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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ray Fischer, Nov 22, 2008.

  1. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    ShawnParks <> wrote:

    >I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
    >doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
    >using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
    >
    >Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
    >on that page, I count, on average:
    >
    >4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
    >
    >6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
    >(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).


    The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
    zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    LindermanGrant <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>ShawnParks <> wrote:


    >>>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
    >>>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
    >>>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
    >>>
    >>>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
    >>>on that page, I count, on average:
    >>>
    >>>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
    >>>
    >>>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
    >>>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).

    >>
    >>The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
    >>zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

    >
    >Great!
    >
    >How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?


    How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
    sensor? How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens? Or a 12mm lens? Or
    a tilt-shift lens?

    Yes, you believe that screwdrivers are better than hammers. Don't let
    reality get in the way.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 22, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ray Fischer

    dj_nme Guest

    Stephen Bishop wrote:
    > On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:36:32 -0600, LindermanGrant
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 22 Nov 2008 20:37:23 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>
    >>> ShawnParks <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
    >>>> doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
    >>>> using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
    >>>>
    >>>> Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
    >>>> on that page, I count, on average:
    >>>>
    >>>> 4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
    >>>>
    >>>> 6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
    >>>> (a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
    >>> The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
    >>> zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

    >> Great!
    >>
    >> How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
    >> How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
    >> extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
    >> resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.
    >>
    >> So?
    >>
    >> How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
    >> missed-shots to beat that camera?
    >>
    >> You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?

    >
    > Let's look at the bottom line, shall we? Virtually NO professional
    > photographers trust their livlihoods on P&S cameras. Zip. Nada.
    > None. Virtually ALL professionals shooting digital shoot with a
    > dslr. (With the exception of the very high dollar pros who shoot MF
    > cameras with digital backs.)
    >
    > Maybe they all know something you don't?


    No all pros use a DSLR camera or MF digital, some use a Leica or Epson
    (d)RF camera.
    But that wasn't quite what you're attacking in P&S troll's post though,
    is it? :p
     
    dj_nme, Nov 23, 2008
    #3
  4. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Herb Reed <> wrote:
    >On 22 Nov 2008 23:41:27 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >
    >>LindermanGrant <> wrote:
    >>> (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>>>ShawnParks <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
    >>>>>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
    >>>>>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
    >>>>>on that page, I count, on average:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
    >>>>>
    >>>>>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
    >>>>>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
    >>>>
    >>>>The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
    >>>>zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
    >>>
    >>>Great!
    >>>
    >>>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?

    >>
    >>How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
    >>sensor?

    >
    >Not a requirement of a pro.


    Smirk. Nothing like moving the goalposts.

    > High ISO's are only required by amateurs who don't
    >know how to use a camera properly.


    And since you're such a great photographer I'm sure you can show us
    your photos taken in low-light condition at 200ISO with an f4 lens.

    >> How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens?

    >
    >Not a requirement of a pro.


    How would you know?

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 23, 2008
    #4
  5. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    patrick-connelly <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>Herb Reed <> wrote:
    >>>On 22 Nov 2008 23:41:27 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>LindermanGrant <> wrote:
    >>>>> (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>>>>>ShawnParks <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
    >>>>>>>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
    >>>>>>>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
    >>>>>>>on that page, I count, on average:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
    >>>>>>>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
    >>>>>>zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Great!
    >>>>>
    >>>>>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
    >>>>
    >>>>How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
    >>>>sensor?
    >>>
    >>>Not a requirement of a pro.

    >>
    >>Smirk. Nothing like moving the goalposts.
    >>
    >>> High ISO's are only required by amateurs who don't
    >>>know how to use a camera properly.

    >>
    >>And since you're such a great photographer I'm sure you can show us
    >>your photos taken in low-light condition at 200ISO with an f4 lens.

    >
    >Easily.


    Well?

    Where are they?

    >>>> How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens?
    >>>
    >>>Not a requirement of a pro.

    >>
    >>How would you know?

    >
    >That fact that I did know that and that you didn't have a clue,


    The fact that you believe it despite the fact that it's obviously not
    true merely confirms that you're a stupid troll.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 23, 2008
    #5
  6. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    TenneseeWillilams <> wrote:
    >On 23 Nov 2008 01:57:51 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >
    >
    >You're not allowed to reply to any of this until you answer this question that


    LOL!

    Sit on it and spin.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 23, 2008
    #6
  7. Ray Fischer

    -hh Guest

    The P&S Troll wrote:
    > Stephen Bishop <> wrote:
    > >Ever hear the phrase, "Jack of all trades, master of none?"  

    >
    > Ever hear the phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and believing
    > a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing" ?


    And then there's: "Repeating a Lie doesn't make it true."



    > You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver...


    Versatility doesn't assure that it is the *best* hammer, or the *best*
    screwdriver.


    > Are you going to tell me that just because a camera can tell you the ambient
    > temperature because it was fitted with a sensor to do just that, that the
    > accuracy of that temperature is less than the dedicated 1-degree increment
    > thermometer on your wall? And this is because a highly accurate digital
    > temperature sensor, accurate to 1/1000 degree, was attached to a camera?


    Ever hear the phrase: "False Precision."?


    > How does attaching a camera to a thermometer degrade the temperature that
    > that thermometer relays?


    It increases thermal lag, as well as introduces an additional source
    of heat and variations in power supply voltage, all of which induce
    gage errors.

    > By your reasoning that thermometer is now doing things
    > less accurately because a silly camera is now attached to it.


    See the Casio T-1000 & T-1200 wristwatches, which included a digital
    thermometer, as case studies. Due to gage errors due to body heat,
    they included a User-operated calibration adjustment setting based on
    if the watch was being worn or not. This changed the indicated
    temperature by generally 8 degrees (F). Plus it was found that
    simple variations in solar radiation (sun vs shade) and clothing (long
    vs short sleeved shirt) would also induce errors, generally of 5F-20F
    magnitude beyond the one already mentioned. Realistically, the only
    time that its thermocouple was reasonably accurate was if it was fully
    immersed in water for 2-4 minutes, with the "not worn" setting being
    used. Naturally, with this setting change, within roughly 10 minutes
    of getting out of the water, the air temperature would then read ~8F
    erroneously high.

    Thus, a final phrase here of: "Those who ignore history are doomed
    to repeat it".


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 23, 2008
    #7
  8. Ray Fischer

    -hh Guest

    The P&S Troll wrote:
    > -hh <> wrote:
    > >The P&S Troll wrote:
    > >> Stephen Bishop <> wrote:
    > >> >Ever hear the phrase, "Jack of all trades, master of none?"  

    >
    > >> Ever hear the phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and believing
    > >> a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing" ?

    >
    > >And then there's:  "Repeating a Lie doesn't make it true."


    Lack of reply...noted.


    > >> You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver....

    >
    > >Versatility doesn't assure that it is the *best* hammer, or the *best*
    > >screwdriver.


    Lack of reply...noted.


    > >> Are you going to tell me that just because a camera can tell you the ambient
    > >> temperature because it was fitted with a sensor to do just that, that the
    > >> accuracy of that temperature is less than the dedicated 1-degree increment
    > >> thermometer on your wall? And this is because a highly accurate digital
    > >> temperature sensor, accurate to 1/1000 degree, was attached to a camera?

    >
    > >Ever hear the phrase:  "False Precision."?


    Lack of reply...noted.


    > >> How does attaching a camera to a thermometer degrade the temperature that
    > >> that thermometer relays?

    >
    > >It increases thermal lag, as well as introduces an additional source
    > >of heat and variations in power supply voltage, all of which induce
    > >gage errors.


    Lack of reply...noted.



    > >> By your reasoning that thermometer is now doing things
    > >> less accurately because a silly camera is now attached to it.

    >
    > >See the Casio T-1000 & T-1200 wristwatches, which included a digital
    > >thermometer, as case studies.  Due to gage errors due to body heat,
    > >they included a User-operated calibration adjustment setting based on
    > >if the watch was being worn or not.  This changed the indicated
    > >temperature by generally 8 degrees (F).   Plus it was found that
    > >simple variations in solar radiation (sun vs shade) and clothing (long
    > >vs short sleeved shirt) would also induce errors, generally of 5F-20F
    > >magnitude beyond the one already mentioned.  Realistically, the only
    > >time that its thermocouple was reasonably accurate was if it was fully
    > >immersed in water for 2-4 minutes, with the "not worn" setting being
    > >used.  Naturally, with this setting change, within roughly 10 minutes
    > >of getting out of the water, the air temperature would then read ~8F
    > >erroneously high.

    >
    > >Thus, a final phrase here of:   "Those who ignore history are doomed
    > >to repeat it".

    >
    > >-hh

    >
    > Was anyone talking about wristwatch thermometers? No. Totally unrelated.


    Its simply YA example of a "Jack of All Trades" device and thus, is
    actually directly related to your claims.


    > WHEN USED PROPERLY ...


    A lame backpedalling phrase

    > ... A DEVICE CAN ...


    "CAN", not "SHALL"? Just more lame CYA backpedalling by the P&S
    Troll.


    > ...HAVE 1000 FUNCTIONS AND STILL PERFORM EACH
    > AND EVERY ONE OF THEM FLAWLESSLY.


    And still be cheaper than a device that simply does just one thing
    well? Not likely...

    and lest we forget, it was lower cost was what the P&S Troll was
    hanging his hat on. Now, he's in feature creep with his 1000-function
    self-propelled bottle opener and simply hanging himself, instead of
    recognizing the simple 99 cent church key.


    > Do you own a computer?


    Computer? Why bother when telepathy is far superior...and
    cheaper :)


    > FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED THE TEMPERATURE SENSOR
    > ON A CAMERA IS JUST AS ACCURATE AS ANY OTHER THERMOMETER.


    And the backpedalling here is the "for the purpose" caveat. Quite
    predictably lame.

    "Dance Puppet Dance!" ;-)


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 23, 2008
    #8
  9. PetePalance <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:12:38 -0500, Stephen Bishop <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>If you are truly an award-winning photographer, I would think you
    >>would have posted images that were more in line with your abilities.

    >
    >
    >You don't read anything that you reply to, do you, just like all usenet-trolls.
    >:)
    >
    >Didn't you just recently post a quote from someone that said exactly why real
    >pros don't post their marketable photography online? Is your memory also
    >hindered by your drastic lack of intellect? Must be. Those are some seriously
    >disabling qualities that you're displaying about yourself.


    Why do you steal from Douglas BW?

    Using his words without proper attribution and pretending they are your
    own constitutes plagiarism and maybe copyright infringement.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Nov 24, 2008
    #9
  10. Ray Fischer

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Stephen Bishop
    <> writes
    >On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:03:31 -0600, PetePalance
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:12:38 -0500, Stephen Bishop
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>If you are truly an award-winning photographer, I would think you
    >>>would have posted images that were more in line with your abilities.

    >>
    >>
    >>You don't read anything that you reply to, do you, just like all
    >>usenet-trolls.
    >>:)
    >>
    >>Didn't you just recently post a quote from someone that said exactly why real
    >>pros don't post their marketable photography online? Is your memory also
    >>hindered by your drastic lack of intellect? Must be. Those are some seriously
    >>disabling qualities that you're displaying about yourself.

    >
    >
    >You keep repeating that lie, and you keep clipping text. But don't
    >worry, the FBI is very good at forensics when it comes to someone
    >making online threats.


    The FBI has no jurisdiction other than mainland USA. Besides ranting on
    Usenet hardly translates to a real threat.

    ..
    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Nov 25, 2008
    #10
  11. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Chris H <> wrote:
    >In message <>, Stephen Bishop
    ><> writes
    >>On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:03:31 -0600, PetePalance
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:12:38 -0500, Stephen Bishop
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>If you are truly an award-winning photographer, I would think you
    >>>>would have posted images that were more in line with your abilities.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>You don't read anything that you reply to, do you, just like all
    >>>usenet-trolls.
    >>>:)
    >>>
    >>>Didn't you just recently post a quote from someone that said exactly why real
    >>>pros don't post their marketable photography online? Is your memory also
    >>>hindered by your drastic lack of intellect? Must be. Those are some seriously
    >>>disabling qualities that you're displaying about yourself.

    >>
    >>
    >>You keep repeating that lie, and you keep clipping text. But don't
    >>worry, the FBI is very good at forensics when it comes to someone
    >>making online threats.

    >
    >The FBI has no jurisdiction other than mainland USA.


    Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc., the world’s largest
    social-networking Web site, won an order requiring the owner of a
    Canadian-based site to pay $873.3 million for illegally using
    Facebook users'log-in information to send spam.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aTYkRQR_Lifo&refer=us

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 25, 2008
    #11
  12. Ray Fischer

    -hh Guest

    The P&S Troll wrote:
    >
    > Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are
    > going to do the math, so how about if I do it....
    >
    > Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x,
    > an extra expense of ~$600 for an 18-200mm
    > gives you 28mm-320mm...


    [yada, yada]

    > So now we're at $6,525 to possibly match
    > or slightly beat the performance of a
    > $340 P&S camera.


    Which just goes to show everyone how clueless you are.

    Try to see if you can figure out how you can successfully hit the
    Pareto Principle point for less...such as $628 total.


    > Nope, sorry, can't see it.


    We know.


    > personally I couldn't live with that
    > obnoxious shutter noise ...


    Then here's 101 reasons for you to stop living:

    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
    Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 25, 2008
    #12
    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. Sherry Miller

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

    Sherry Miller, Nov 20, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    704
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Dec 19, 2008
  2. Steve
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    277
    Steve
    Nov 20, 2008
  3. Colin.D
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    547
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    Dec 7, 2008
  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:
    2,224
    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:
    330
    Ray Fischer
    Dec 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page