Samsung's latest contribution to P&S mediocrity

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Sep 1, 2009.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Sep 1, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    J.Ruthers Guest

    On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT), Rich <> wrote:

    >26-624mm equivalent and (of course) the ubiquitous, crappy 1/2.33" P&S
    >sensor. Plus raw mode and 3200 ISO. Can you even begin to imagine
    >the noise in such an image?
    >
    >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090106samsungwb5000.asp#specs


    Perhaps you should educate yourself on what "pixel binning" entails. Then
    you won't make a fool of yourself as often.
    J.Ruthers, Sep 1, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > 26-624mm equivalent and (of course) the ubiquitous, crappy 1/2.33" P&S
    > sensor. Plus raw mode and 3200 ISO. Can you even begin to imagine
    > the noise in such an image?
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090106samsungwb5000.asp#specs


    If people buying this and similar models are happy with them they will
    continue to be sold.
    After readers have suffered through some number of your rants they will
    learn not to waste their time. That's just the way things work.
    Dave Cohen, Sep 1, 2009
    #3
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

    J. Ruthers wrote:
    > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT), Rich <> wrote:
    >
    > >26-624mm equivalent and (of course) the ubiquitous, crappy 1/2.33" P&S
    > >sensor. Plus raw mode and 3200 ISO. Can you even begin to imagine
    > >the noise in such an image?
    > >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090106samsungwb5000.asp#specs

    >
    > Perhaps you should educate yourself on what "pixel binning" entails. Then
    > you won't make a fool of yourself as often.


    A method for scientists who are more concerned with information than
    image quality.
    Rich, Sep 2, 2009
    #4
  5. Rich

    SMS Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > 26-624mm equivalent and (of course) the ubiquitous, crappy 1/2.33" P&S
    > sensor. Plus raw mode and 3200 ISO.


    ISO 6400 for 3M or less, LOL.

    > Can you even begin to imagine the noise in such an image?


    Doesn't matter. There's clearly a market for people who don't care at
    all about the quality of the image and are more concerned with having
    the most megapixels, the widest range zoom, and the biggest LCD. Those
    people are the legal prey of the manufacturers of this type of product.

    Once you've got the tiny P&S sensor, you're already screwed except for
    low-ISO in bright light. You might as well hang such a ridiculous lens
    on it. Maybe the CA and vignetting will hide the noise.

    Maybe the plan is to make a P&S so bad that the owner will want to buy a
    Samsung D-SLR.
    SMS, Sep 2, 2009
    #5
  6. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    SMS <> wrote:
    >Rich wrote:
    >> 26-624mm equivalent and (of course) the ubiquitous, crappy 1/2.33" P&S
    >> sensor. Plus raw mode and 3200 ISO.

    >
    >ISO 6400 for 3M or less, LOL.
    >
    >> Can you even begin to imagine the noise in such an image?

    >
    >Doesn't matter. There's clearly a market for people who don't care at
    >all about the quality of the image and are more concerned with having
    >the most megapixels, the widest range zoom, and the biggest LCD.


    There isn't a person posting here who isn't willing to accept
    compromises in image quality in order to get a camera that they
    can use for an acceptable price. Some of them are arrogant snobs
    who think that only their compromises are acceptable.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Sep 3, 2009
    #6
  7. Rich

    SMS Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:

    > There isn't a person posting here who isn't willing to accept
    > compromises in image quality in order to get a camera that they
    > can use for an acceptable price. Some of them are arrogant snobs
    > who think that only their compromises are acceptable.


    True. It's all a question of which compromises you're willing to make.

    Still, advising people to avoid a camera with very high noise and a
    crappy lens (ignoring for a while all the other issues) doesn't
    necessarily make someone arrogant, nor a snob.
    SMS, Sep 3, 2009
    #7
    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. Silverstrand

    The Growing Dependency on Mass Mediocrity

    Silverstrand, Sep 1, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    749
    Silverstrand
    Sep 1, 2006
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    831
  3. Rich
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    974
    measekite
    Jul 31, 2007
  4. Rich

    Kodak working to extend bounds of mediocrity

    Rich, Feb 6, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    657
    John Turco
    Feb 12, 2008
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    IBM Mediocrity--Oh The Memories...

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 16, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    347
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page