
    useless psychotic pretend-photographer troll.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, May 27, 2010
    #4
  5. Dave Cohen

    GGBrowne Guest

    On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:47:28 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >
    >I'd be very wary of the SX20 IS in terms of noise. It uses a higher
    >resolution sensor, and it's CCD not CMOS. The SX1 IS is pretty good in
    >terms of noise because of the CMOS sensor and because they didn't go
    >crazy in terms of megapixels.


    Proving yet again that you just make up all these things out of your
    delusional pea-brain. CMOS are slightly more noisy than CCD, due to the
    smaller photosite sizes caused by the extra circuitry required between
    photosites.
     
    GGBrowne, May 27, 2010
    #5
  6. Dave Cohen

    SMS Guest

    On 27/05/10 4:22 PM, Bowser wrote:

    > Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in
    > the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed.
    > Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR.


    You've got to understand the issue here. Apparently our favorite troll
    has an FZ-35/FZ-38 so by default that camera becomes the perfect camera
    and it can have no faults.

    Unlike you and I, who could objectively look at most any item we own and
    point out both its highs and lows to someone who inquires about it,
    there are people that immediately after purchasing an item feel
    compelled to justify the purchase to the entire world and make it clear
    that their purchasing decision was in fact the best possible one. It's
    deep-seated insecurity that causes this behavior.

    The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces
    acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features.
    But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image
    quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR.
     
    SMS, May 28, 2010
    #6
  7. "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:4bff1afc$0$1591$...
    []
    > The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces
    > acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features.
    > But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image
    > quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR.


    Yes, many small-sensor cameras can produce adequate photos under good
    lighting conditions, but many do not work well at higher ISO settings
    (e.g. ISO 3200) and few have the wide-aperture lenses (e.g. f/1.8)
    available to DSLRs. With the DSLR can can buy whatever lens quality you
    wish to afford, with the ZLR you are stuck with what's provided.

    Your needs, your money, your choice.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 28, 2010
    #7
  8. Dave Cohen

    J. Caldwell Guest

    On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:52:40 +0100, "David J Taylor"
    <> wrote:

    >"SMS" <> wrote in message
    >news:4bff1afc$0$1591$...
    >[]
    >> The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces
    >> acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features.
    >> But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image
    >> quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR.

    >
    >Yes, many small-sensor cameras can produce adequate photos under good
    >lighting conditions, but many do not work well at higher ISO settings
    >(e.g. ISO 3200) and few have the wide-aperture lenses (e.g. f/1.8)
    >available to DSLRs. With the DSLR can can buy whatever lens quality you
    >wish to afford, with the ZLR you are stuck with what's provided.
    >
    >Your needs, your money, your choice.
    >
    >David


    Hmm.... buy 15 different P&S cameras, or for the same price buy worthwhile
    glass for a DSLR that doesn't provide any greater resolution, better CA
    correction, nor image quality .... decisions decisions ...
     
    J. Caldwell, May 28, 2010
    #8
  9. Dave Cohen

    SMS Guest

    On 28/05/10 3:41 AM, F wrote:

    <snip>

    > As for the SX1, as well as good reviews, it's very 'controllable', it
    > has a fast burst mode, it has a viewfinder (which I consider vital), the
    > LCD can be rotated (again, very useful and missing on the later
    > Panasonics) and it uses AA batteries. Oh, and there's currently a £50
    > cashback offer on it from Canon. The only downside I can see is that,
    > like the later Panasonics, it doesn't have the manual zoom ring of the
    > FZ30.


    Yeah, manual zoom rings are great, but unfortunately that's a feature
    that's been decontented out of most ZLRs.

    Good choice. Consider trying CHDK on it. The SX1 already has many of the
    features that CHDK provides to the lower end Canon models, but there's
    still some useful stuff in there. If you have any questions on CHDK let
    me know. I wrote a lot of documentation for it and I'm very familiar
    with it.
     
    SMS, May 28, 2010
    #9
  10. Dave Cohen

    SMS Guest

    On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote:

    > Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes
    > ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass
    > on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore
    > me.


    I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to
    digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at
    first, then as you stated, it gets boring.
     
    SMS, May 28, 2010
    #10
  11. Dave Cohen

    LOL! Guest

    On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:59:11 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >On 28/05/10 3:41 AM, F wrote:
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >> As for the SX1, as well as good reviews, it's very 'controllable', it
    >> has a fast burst mode, it has a viewfinder (which I consider vital), the
    >> LCD can be rotated (again, very useful and missing on the later
    >> Panasonics) and it uses AA batteries. Oh, and there's currently a £50
    >> cashback offer on it from Canon. The only downside I can see is that,
    >> like the later Panasonics, it doesn't have the manual zoom ring of the
    >> FZ30.

    >
    >Yeah, manual zoom rings are great, but unfortunately that's a feature
    >that's been decontented out of most ZLRs.
    >
    >Good choice. Consider trying CHDK on it. The SX1 already has many of the
    >features that CHDK provides to the lower end Canon models, but there's
    >still some useful stuff in there. If you have any questions on CHDK let
    >me know. I wrote a lot of documentation for it and I'm very familiar
    >with it.


    Oh, PLEASE do ask SMS how to use any part of CHDK. This is a laugh whenever
    this happens. This psychotic SMS troll who has NEVER touched CHDK doesn't
    know a damn thing about it. Even if you ask him how to install it he gets
    that wrong! Dozens of people have asked him things about CHDK in the past
    and he conveniently ignores their questions, pretending he never saw them.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, May 28, 2010
    #11
  12. Dave Cohen

    SMS Guest

    On 28/05/10 3:41 AM, F wrote:

    <snip>

    > The temptation to wait for the next new iteration, however, was never
    > very strong. I was just concerned that if I bought today and a new one
    > was announced tomorrow I might just have missed something that was
    > 'better'. Note the *might*!


    We're really at the point now where there's not going to be any
    significant improvements unless there is some new sensor technology that
    emerges. Other than SLRs with larger sensors, even the megapixel wars
    seem to have mostly ended because the manufacturers don't want to
    further reduce the high ISO performance or increase noise. Also, what
    often happens is the replacement model is worse than the one it
    replaces, not better, because features that are deemed too costly are
    removed, i.e. optical viewfinder, articulated LCD, etc.

    The interchangeable lens non-DSLRs are the new market segment that Sony
    and the Micro 4:3 consortium is trying to promote but it's unclear that
    there's any demand for such a system that lacks many of the advantages
    of D-SLRs, and addresses only the question of physical size.
     
    SMS, May 28, 2010
    #12
  13. Dave Cohen

    SMS Guest

    On 28/05/10 1:52 AM, David J Taylor wrote:

    > Yes, many small-sensor cameras can produce adequate photos under good
    > lighting conditions, but many do not work well at higher ISO settings
    > (e.g. ISO 3200) and few have the wide-aperture lenses (e.g. f/1.8)
    > available to DSLRs. With the DSLR can can buy whatever lens quality you
    > wish to afford, with the ZLR you are stuck with what's provided.
    >
    > Your needs, your money, your choice.


    Many people simply don't care all that much about optimal image quality.
    The ZLR is convenient, relatively inexpensive, and suits their needs.
    One of my relatives is a Realtor. He needs a wide zoom range for photo
    tours of houses. He needs video capability. But he doesn't care about
    noise, he doesn't care about shutter/AF lag, and he definitely does not
    want to carry around three lenses with him. An SX1 IS was perfect for
    him. Of course he has a D-SLR as well for times with image quality _is_
    the most important factor.
     
    SMS, May 28, 2010
    #13
  14. Dave Cohen

    LOL! Guest

    On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:05:52 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >On 28/05/10 1:52 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> Yes, many small-sensor cameras can produce adequate photos under good
    >> lighting conditions, but many do not work well at higher ISO settings
    >> (e.g. ISO 3200) and few have the wide-aperture lenses (e.g. f/1.8)
    >> available to DSLRs. With the DSLR can can buy whatever lens quality you
    >> wish to afford, with the ZLR you are stuck with what's provided.
    >>
    >> Your needs, your money, your choice.

    >
    >Many people simply don't care all that much about optimal image quality.
    >The ZLR is convenient, relatively inexpensive, and suits their needs.
    >One of my relatives is a Realtor. He needs a wide zoom range for photo
    >tours of houses. He needs video capability. But he doesn't care about
    >noise, he doesn't care about shutter/AF lag, and he definitely does not
    >want to carry around three lenses with him. An SX1 IS was perfect for
    >him. Of course he has a D-SLR as well for times with image quality _is_
    >the most important factor.


    LOL!!!!

    Too fuckin' funny.

    Now that someone in the newsgroup wanted to buy an SX1, suddenly every
    imaginary relative and imaginary friend that SMS has, also has an SX1.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    LOL!, May 28, 2010
    #14
  15. Dave Cohen

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:4bffdaf5$0$1600$...
    > On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote:
    >
    >> Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes
    >> ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass
    >> on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore
    >> me.

    >
    > I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to
    > digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at
    > first, then as you stated, it gets boring.


    He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well...

    The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his
    comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art
    / science of picture taking.

    As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can
    produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but
    the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens
    interchangeability.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, May 28, 2010
    #15
  16. Dave Cohen

    nospam Guest

    In article <XNTLn.5310$z%6.360@edtnps83>, Dudley Hanks
    <> wrote:

    > The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his
    > comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art
    > / science of picture taking.


    very true, and he considers anything other than what he purchased is
    junk. point out an advantage of a different product and it's "i don't
    need that feature." that's wonderful but other people might.

    > As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can
    > produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but
    > the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens
    > interchangeability.


    of course. it depends whether someone wants convenience and portability
    versus quality and flexibility. there's a reason why pro photographers
    don't use compact digicams.
     
    nospam, May 28, 2010
    #16
  17. Dave Cohen

    DanP Guest

    On May 28, 2:40 am, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:59 -0700, SMS <>
    > wrote in <4bff1afc$0$1591$>:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On 27/05/10 4:22 PM, Bowser wrote:

    >
    > >> Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in
    > >> the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed.
    > >> Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR.

    >
    > >You've got to understand the issue here. Apparently our favorite troll
    > >has an FZ-35/FZ-38 so by default that camera becomes the perfect camera
    > >and it can have no faults.

    >
    > >Unlike you and I, who could objectively look at most any item we own and
    > >point out both its highs and lows to someone who inquires about it,
    > >there are people that immediately after purchasing an item feel
    > >compelled to justify the purchase to the entire world and make it clear
    > >that their purchasing decision was in fact the best possible one. It's
    > >deep-seated insecurity that causes this behavior.

    >
    > >The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces
    > >acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features.
    > >But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image
    > >quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR.

    >
    > The actual reality is that you have zero experience with any of these
    > cameras, and have no idea what you're talking about.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John
    >
    > Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
    > it makes you a dSLR owner.
    > "The single most important component of a camera
    > is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams


    Erm, have you ever tried a DSLR?


    DanP
     
    DanP, May 28, 2010
    #17
  18. Dave Cohen

    SMS Guest

    On 28/05/10 11:18 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > "SMS"<> wrote in message
    > news:4bffdaf5$0$1600$...
    >> On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote:
    >>
    >>> Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes
    >>> ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass
    >>> on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore
    >>> me.

    >>
    >> I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to
    >> digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at
    >> first, then as you stated, it gets boring.

    >
    > He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well...
    >
    > The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his
    > comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art
    > / science of picture taking.


    It's always amusing, though rather sad, to see Usenet (and other forum)
    posts where the sole purpose of the poster is to try to justify their
    purchase. It's as if it's a personal insult when someone points out even
    the slightest flaw in the product and why some other product might be
    better.

    For most people, there's not a single item they've ever purchased that
    they could not point out some issue with, and often they were well aware
    of the issue prior to the purchase. If someone asks about something they
    own, they're likely to be honest about it and point out both the pros
    and cons, and why they made their selection.

    > As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can
    > produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but
    > the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens
    > interchangeability.


    For outdoor photos in good light with non-moving subjects, a superzoom
    can produce good results, and is certainly more convenient than a D-SLR.
    The reason why D-SLR sales are going up so much faster is the situations
    where they excel--low light, moving subjects, and better wide angle and
    telephoto lenses than the compromise lenses on the ZLRs.
     
    SMS, May 28, 2010
    #18
  19. Dave Cohen

    C. Werner Guest

    On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT), DanP <>
    wrote:

    >On May 28, 2:40 am, John Navas <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:59 -0700, SMS <>
    >> wrote in <4bff1afc$0$1591$>:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >On 27/05/10 4:22 PM, Bowser wrote:

    >>
    >> >> Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in
    >> >> the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed.
    >> >> Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR.

    >>
    >> >You've got to understand the issue here. Apparently our favorite troll
    >> >has an FZ-35/FZ-38 so by default that camera becomes the perfect camera
    >> >and it can have no faults.

    >>
    >> >Unlike you and I, who could objectively look at most any item we own and
    >> >point out both its highs and lows to someone who inquires about it,
    >> >there are people that immediately after purchasing an item feel
    >> >compelled to justify the purchase to the entire world and make it clear
    >> >that their purchasing decision was in fact the best possible one. It's
    >> >deep-seated insecurity that causes this behavior.

    >>
    >> >The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces
    >> >acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features.
    >> >But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image
    >> >quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR.

    >>
    >> The actual reality is that you have zero experience with any of these
    >> cameras, and have no idea what you're talking about.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Best regards,
    >> John
    >>
    >> Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
    >> it makes you a dSLR owner.
    >> "The single most important component of a camera
    >> is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

    >
    >Erm, have you ever tried a DSLR?
    >
    >
    >DanP


    I sold my favorite one (and gave a couple away) when I found out that
    high-quality P&S cameras were far more adaptable and versatile with just as
    good, if not better, image quality in some of them. You might want to
    actually compare cameras some day and put them through their paces instead
    of listening to all the insecure trolls online trying to justify why they
    wasted so much money trying to get their DSLRs to get decent snapshots. If
    you had as many wide-ranging creative requirements as I do for my
    photographic gear, and could actually think for yourself, you'd ditch your
    DSLRs too.
     
    C. Werner, May 28, 2010
    #19
  20. Dave Cohen

    LOL! Guest

    On Fri, 28 May 2010 18:18:31 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"SMS" <> wrote in message
    >news:4bffdaf5$0$1600$...
    >> On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote:
    >>
    >>> Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes
    >>> ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass
    >>> on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore
    >>> me.

    >>
    >> I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to
    >> digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at
    >> first, then as you stated, it gets boring.

    >
    >He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well...
    >
    >The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his
    >comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art
    >/ science of picture taking.
    >
    >As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can
    >produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but
    >the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens
    >interchangeability.
    >


    And you would know this because ....

    You actually see the images you take?

    News Flash: Blind Photographer hired by DPReview to do all their latest
    camera and lens reviews. Word has it that he's even better than their
    present camera reviewers. (Actually, there wouldn't be much difference.)

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, May 28, 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. Morgan Ohlson

    Upgraded models, Canon A70 => A80

    Morgan Ohlson, Aug 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    374
  2. David

    New models from Canon

    David, Dec 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    362
    Tony Spadaro
    Dec 25, 2003
  3. Steve Lee
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    431
    Chicha
    Jun 29, 2004
  4. SMS

    Re: Canon and Panasonic: updated models

    SMS, May 27, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    327
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Re: Canon and Panasonic: updated models

    Dudley Hanks, May 28, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    459
    Peter
    May 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page