Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SMS, Dec 6, 2008.

  1. SMS

    SMS Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > Read it and laugh.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408slimgroup/page14.asp


    I don't know why a) dpreview would do such a ridiculous comparison
    rather than simply stating, "if you need high ISO, buy a D-SLR" and b)
    why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to shoot
    at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will perform. It's
    like, geez it's so stupid that I can't even think of a good analogy.
     
    SMS, Dec 6, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In message <Htz_k.8698$x%>, SMS
    <> writes

    > b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to
    >shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will
    >perform.


    Bad shot versus no shot at all. The pixel-peeping purists who infest
    this august forum can't understand it, perhaps but nearly all the
    pictures taken on any given day are not shot by would-be Ansell Adams
    types, but are for the memories of the location and the time. A noisy
    P&S picture is better than no picture at all, and few people are willing
    to lug a heavy complex DSLR around with them when they are going out
    somewhere not expressly to take pictures.
    --
    To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
     
    Robert Sneddon, Dec 6, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SMS

    Pete D Guest

    "Robert Sneddon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <Htz_k.8698$x%>, SMS
    > <> writes
    >
    >> b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to
    >>shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will
    >>perform.

    >
    > Bad shot versus no shot at all. The pixel-peeping purists who infest
    > this august forum can't understand it, perhaps but nearly all the
    > pictures taken on any given day are not shot by would-be Ansell Adams
    > types, but are for the memories of the location and the time. A noisy
    > P&S picture is better than no picture at all, and few people are willing
    > to lug a heavy complex DSLR around with them when they are going out
    > somewhere not expressly to take pictures.
    > --
    > To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon


    Dear Robert,

    Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact,
    lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic
    mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in your
    pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Dec 6, 2008
    #3
  4. In message
    <493ae0f6$0$18648$>, Pete D
    <> writes
    >
    >"Robert Sneddon" <> wrote in message
    >news:...


    >> Bad shot versus no shot at all.


    >Dear Robert,
    >
    >Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact,
    >lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic
    >mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in your
    >pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras.


    As you say, D-SLRs tend not to fit into pockets. Unless I was going out
    to shoot pictures specifically I don't think I'd carry one. Most P&S
    cameras will fit into jacket pockets, quite a few into a shirt pocket
    even.

    I have an older Fuji Z602, a bridge design that's not a pocket camera,
    and it lives at home most of the time, not getting used much (I can't
    recall off the top of my head when I last fired it up). My pocket camera
    is a Canon A640 and it travels with me to work where I use it a lot
    doing equipment surveys (the swivelling LCD is particularly useful in
    cramped conditions). I shoot stuff indoors, often with bad or
    non-existent light illuminated only by a hand-torch or a lightstick.
    High ISO settings and resulting high levels of image noise don't worry
    me or my employers as the pics are for reference to record equipment
    serial numbers and such. These pics are not for display in a gallery.

    My next camera will be another P&S, something with image stabilisation
    which will help with longer hand-held exposures in bad lighting. Right
    now if I'm trying to take night shots I tend to use a pocket tripod or
    my regular full-sized Manfrotto but it's usually more trouble than it's
    worth lugging that beast around on the off-chance I need it.
    --
    To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
     
    Robert Sneddon, Dec 6, 2008
    #4
  5. "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:Htz_k.8698$x%...

    > I don't know why a) dpreview would do such a ridiculous comparison rather
    > than simply stating, "if you need high ISO, buy a D-SLR" and b) why the
    > P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to shoot at high ISO
    > when they know how poorly their products will perform.


    Because sometimes a mediocre photograph is more useful than none at all.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Dec 6, 2008
    #5
  6. SMS

    Jurgen Guest

    Pete D wrote:

    >
    > Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact,
    > lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic
    > mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in your
    > pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >
    > Pete
    >
    >


    Could you give us the names of the ones you can put in your pocket or
    purse please?
     
    Jurgen, Dec 6, 2008
    #6
  7. SMS

    Pete D Guest

    "Robert Sneddon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message
    > <493ae0f6$0$18648$>, Pete D
    > <> writes
    >>
    >>"Robert Sneddon" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...

    >
    >>> Bad shot versus no shot at all.

    >
    >>Dear Robert,
    >>
    >>Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact,
    >>lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic
    >>mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in
    >>your
    >>pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras.

    >
    > As you say, D-SLRs tend not to fit into pockets. Unless I was going out
    > to shoot pictures specifically I don't think I'd carry one. Most P&S
    > cameras will fit into jacket pockets, quite a few into a shirt pocket
    > even.
    >
    > I have an older Fuji Z602, a bridge design that's not a pocket camera,
    > and it lives at home most of the time, not getting used much (I can't
    > recall off the top of my head when I last fired it up). My pocket camera
    > is a Canon A640 and it travels with me to work where I use it a lot
    > doing equipment surveys (the swivelling LCD is particularly useful in
    > cramped conditions). I shoot stuff indoors, often with bad or
    > non-existent light illuminated only by a hand-torch or a lightstick.
    > High ISO settings and resulting high levels of image noise don't worry
    > me or my employers as the pics are for reference to record equipment
    > serial numbers and such. These pics are not for display in a gallery.
    >
    > My next camera will be another P&S, something with image stabilisation
    > which will help with longer hand-held exposures in bad lighting. Right
    > now if I'm trying to take night shots I tend to use a pocket tripod or
    > my regular full-sized Manfrotto but it's usually more trouble than it's
    > worth lugging that beast around on the off-chance I need it.
    > --
    > To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon


    Even when I backpack I take the best camera I can, the weight penalty for a
    basic setup is not that much and I rarely find an excuse not to take it.
    True enough my bigger D-SLRs are heavier but then I leave the grips and big
    lenses at home at take just what I need.
     
    Pete D, Dec 6, 2008
    #7
  8. SMS

    Pete D Guest

    "Jurgen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Pete D wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact,
    >> lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic
    >> mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in
    >> your pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras.
    >>
    >> Cheers.
    >>
    >> Pete

    >
    > Could you give us the names of the ones you can put in your pocket or
    > purse please?


    Sorry but perhaps you should re-read my post, I said they would not fit, my
    Pentax Ds does come close though.
     
    Pete D, Dec 6, 2008
    #8
  9. SMS

    Charles Guest

    "Robert Sneddon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <Htz_k.8698$x%>, SMS
    > <> writes
    >
    >> b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to
    >>shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will
    >>perform.

    >
    > Bad shot versus no shot at all. The pixel-peeping purists who infest
    > this august forum can't understand it, perhaps but nearly all the
    > pictures taken on any given day are not shot by would-be Ansell Adams
    > types, but are for the memories of the location and the time. A noisy
    > P&S picture is better than no picture at all, and few people are willing
    > to lug a heavy complex DSLR around with them when they are going out
    > somewhere not expressly to take pictures.


    Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers.
     
    Charles, Dec 6, 2008
    #9
  10. "Charles" <> wrote in message
    news:ghetpr$n6i$...

    > Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers.


    Q: What's the difference between a photographer and a painter?

    A: Two painters can carry on a long discussion without mentioning brushes.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Dec 6, 2008
    #10
  11. SMS

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Andrew Koenig wrote:
    >
    > "Charles" <> wrote in message
    > news:ghetpr$n6i$...
    >
    > > Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers.

    >
    > Q: What's the difference between a photographer and a painter?
    >
    > A: Two painters can carry on a long discussion without mentioning brushes.


    just cos they can doesn't mean they do :O)

    --
    Paul (We won't die of devotion)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Paul Heslop, Dec 6, 2008
    #11
  12. SMS

    Charles Guest

    "Andrew Koenig" <> wrote in message
    news:hjD_k.57399$...
    > "Charles" <> wrote in message
    > news:ghetpr$n6i$...
    >
    >> Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers.

    >
    > Q: What's the difference between a photographer and a painter?
    >
    > A: Two painters can carry on a long discussion without mentioning brushes.


    Good one, Andrew!
     
    Charles, Dec 6, 2008
    #12
  13. SMS

    N Guest

    "Ronald G." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > DSLR purchasers are not necessarily photographers. The vast majority of
    > them are
    > desperate talentless amateurs thinking they can become a pro by just
    > buying a
    > more expensive camera.
    >



    What a pathetically stupid generalisation.
     
    N, Dec 7, 2008
    #13
  14. Pete D wrote:
    []
    > Even when I backpack I take the best camera I can, the weight penalty
    > for a basic setup is not that much and I rarely find an excuse not to
    > take it. True enough my bigger D-SLRs are heavier but then I leave
    > the grips and big lenses at home at take just what I need.


    I compared the weight of the two-lens DSLR outfit I first had with the
    weight of my previous compact camera outfit, and the DSLR outfit was less
    then 3oz heavier. Like you, I take what I need, according to the
    circumstances.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 7, 2008
    #14
  15. SMS

    Jurgen Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > "Jurgen" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Pete D wrote:
    >>
    >>> Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact,
    >>> lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic
    >>> mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in
    >>> your pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras.
    >>>
    >>> Cheers.
    >>>
    >>> Pete

    >> Could you give us the names of the ones you can put in your pocket or
    >> purse please?

    >
    > Olympus E-420, Pentax KM, Panasonic G1, Nikon D40x. But no 28-400mm
    > equivalent I'm afraid. Then again, if people weren't lazy, paranoid
    > bastards they wouldn't be afraid to sling a DSLR over their shoulder.
    > After all, Jurgen, you do it with your purse! :)
    >
    >


    When did we meet?
     
    Jurgen, Dec 7, 2008
    #15
  16. SMS

    SMS Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    > I have to agree. Trying to shoot at anything over about 200ISO on a P&S
    > is rather like trying to drive the famly SUV at 200 mph. Not a great
    > idea, and not likely to actually produce usable results.
    > It may be that some method can be found to produce usable high ISO
    > pictures from tiny sensors, but that time is NOT now. You want more
    > light sensitivity, get a larger sensor, which, today, means a DSLR. IF
    > this isn't a problem for you (shooting only low ISO), then you may not
    > need to lug around a DSLR.


    I was at a pre-holiday XMAS dinner last night with a big group. The
    house is always extensively decorated for XMAS and we take a lot of
    photos, but it's dimly lit. There were six cameras in use. Two were
    producing useful photos. The first was my SD800 IS. The only reason it
    was useful is because of the 28mm wide angle. I could get close enough
    to the subjects that the flash was still effective. The other P&S models
    were useless, every photo was dark, because to get all the people in the
    photo they were backing up beyond the flash range of the camera. The
    second useful camera was my D-SLR, because of a) its high-ISO
    capability, and b) it's more powerful flash.

    What's rather amusing is that _film_ P&S cameras, with ISO 400 film,
    would have done a far better job than the digital P&S cameras. For all
    the expense of P&S digital cameras, they do poorer in low light than
    film P&S cameras, plus you have the annoyance of the extremely long AF lag.
     
    SMS, Dec 7, 2008
    #16
  17. SMS

    J. Clarke Guest

    mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME wrote:
    > Pete D wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Even when I backpack I take the best camera I can, the weight
    >> penalty for a basic setup is not that much and I rarely find an
    >> excuse not to take it. True enough my bigger D-SLRs are heavier but
    >> then I leave the grips and big lenses at home at take just what I
    >> need.
    >>

    >
    >
    > me too ... my main photos, that I value most, are made on such trips
    >
    > I take my 30D SLR and 24-105 f/4L IS, 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, and 100
    > f/2.8 macro lenses.
    > I leave the kit 18-55mm (no IS) lens at home, making panoramas if
    > desired. I'm considering
    > buying a 5D MKII. I would carry that if I get it.
    >
    > I carried all this 200 miles this summer.
    >
    > Unfortunately I didn't get any great shots. But heh, Ansel Adams,
    > who lived where I was hiking, only got about 10 of them there in his
    > whole life! I did get lots of nice shots. Really nice.


    FWIW, you ever see a picture of Ansel Adams going on a shoot? There's
    generally either a beat-up Travellall or a heavily laden mule in the
    background.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 7, 2008
    #17
  18. ? "Robert Sneddon" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:...
    > In message <Htz_k.8698$x%>, SMS
    > <> writes
    >
    >> b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to
    >>shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will
    >>perform.

    >
    > Bad shot versus no shot at all. The pixel-peeping purists who infest
    > this august forum can't understand it, perhaps but nearly all the
    > pictures taken on any given day are not shot by would-be Ansell Adams
    > types, but are for the memories of the location and the time. A noisy
    > P&S picture is better than no picture at all, and few people are willing
    > to lug a heavy complex DSLR around with them when they are going out
    > somewhere not expressly to take pictures.

    Seconded. While a dSLR is better per se, not everyone can afford or is
    willing to carry one. Most people here in Greece have P&S. It goes without
    saying that all the professionals have dSLRs, and that's how it should be. I
    had problems with my SLR (Nikon FM-2) during an army drill, when a sergeant
    commented that I look "Like a chinese journalist". and then another sergeant
    wanted me to bet my camera against his motorbike that some plastic 0.50 "
    cal rounds had TNT in them. With the next trip home I left my FM-2 there,
    where it belonged and bought a disposable camera (no flames, please).
    Carrying my P&S means a photo with a good P&S, yes a snapshot, and not with
    a crappy cell phone camera, or none at all. I have no more the nerve and I'm
    no more that young for mountaineering excursions, taking a SLR (or a dSLR as
    I would today), and besides that most Sundays I'm working, too or I go to
    Vori because my house there needs maintenance.

    Just my 2 cents....



    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    hordad AT otenet DOT gr
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Dec 7, 2008
    #18
  19. SMS

    Mark Thomas Guest

    SMS wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    >> I have to agree. Trying to shoot at anything over about 200ISO on a
    >> P&S is rather like trying to drive the famly SUV at 200 mph. Not a
    >> great idea, and not likely to actually produce usable results.
    >> It may be that some method can be found to produce usable high ISO
    >> pictures from tiny sensors, but that time is NOT now. You want more
    >> light sensitivity, get a larger sensor, which, today, means a DSLR.
    >> IF this isn't a problem for you (shooting only low ISO), then you may
    >> not need to lug around a DSLR.

    >
    > I was at a pre-holiday XMAS dinner last night with a big group.

    Oh cool, another SMS parable - in the first person this time - that's
    unusual!

    > The
    > house is always extensively decorated for XMAS and we take a lot of
    > photos, but it's dimly lit. There were six cameras in use.

    So, SMS obviously went into this in detail - why doesn't he tell us what
    the other ones were?

    > Two were
    > producing useful photos. The first was my SD800 IS. The only reason it
    > was useful is because of the 28mm wide angle. I could get close enough
    > to the subjects that the flash was still effective. The other P&S models
    > were useless, every photo was dark, because to get all the people in the
    > photo they were backing up beyond the flash range of the camera.

    So SMS gathered them all together afterwards and carefully examined the
    results - yes, that's the sort of Xmas party I *dream* of being invited to.

    It's worth noting that 'average' film p&s cameras were not noted for
    commonly having 28mm lenses either, nor were they noted for having
    better flash range. Indeed, at the same price point, it's fair to say
    they would have most likely similar results or indistinguishable at the
    most likely viewing sizes, anyway.

    Personally I think it was more about the skill of the photographer. I
    mean, we've all seen the work of SMS and it... er..

    (embarrassed cough)

    Has *anyone* seen anything that SMS has shot?
    (crickets) (Note that the "Steven J Scharf" you may see around (eg at
    photo.net) isn't this Steven Scharf.

    (thinks) Hmm. What other poster does that remind me of?

    > The
    > second useful camera was my D-SLR, because of a) its high-ISO
    > capability, and b) it's more powerful flash.

    So SMS came along with two cameras and used them both! Bet he was the
    life of the party as he demonstrated the differences.

    Translation:
    > What's rather amusing

    "I have a weird sense of humour, but it broke me up.."

    > is that _film_ P&S cameras, with ISO 400 film,

    ".. SOME film cameras" - let's not let facts get in the way

    > would have done a far better job than the digital P&S cameras.

    ".. than SOME digital p&s cameras" Yes, this sad crowd of no-wisdom
    wannabe's didn't have the sense to be toting a Fuji F10/20/30 /
    Panasonic LX3 etc, so indeed *some* p&s cameras with 400 film *would*
    have bettered them.

    Gee whiz. I'm certainly enlightened.

    Yes, had these *unenlightened* fools used a carefully chosen film camera
    (and had all the associated issues of developing/ processing/ printing/
    converting to CD, when all they likely wanted was snaps on their
    computer screens..), then they could *possibly* have gotten better shots..

    SMS knows best!

    > For all
    > the expense of P&S digital cameras, they do poorer in low light than
    > film P&S cameras, plus you have the annoyance of the extremely long AF lag.


    Yes, AF lag has been an issue, but the average *current* digital p&s
    isn't all that bad. So I guess we totally agree.
     
    Mark Thomas, Dec 7, 2008
    #19
  20. SMS

    SMS Guest

    Stephen Bishop wrote:

    > And what about the vast majority of p&s purchasers? Perhaps they are
    > smart enough to realize they don't have talent and they don't waste
    > their money on equipment that they know they won't be able to use to
    > the fullest.


    Generally the attitude is that the D-SLR cameras are too complicated and
    that they don't have time to learn how to use them. Incorrect, since the
    user can choose how involved they get with the manual settings. Of
    course the other biggie is the physical size of the D-SLR versus an
    ultra-compact P&S.

    What makes _no_ sense, is someone that uses a ZLR and complains about
    the size and complexity of a D-SLR, though a ZLR is a bit less expensive
    to cover the same focal length range.
     
    SMS, Dec 17, 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. JD

    How do you convert a CD ISO to DVD ISO?

    JD, Aug 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    29,312
  2. Ray Fischer

    Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

    Ray Fischer, Dec 20, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    260
    Ray Fischer
    Dec 22, 2008
  3. Mark Thomas

    Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

    Mark Thomas, Dec 20, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    342
    Mark Thomas
    Dec 21, 2008
  4. David J Taylor

    Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

    David J Taylor, Dec 22, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    60
    Views:
    1,455
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 3, 2009
  5. dj_nme

    Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

    dj_nme, Dec 22, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    265
    dj_nme
    Dec 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page