The UGLY output from P&S superzooms

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Dec 22, 2007.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Dec 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    Scott W Guest

    On Dec 21, 5:57 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > What is the point, really?  Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
    > depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz/page16.asp


    I would not call it the idiocy of the marketing dept. as much as the
    sleaziness of the marketing dept. there are people who will either
    simply read the specs. on the box or asked the sales person, I am not
    sure which would be worse. But in either case being able to say the
    camera goes to iso 1600 will sell cameras, even if the images are junk
    at iso 1600.

    Scott
    Scott W, Dec 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    flambe Guest

    Knowledgeable users of these cameras will realize that they are really
    limited to their base ISO, usually 100, and possibly up to 400 in a pinch if
    they allow RAW recording and the user is familiar with noise reduction
    processing.
    P&S level users will not know, will not care.
    However these long zoom EVFs are much noisier than a dSLR at their base ISO
    which makes it difficult to switch over to them if one is used to dSLR raw
    image quality despite how ponderously heavy the dSLR camera and lens combo
    may be, e.g. Nikon D80/18-200VR.
    Personally I am on the fence about the Panaleicasonic or Olympus long zoom
    EVFs: I think I will wait for the nest generation to see if noise levels go
    down.
    flambe, Dec 22, 2007
    #3
  4. flambe wrote:
    []
    > Personally I am on the fence about the Panaleicasonic or Olympus long
    > zoom EVFs: I think I will wait for the nest generation to see if
    > noise levels go down.


    Or go back a generation or two when pixel counts for small-sensor cameras
    were at a more appropriate level (5-6MP). There are some good bargains to
    be had.

    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 22, 2007
    #4
  5. Rich

    J.Barrington Guest

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:01:24 -0800, "flambe" <> wrote:

    >Knowledgeable users of these cameras will realize that they are really
    >limited to their base ISO, usually 100, and possibly up to 400 in a pinch if
    >they allow RAW recording and the user is familiar with noise reduction
    >processing.
    >P&S level users will not know, will not care.
    >However these long zoom EVFs are much noisier than a dSLR at their base ISO
    >which makes it difficult to switch over to them if one is used to dSLR raw
    >image quality despite how ponderously heavy the dSLR camera and lens combo
    >may be, e.g. Nikon D80/18-200VR.
    >Personally I am on the fence about the Panaleicasonic or Olympus long zoom
    >EVFs: I think I will wait for the nest generation to see if noise levels go
    >down.
    >


    It appears that the resident troll, wannabe-photographer, cyber roll-playing,
    don't have a real photography career so they have to invent one from
    misinformation on the net and then try to pass it off as if they've had any
    experience at all with any cameras, attention-whores ... are at it again.

    LOL
    J.Barrington, Dec 22, 2007
    #5
  6. Scott W <> wrote:
    > On Dec 21, 5:57?pm, Rich <> wrote:
    >> What is the point, really? ?Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
    >> depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz/page16.asp


    > I would not call it the idiocy of the marketing dept. as much as the
    > sleaziness of the marketing dept. there are people who will either
    > simply read the specs. on the box or asked the sales person, I am not
    > sure which would be worse. But in either case being able to say the
    > camera goes to iso 1600 will sell cameras, even if the images are junk
    > at iso 1600.


    What is junk depends on your purposes. A lot of folk here are very
    snobbish about high ISO noise, and sneer at anything that would
    produce noise unacceptable in a 16x20 print. However, in circumstances
    where any photograph is better than none, what would be a horribly
    noisy 16x20 print might be an acceptably sharp clean 4x5 snapshot, and
    might even be an exhibition-worthy large art print in black and
    white. In other words, those crappy high ISOs can actually sometimes
    be very useful.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 22, 2007
    #6
  7. Rich

    Kalinka Guest

    Kalinka, Dec 22, 2007
    #7
  8. Rich

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <7699b196-9b99-4ab5-9069-38cb832fc914
    @e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
    > What is the point, really? Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
    > depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz/page16.asp


    Don't forget that ISO 1600 on a compact is an emergency mode anyway,
    where having a noisy photo is better than having nothing. Having said
    this, I'm surprised that the Fuji S8000 produces such results at ISO
    1600.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    Alfred Molon, Dec 22, 2007
    #8
  9. Rich

    Mark B. Guest

    Mark B., Dec 22, 2007
    #9
  10. "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Scott W <> wrote:
    >> On Dec 21, 5:57?pm, Rich <> wrote:
    >>> What is the point, really? ?Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
    >>> depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz/page16.asp

    >
    >> I would not call it the idiocy of the marketing dept. as much as the
    >> sleaziness of the marketing dept. there are people who will either
    >> simply read the specs. on the box or asked the sales person, I am not
    >> sure which would be worse. But in either case being able to say the
    >> camera goes to iso 1600 will sell cameras, even if the images are junk
    >> at iso 1600.

    >
    > What is junk depends on your purposes. A lot of folk here are very
    > snobbish about high ISO noise, and sneer at anything that would
    > produce noise unacceptable in a 16x20 print. However, in circumstances
    > where any photograph is better than none, what would be a horribly
    > noisy 16x20 print might be an acceptably sharp clean 4x5 snapshot, and
    > might even be an exhibition-worthy large art print in black and
    > white. In other words, those crappy high ISOs can actually sometimes
    > be very useful.


    I agree. Anyway, I've always thought much of the crabbing about digital
    camera noise is way overdone. I never objected to a reasonable amount of
    grain when shooting 35mm, and feel the same way about noise in digital. I've
    seen a lot of complaints about noise in shots where it wouldn't bother me in
    the least. And it is worth remembering that grain was sometimes deliberately
    exaggerated in film for artistic effect.

    Neil
    Neil Harrington, Dec 22, 2007
    #10
  11. Rich

    Scott W Guest

    On Dec 22, 12:06 am, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > Scott W <> wrote:
    > > On Dec 21, 5:57?pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > >> What is the point, really? ?Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
    > >> depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??

    >
    > >>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz/page16.asp

    > > I would not call it the idiocy of the marketing dept. as much as the
    > > sleaziness of the marketing dept.  there are people who will either
    > > simply read the specs. on the box or asked the sales person,  I am not
    > > sure which would be worse.  But in either case being able to say the
    > > camera goes to iso 1600 will sell cameras, even if the images are junk
    > > at iso 1600.

    >
    > What is junk depends on your purposes. A lot of folk here are very
    > snobbish about high ISO noise, and sneer at anything that would
    > produce noise unacceptable in a 16x20 print. However, in circumstances
    > where any photograph is better than none, what would be a horribly
    > noisy 16x20 print might be an acceptably sharp clean 4x5 snapshot, and
    > might even be an exhibition-worthy large art print in black and
    > white. In other words, those crappy high ISOs can actually sometimes
    > be very useful.


    I think it is marketing hype with images that can't backup that hype.
    Did you look at how bad the images are at iso 1600. I looked at
    Olympus's web site and was shocks to see they spec the iso all the way
    to 1600.
    <http://olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1316&fl=4>

    I do believe that is more then a little misleading.

    Scott
    Scott W, Dec 22, 2007
    #11
  12. Rich

    ray Guest

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:57:54 -0800, Rich wrote:

    > What is the point, really? Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
    > depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz/page16.asp


    Some of us seldom shoot at 1600. Matter of fact, out showshoeing
    yesterday, I had to drop ISO to 50 in order to keep shutter speed below
    1/1000.
    ray, Dec 22, 2007
    #12
  13. Rich

    Scott W Guest

    On Dec 22, 6:56 am, ray <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:57:54 -0800, Rich wrote:
    > > What is the point, really?  Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
    > > depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz/page16.asp

    >
    > Some of us seldom shoot at 1600. Matter of fact, out showshoeing
    > yesterday, I had to drop ISO to 50 in order to keep shutter speed below
    > 1/1000.


    If the photos are crap at iso 1600 then there is little point in
    shooting at that speed. I shot with a Sony F828 for a few years, I
    just looked it up, out of 25,945 photos that I took with it in 2005 3
    were at iso 800. only 845 were in fact above iso 64. But then I
    normally shot either iso 100 or iso 64 film so this is what I was use
    to, and the F828 had a very fast lens, much faster then what I had on
    my 35mm film camera.


    With the DSLRs the higher iso become much more useful and I shoot at
    1600 fairly often.

    Scott
    Scott W, Dec 22, 2007
    #13
  14. Rich

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Dec 21, 10:57 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > What is the point, really?  Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
    > depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz/page16.asp


    Isn't there a CHKDK script that can fix that shit?
    Annika1980, Dec 22, 2007
    #14
  15. Scott W wrote:
    []
    > If the photos are crap at iso 1600 then there is little point in
    > shooting at that speed. I shot with a Sony F828 for a few years, I
    > just looked it up, out of 25,945 photos that I took with it in 2005 3
    > were at iso 800. only 845 were in fact above iso 64. But then I
    > normally shot either iso 100 or iso 64 film so this is what I was use
    > to, and the F828 had a very fast lens, much faster then what I had on
    > my 35mm film camera.
    >
    >
    > With the DSLRs the higher iso become much more useful and I shoot at
    > 1600 fairly often.
    >
    > Scott


    ExposurePlot is a handy tool to see what distribution of settings are used
    for your shots:

    http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html

    ISO 1600 is fine on my Nikon D40, but I try to keep my Panasonic TZ3 at
    ISO 100 for best results.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 22, 2007
    #15
  16. Rich

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Scott W <> wrote:

    > With the DSLRs the higher iso become much more useful and I shoot at
    > 1600 fairly often.


    Mmmm...I'll bet those images look nice.

    I've been doing photography for 41 years using the slowest film
    possible for the lighting conditions. And since switching to digital, I
    rarely change it from ASA 100 (the lowest I can go).

    Just because you *can* shoot at 1600 doesn't mean that you *should*.
    Mr. Strat, Dec 22, 2007
    #16
  17. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Dec 22, 2007
    #17
  18. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Dec 22, 1:29 pm, "David J Taylor" <-this-
    bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > Scott W wrote:
    >
    > []
    >
    > > If the photos are crap at iso 1600 then there is little point in
    > > shooting at that speed. I shot with a Sony F828 for a few years, I
    > > just looked it up, out of 25,945 photos that I took with it in 2005 3
    > > were at iso 800. only 845 were in fact above iso 64. But then I
    > > normally shot either iso 100 or iso 64 film so this is what I was use
    > > to, and the F828 had a very fast lens, much faster then what I had on
    > > my 35mm film camera.

    >
    > > With the DSLRs the higher iso become much more useful and I shoot at
    > > 1600 fairly often.

    >
    > > Scott

    >
    > ExposurePlot is a handy tool to see what distribution of settings are used
    > for your shots:
    >
    > http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html
    >
    > ISO 1600 is fine on my Nikon D40, but I try to keep my Panasonic TZ3 at
    > ISO 100 for best results.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    1600 raw is good on the Nikon, 1600 JPEG has too much noise filtering,
    more than it needs really.
    Rich, Dec 22, 2007
    #18
  19. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Dec 21, 11:47 pm, Scott W <> wrote:
    > On Dec 21, 5:57 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    > > What is the point, really? Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
    > > depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz/page16.asp

    >
    > I would not call it the idiocy of the marketing dept. as much as the
    > sleaziness of the marketing dept. there are people who will either
    > simply read the specs. on the box or asked the sales person, I am not
    > sure which would be worse. But in either case being able to say the
    > camera goes to iso 1600 will sell cameras, even if the images are junk
    > at iso 1600.
    >
    > Scott


    Why stop there? How about 6400 ISO?

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz/page17.asp
    Rich, Dec 22, 2007
    #19
  20. Rich

    Kalinka Guest

    On 22 Dec, 15:13, "Mark B." <> wrote:
    > "Kalinka" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > On 22 Dec, 04:57, Rich <> wrote:
    > >> What is the point, really? Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
    > >> depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??

    >
    > >>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz/page16.asp

    >
    > > heres some ugly output from a 550...

    >
    > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/17891891@N02/

    >
    > They obviously weren't at ISO 1600, you missed the point of the original
    > post.


    and you have missed the point of a P&S.....
    Kalinka, Dec 22, 2007
    #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. Nick de Graeve

    Mozilla Firebird 0.7 has ugly font

    Nick de Graeve, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    486
  2. Peter H
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    1,148
    Bill M
    Dec 4, 2003
  3. Otto Pylot
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,525
    LASERandDVDfan
    Apr 18, 2004
  4. Chris
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    449
    andre
    Sep 25, 2004
  5. Rich
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    480
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Oct 20, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page