Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sherry Miller, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. Sherry Miller, Nov 20, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats Canon DSLR

    Sherry Miller wrote:

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

    > If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
    > that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
    > lens for their budget line of DSLR's.


    Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
    didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
    price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.

    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 20, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sherry Miller

    SMS Guest

    Sherry Miller wrote:
    > Morey Staffer wrote:
    >>
    >> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
    >>
    >>

    >
    > If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
    > that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
    > for their budget line of DSLR's.


    That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
    as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
    that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.

    Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.
    SMS, Nov 20, 2008
    #3
  4. Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats Canon DSLR

    ParkerGrant <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:21:02 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:


    >>Sherry Miller wrote:
    >>
    >>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
    >>
    >>> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
    >>> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
    >>> lens for their budget line of DSLR's.

    >>
    >>Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
    >>didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
    >>price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.
    >>
    >>David


    > Why? A talented photographer they can do all their photography even at ISO25 if
    > they want to. Many real pros have done just that for many decades. High ISO is
    > the amateur's crutch. Someone thinking that a selling point is just revealing
    > that they know very little about how to use a camera properly and even less
    > about the art of photography.


    By that argument the most talented professionals are those using
    pinhole cameras. Lenses are just an amateur's crutch.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Nov 20, 2008
    #4
  5. Sherry Miller

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats Canon DSLR

    ben_pallace wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:25:54 +0000, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> ParkerGrant wrote:
    >>> Why? A talented photographer they can do all their photography even at ISO25 if
    >>> they want to.

    >> I await such shots from a moody, smoky acoustic gig
    >> in a club.
    >>
    >> BugBear

    >
    > Depends on the effect that you want to achieve. Some motion-blur is more than
    > welcomed, it is required to impart some moods and overall ambiance to make a
    > photo a success. A pro might also request that some strategically placed, but
    > unobtrusive, lighting might be allowed.
    >
    > I have some photos of this nature taken at ISO80 from quite a few all-night
    > outdoor music events. Most of the event lit up with just campfires with a few
    > dim colored lights hitting the stage. Taken hand-held with a 300mm f.l. lens.
    > You wait for the right moment to click the shutter. When the artist's face might
    > be perfectly still but their hand might be in motion to show their work on the
    > frets of the guitar. Or the moment when their head dips to a limit of its motion
    > and catching a flair of blurry hair, but the face remains tack-sharp for that
    > partial second. It's all about the timing, knowing your subject, and being able
    > to anticipate when to trip the shutter. It's called talent, and the art of
    > photography. Something that so few of you ever seem to discuss. Most likely
    > because none of you know what it is. You all want that camera to do it all for
    > you, don't you. Buy another one, maybe there's talent inside that next camera.
    > Maybe it's listed on the box or in the manual somewhere. Keep looking, you might
    > one day find it.
    >

    I call bullshit.
    Based on your description of the lighting, (campfire, a few
    dim stage lights), I'd estimate the subject brightness to
    typically be about EV4. If you are understating the actual
    lighting, and the stage lights are quite a bit brighter than
    you are describing, then maybe you'd get to EV6 brightness.
    If that is the case, at ISO 80 and F2.8, you'd need a
    1/10sec exposure. Handheld at 300mm for 1/10 sec to give
    tack sharp images? not bloody likely, even with an excellent
    IS system.
    Doug Jewell, Nov 20, 2008
    #5
  6. Sherry Miller

    SMS Guest

    Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats Canon DSLR

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Sherry Miller wrote:
    >
    > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
    >
    >
    >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
    >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
    >> lens for their budget line of DSLR's.

    >
    > Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
    > didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
    > price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.


    If anything, that comparison convinced me not to buy an SX10!

    I do have the Canon 18-55mm kit lens, but I got it because the
    difference in price between body-only and the kit was very small. It's
    actually not as bad as that comparison shows, when used in the proper
    conditions.

    They could have used even worse lenses if they wanted to; the kit lenses
    Canon used to include on their film Rebel cameras.

    The key point is that with a D-SLR you're not stuck with crappy lenses
    like you are with P&S cameras, which often don't even have glass lenses
    but horrible acrylic lenses.

    OTOH, if all you care about is zoom range, and don't care about image
    quality, noise, dynamic range, etc., then the SX10 is an excellent
    choice. They'll sell a lot of them to people that don't know any better.
    SMS, Nov 20, 2008
    #6
  7. Sherry Miller

    frank Guest

    On Nov 20, 4:58 am, Tod Burnstein <>
    wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <> wrote:
    > >Sherry Miller wrote:
    > >> Morey Staffer wrote:

    >
    > >>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res....

    >
    > >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
    > >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
    > >> for their budget line of DSLR's.

    >
    > >That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
    > >as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
    > >that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.

    >
    > >Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.

    >
    > I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
    > enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7)  to beat the images from that camera..
    >
    > 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
    > extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
    > much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?
    >
    > Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
    > bother to carry them with you that is.
    >
    > Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
    > up.
    >
    > What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
    > ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
    > similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.
    >
    > Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.


    Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
    with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
    optics.
    frank, Nov 20, 2008
    #7
  8. Sherry Miller

    Pete D Guest

    "Donald Rippley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:08:28 -0800 (PST), frank
    > <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>On Nov 20, 4:58 am, Tod Burnstein <>
    >>wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>> >Sherry Miller wrote:
    >>> >> Morey Staffer wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res...
    >>>
    >>> >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this
    >>> >> shows
    >>> >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
    >>> >> lens
    >>> >> for their budget line of DSLR's.
    >>>
    >>> >That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as
    >>> >bad
    >>> >as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
    >>> >that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.
    >>>
    >>> >Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.
    >>>
    >>> I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR
    >>> with
    >>> enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) to beat the images from that camera.
    >>>
    >>> 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug
    >>> around at an
    >>> extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for
    >>> $5000? How
    >>> much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?
    >>>
    >>> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you
    >>> even
    >>> bother to carry them with you that is.
    >>>
    >>> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you
    >>> add it
    >>> up.
    >>>
    >>> What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S
    >>> could
    >>> ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've
    >>> seen many
    >>> similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.
    >>>
    >>> Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.

    >>
    >>Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
    >>with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
    >>optics.

    >
    > Can't even do the math eh? Figured as much.
    >
    > There's one other little important tidbit that only amateur trolls
    > wouldn't
    > know, or be able to keep in their itty minds, "Content trumps quality --
    > EVERY
    > TIME."
    >


    Silly girl, how sad for you.
    Pete D, Nov 20, 2008
    #8
  9. Sherry Miller

    frank Guest

    On Nov 20, 12:11 pm, Donald Rippley <>
    wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:08:28 -0800 (PST), frank <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Nov 20, 4:58 am, Tod Burnstein <>
    > >wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <> wrote:
    > >> >Sherry Miller wrote:
    > >> >> Morey Staffer wrote:

    >
    > >> >>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res...

    >
    > >> >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
    > >> >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
    > >> >> for their budget line of DSLR's.

    >
    > >> >That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
    > >> >as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
    > >> >that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.

    >
    > >> >Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.

    >
    > >> I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
    > >> enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7)  to beat the images from that camera.

    >
    > >> 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
    > >> extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
    > >> much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?

    >
    > >> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
    > >> bother to carry them with you that is.

    >
    > >> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
    > >> up.

    >
    > >> What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
    > >> ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
    > >> similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.

    >
    > >> Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.

    >
    > >Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
    > >with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
    > >optics.

    >
    > Can't even do the math eh? Figured as much.
    >
    > There's one other little important tidbit that only amateur trolls wouldn't
    > know, or be able to keep in their itty minds, "Content trumps quality -- EVERY
    > TIME."


    No, I've done more math than you can ever dream of in your life. More
    photography also. How about a few thousand rolls of 35mm a year. Not
    to mention digital.

    And no, I don't post on line.

    Wanker.
    frank, Nov 20, 2008
    #9
  10. Sherry Miller

    SMS Guest

    Jurgen wrote:
    > bradford andersen <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:42:31 -0600, Sherry Miller
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Morey Staffer wrote:
    >>>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res
    >>>> ults.shtml
    >>>>
    >>> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
    >>> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
    >>> lens for their budget line of DSLR's.

    >> So .... that means, what? That you're going to have to throw another
    >> $2000+ worth of lenses at the DSLR in order to make it beat the image
    >> quality and keep the same zoom range as the P&S camera? Sounds like
    >> what you are saying.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > There is a small thing called "resolving power" that is convieniently
    > missing from the assment of this camera. The crap sensor is one exaple and
    > the plastic element lens is another of why it will never really rival a
    > DSLR.


    Yeah, that's one attribute I wish would be included in the camera
    databases. Too many people look only at specifications, without
    understanding what _isn't_ specified.

    > Good luch with your faith in the toy. It doesn't "beat" a DSLR or for that
    > matter even rival one with image quality. All it has is a lens that might
    > last out the camera and might not - that has a reach few people will ever
    > need at a sacrifice in quality that will never show up until you try to
    > print an enlargement.


    Very true. All the experts agree on this.
    SMS, Nov 20, 2008
    #10
  11. Sherry Miller

    Jurgen Guest

    joshua_brandt <> wrote in
    news::


    >>
    >>> Good luch with your faith in the toy. It doesn't "beat" a DSLR or
    >>> for that matter even rival one with image quality. All it has is a
    >>> lens that might last out the camera and might not - that has a reach
    >>> few people will ever need at a sacrifice in quality that will never
    >>> show up until you try to print an enlargement.

    >>
    >>Very true. All the experts agree on this.

    >
    > Clarify that statement: All "'expert' pretend-photographer
    > resident-DSLR-trolls on usenet agree on this." Then you will be
    > believed.
    >
    > "I always break the word expert in two -- into X, the unknown
    > quantity; and spurt, a drip working under pressure." - Edwina
    > Mountbatten
    >


    I guess it school holiday time again.

    The children come to play in an adult world.
    Complete with their juvenile opinions and fake knowledge. Josh, get some
    experience under your belt before you start telling professional
    photographers you know more than them. You don't. You just prooved that.
    Jurgen, Nov 21, 2008
    #11
  12. Sherry Miller

    SMS Guest

    Jurgen wrote:

    <snip>

    > I guess it school holiday time again.
    >
    > The children come to play in an adult world.
    > Complete with their juvenile opinions and fake knowledge. Josh, get some
    > experience under your belt before you start telling professional
    > photographers you know more than them. You don't. You just prooved that.


    +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
    | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
    | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
    | Thank you, | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
    | rec.photo.digital | ( (_) )
    | management | /`-vvv-'\
    +-------------------+ / \
    | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
    | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
    @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
    \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
    \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    ======================================================================
    SMS, Nov 21, 2008
    #12
  13. Sherry Miller

    Rich Guest

    Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats Canon DSLR

    On Nov 20, 9:04 pm, Stephen Bishop <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:35:26 -0600, ParkerGrant
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:51:48 -0600, ParkerGrant <>
    > >wrote:

    >
    > >>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/3046389190_e8899ef47f_o.jpg

    >
    > >Sorry, bad link. Try again:

    >
    > >http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/3046478954_f20aed5157_o.jpg

    >
    > Ok, that link worked. Unfortunately, even at that low magnification
    > the purple fringing is terrible. That's typical of many p&s cameras.


    Dpreview could use a standard review for all P&S's:
    -Coloured fringing at the edge of the field.
    -Difficult achieving good focus on the long end.
    -Focus response and shutter response slow.
    -High noise at any ISO beyond 200 with noticeable, detail-killing
    noise reduction beyond 800.
    Rich, Nov 21, 2008
    #13
  14. Sherry Miller

    SMS Guest

    Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats Canon DSLR

    Rich wrote:

    <snip>

    > Dpreview could use a standard review for all P&S's:
    > -Coloured fringing at the edge of the field.
    > -Difficult achieving good focus on the long end.
    > -Focus response and shutter response slow.
    > -High noise at any ISO beyond 200 with noticeable, detail-killing
    > noise reduction beyond 800.


    And remember, they don't publish reviews of the really horrible cameras.
    The worst rating you'll ever see is "above average" and that's reserved
    for the worst of the worst that they review, such as the Sigma DP1, the
    Olympus, SP-550 UZ, and the Sony DSC-H7.
    SMS, Nov 21, 2008
    #14
  15. Sherry Miller

    measekite Guest

    Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats Canon DSLR

    On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:04:07 -0800, SMS wrote:

    > Rich wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> Dpreview could use a standard review for all P&S's:
    >> -Coloured fringing at the edge of the field.
    >> -Difficult achieving good focus on the long end.
    >> -Focus response and shutter response slow.
    >> -High noise at any ISO beyond 200 with noticeable, detail-killing
    >> noise reduction beyond 800.

    >
    > And remember, they don't publish reviews of the really horrible cameras.
    > The worst rating you'll ever see is "above average" and that's reserved
    > for the worst of the worst that they review, such as the Sigma DP1, the
    > Olympus, SP-550 UZ, and the Sony DSC-H7.


    And why do you think that is?
    measekite, Nov 22, 2008
    #15
  16. Sherry Miller

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: |TROLL| Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats Canon DSLR

    Vern <ParkerGrant> wrote:
    > Vern <ParkerGrant> wrote:
    >>
    >> With IS I am able to take tack-sharp hand-held images at 1 second exposure at
    >> 430mm f.l. (35mm eq.) Here's a quick sample for you:
    >>
    >> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/3046389190_e8899ef47f_o.jpg

    >
    > Sorry, bad link. Try again:
    >
    > http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/3046478954_f20aed5157_o.jpg


    This pic:
    "tack-sharp hand-held images at 1 second exposure at 430mm"
    http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/photo_unavailable.gif

    Wow, really really impressive!!!!
    Paul Furman, Nov 24, 2008
    #16
  17. Tod Burnstein <> wrote:

    [SX10 IS]
    > I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
    > enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) to beat the images from that camera.


    Oh, about any fixed focal lengh lens will beat the images to
    a finely ground pulp. To wit:
    - The 'f/2.8' has the DOF of a full frame camera at f/16,
    or a crop frame camera at f/8. The f/5.7 is FF: f/32 and
    CF: f/16. You have to search to find such slow lenses.
    - The pixel size is 1/11th compared to CF and 1/30th compared
    to FF. ISO 80 compares to ISO 880 on CF and to ISO 2400 on
    FF --- at the same noise, unless the SX10 is inherently so
    noisy that it's no longer photon noise limited.

    Think that through, and you'll see that the crop DSLR at ISO 800
    and f/8 has a slightly better performance and noise behaviour on
    your SX10's ISO 80 and f/2.8, while delivering a similar image.

    > 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
    > extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
    > much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?


    Surely: any 18-200/250mm and a 2x converter.
    Though you don't need the 2x converter, simply cropping the
    image and inventing random pixels to fill the gaps will do fine.

    Yes, that's using cameras to drive nails into walls and
    hammers to take images, but Tod-Troll --- btw., are you
    cleared with the owner of "repliesnotwanted.org" to use that
    email adress? --- wants that comparison. Proper DSLRs are
    sturdy enough to handle nails, too.

    > Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
    > bother to carry them with you that is.


    Uh ... zero?

    > Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
    > up.


    Go ahead, show me your 16mm (35mm equivalent) wide angle. My DSLR can do.
    Go ahead, show me your available light shots. 320mm (35mm
    equivalent), f/2.8, ISO 3200 or 6400 (equivalent via push
    development), 1/120s. Handheld, of course.

    I wait with bathed breath.

    > What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
    > ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
    > similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.


    Suuure. I can make the worst P&S win against the best
    DSLR, by just holding the hand over the lens at the right
    moment.

    > Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.


    Got any indoor pictures? Grab a webserver and start showing.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 29, 2008
    #17
  18. Vic Preston <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:32:58 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Tod Burnstein <> wrote:


    >>Think that through, and you'll see that the crop DSLR at ISO 800
    >>and f/8 has a slightly better performance and noise behaviour on
    >>your SX10's ISO 80 and f/2.8, while delivering a similar image.


    > Pro's don't need high ISO's.


    First, the plural of "Pro" is "Pros", not "Pro's". Unless you
    claim the singular is "Pro'".
    An apostrophe does *not* mean "Wake up, here comes a plural s".

    Second, thank you for proving that all these professional cameras
    --- that are those who excel in ruggedness and reliability and
    cost lots of money, not ones that have a 'pro' in their name ---
    don't have anything above ISO 100. Canon will be delighted to
    hear that their 1D series does not have capabilities they thought
    it had, Nikon will shake their heads sadly, ...
    Professional shooters (i.e. those who make money by producing
    photographies) worldwide will abandon almost all action and sports
    shooting. Press photographers will once more run around with huge
    magnesium powder flashes. Paparazzi and high society reporters
    (just look at many of the shots in the illustrated magazines of
    that kind, many are really high ISO and pushed hard) will
    commit mass suicide, flooding the streets with their blood,
    as they cut their throats with their shattered lenses ...

    In other words, you don't even have the faintest idea what you
    talk about. A simple google search would enlighten you, if
    you dared to open your eyes just a bit.

    I pity you, dumbass.


    >>> 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
    >>> extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
    >>> much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?


    >>Surely: any 18-200/250mm and a 2x converter.
    >>Though you don't need the 2x converter, simply cropping the
    >>image and inventing random pixels to fill the gaps will do fine.


    > Sorry, you just lost major aperture doing that.


    Doing what --- *not* using a 2x converter?
    At ISO 800 and f/8 a *CROP* DSLR still beats the SX10's ISO
    80 and f/2.8.

    >>> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
    >>> bother to carry them with you that is.


    >>Uh ... zero?


    > You must not do any photography then. Thanks for proving that.


    Using a single 18-250mm lens I loose how many shots changing
    that lens to itself? Zero, maybe?

    >>> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
    >>> up.


    >>Go ahead, show me your 16mm (35mm equivalent) wide angle. My DSLR can do.
    >>Go ahead, show me your available light shots. 320mm (35mm
    >>equivalent), f/2.8, ISO 3200 or 6400 (equivalent via push
    >>development), 1/120s. Handheld, of course.


    >>I wait with bathed breath.


    > My P&S cameras go seamlessly from 9mm f2.0 to 1248mm f/3.5.


    Liar. You have to change lenses. That's not seamless.
    And you don't own such a camera nor the necessary
    wannabe-converters.

    Show me your 9mm shots.
    Show me your 1248mm shots.
    Show me your 320mm, f/2.8, 1/120s, ISO 3200 shots.

    > With virtually no image degradation whatsoever at any of those focal
    > lengths.


    Read: With crappy images at all focal lengths, the
    degradation due to your "converters" is not visible.

    > Available light shots are never a problem.


    Show me your shots.

    > That's specifically why I switched to high quality
    > P&S cameras.


    That's specifically why I switched *away from* P&S cameras,
    "high quality" or not: they can't hack it.

    > Available light photography has been my forté all my life.


    You hide your knowledge well.

    > I detest using flash.


    You don't know how to use flash, that's all.

    > Available light photography requires spontaneity, you must capture
    > it as you see it.


    If you only "capture it as you see it", you need only one
    focal length, ca. 50mm. Your 9mm and 1248mm swaggering is
    completely irrelevant to AL.

    > You can't be fumbling with 20 lbs. of gear and changing 5
    > lenses trying to find the right one in hoping to get that shot in time before
    > the perfect moment of light is lost.


    That's why you only shoot with 50mm if "you must capture it
    as you see it". But you need high ISO, the human eye has
    ~ISO 800 and can integrate up to 15 seconds.

    >>Got any indoor pictures? Grab a webserver and start showing.


    > I'll leave it to you to find out why you've just revealed and proved your wholly
    > amateur level of photographic knowledge and total lack of any talent whatsoever
    > to the whole world.


    Thank you for proving you don't even have the gear you claim.
    You're even to stupid to find these shots somewhere on the web.

    Amateur? Sure am: I do photography for love, not for money!
    Is paid sex better for you than sex out of love?

    And "total lack of any talent whatsoever"? Simply because I have
    a different oppinion? And you judge without ever having seen
    a single shot from me? Tell me, did your mom raise you to be a
    prejudiced, overbearing, fatally stupid brat, or is she turning
    in her grave?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 6, 2008
    #18
  19. <"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
    news:gheg9u$ml4$...

    > The P&S troll is NOT a dumbass. He's a very, very smart and
    > accomplished troll. He know exactly how to make people mad,
    > which is his reason for posting. I suspect that he knows
    > exactly what he is talking about ... that is, he considers
    > every point he could make and is careful to make every technical
    > thing he says quite wrong. He is careful to calibrate
    > every insult to be so silly on its face that it makes people
    > really mad.


    Reminds me of this phenomenon:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html
    Andrew Koenig, Dec 6, 2008
    #19
  20. LeonardoVincente <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:11:52 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Vic Preston <> wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:32:58 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Tod Burnstein <> wrote:


    Dear idiot,
    I have removed 136 lines of uncommented quotes. I had
    secretly hoped you'd be in a mood to enter a serious silly
    debate, but you're only interested in a shit-flinging
    screaming match.

    Oh well, I refuse to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed
    opponent, no matter how loud you scream.

    > Many (new & improved) points


    All your 'new and improved' points are moot: I have already
    proven them wrong. Example: your first point:

    > (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) [with] wide-angle and telephoto
    > (telextender) add-on lenses [...] you can far surpass any range of
    > focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made
    > for larger format cameras.


    Where's 1600mm f/2.8? That's currently available, AS I
    POINTED OUT BEFORE, today, for larger format cameras.[1]
    Where's your 2000mm f/3.5? [2]
    Where's your 3400mm f/4? [3]
    And that's before adding any "telephoto add on lenses" to the
    front ...

    Not only are P&S cameras with their huge crop factors *much*
    worse performance when it comes to numerically identical focal
    lengths and apertures --- they cannot even match the focal lengths
    and apertures in first place ...

    The rest of your babbling is of similar quality and veracity.

    New material? Practically none, except mislabled shots that
    have falsified and inconsistent EXIF data and you pointing
    out that 'an experienced photographer [...] will always rely on
    prefocusing' ... which speaks for itself. Not to mention that the
    theoretical low shutter lag of a P&S is completely overshadowed
    by the display lag ...

    > "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
    > foolish thing."


    If you say the same thing more than a dozen times, it's foolish,
    and so are you.


    -Wolfgang










    [1] Sigma 300-800mm f/2.8 + 4/3rds camera.
    [2] [1] + 1.25x extender
    [3] Zeiss' 1700mm f/4 medium format lens + 4/3rds camera.
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 19, 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. Steve
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    274
    Steve
    Nov 20, 2008
  2. Colin.D
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    545
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    Dec 7, 2008
  3. Ray Fischer

    Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11

    Ray Fischer, Nov 22, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    486
  4. Ray Fischer

    Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11

    Ray Fischer, Nov 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    103
    Views:
    2,217
    Andrew Koenig
    Dec 5, 2008
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 30, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    326
    Ray Fischer
    Dec 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page