Want to see how bad P&S's really are?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Dec 28, 2008.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Check out DXO tests. Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
    Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
    They all beat it when it comes to image quality. Now, do you really
    want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
    any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?

    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic
    Rich, Dec 28, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Dec 28, 3:02 am, Galen Howes <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:54:50 -0800 (PST), Rich <> wrote:
    > >Check out DXO tests.  Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
    > >Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
    > >They all beat it when it comes to image quality.  Now, do you really
    > >want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
    > >any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?

    >
    > >http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic

    >
    > Oh, the poor troll, just walked into fast moving traffic. Still not realizing
    > that all of DxO's tests have been proved in error by many people. DxO skews
    > their results to sell their way-overpriced crap software to those stupid enough
    > to easily part with their money, i.e. blind DSLR worshippers.
    >
    > Catch up.
    >
    > Thread dead.
    >
    > Nothing else to see here.
    >
    > Just one dead troll.
    >
    > Someone call the road-kill cleanup crew before it starts to stink up the place
    > even more than it already has.


    What, no 5000 line diatribe on the mythical merits of P&S's? You are
    slipping....
    Rich, Dec 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    seth1066 Guest

    On Dec 28, 12:54 am, Rich <> wrote:
    > Check out DXO tests.  Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
    > Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
    > They all beat it when it comes to image quality.  Now, do you really
    > want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
    > any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?
    >
    > http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic


    Huh? The results you show don't beat any recent DSLRs, not even the
    ancient D200.
    seth1066, Dec 28, 2008
    #3
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Dec 28, 11:27 am, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:54:50 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    > wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    > >Check out DXO tests.  Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
    > >Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
    > >They all beat it when it comes to image quality.  Now, do you really
    > >want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
    > >any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?

    >
    > >http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic

    >
    > More mindless and meaningless bashing from the dSLR troll.


    If the test results are meaningless to you, that's not my fault, it's
    yours.
    Rich, Dec 28, 2008
    #4
  5. Rich

    dj_nme Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:54:50 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    > wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >> Check out DXO tests. Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
    >> Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
    >> They all beat it when it comes to image quality. Now, do you really
    >> want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
    >> any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?
    >>
    >> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic

    >
    >
    > More mindless and meaningless bashing from the dSLR troll.


    You could save yourself the heartburn and set a filter in your
    newsreader to killfile all gmail messages.
    The only reason I see these posts is when you feed your troll.

    Although, in this case your troll is actually correct about the DXO tests...
    dj_nme, Dec 28, 2008
    #5
  6. Rich

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Check out DXO tests. Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
    > Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
    > They all beat it when it comes to image quality. Now, do you really
    > want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
    > any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?
    >
    > http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic
    >


    The funny thing here, Rich, is that P&S sales will continue to go through
    the roof regardless of your opinion simply because P&S's fit in your
    pocket...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 29, 2008
    #6
  7. Rich

    SMS Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > "Rich" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Check out DXO tests. Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
    >> Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
    >> They all beat it when it comes to image quality. Now, do you really
    >> want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
    >> any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?
    >>
    >> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic
    >>

    >
    > The funny thing here, Rich, is that P&S sales will continue to go through
    > the roof regardless of your opinion simply because P&S's fit in your
    > pocket...


    Except D-SLR sales are increasing at a much faster rate than P&S sales.
    So clearly more and more buyers are realizing the advantages of a D-SLR.
    SMS, Dec 29, 2008
    #7
  8. Rich

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:28:22 -0800, SMS <>
    wrote:

    >Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> "Rich" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Check out DXO tests. Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
    >>> Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
    >>> They all beat it when it comes to image quality. Now, do you really
    >>> want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
    >>> any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic
    >>>

    >>
    >> The funny thing here, Rich, is that P&S sales will continue to go through
    >> the roof regardless of your opinion simply because P&S's fit in your
    >> pocket...

    >
    >Except D-SLR sales are increasing at a much faster rate than P&S sales.
    >So clearly more and more buyers are realizing the advantages of a D-SLR.


    That has more to do with the market being saturated with inexpensive
    P&S cameras and the fact that the P&S was the first inexpensive way
    for the average snapshot-taker to shoot digital and make their own
    prints at home. That market was bound to level off.

    Many of the early buyers of P&S cameras have become more interested
    in, and proficient in, photography because of P&S cameras. They're
    now upgrading to dslrs.

    Saying "upgrading" is not intended to denigrate the P&S. The
    upgrading is partially just a perception on the part of the buyer, and
    partially a real upgrading from a very basic P&S to choosing a dslr as
    the next jump. It's quite possible to upgrade and stay with a P&S
    camera.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Dec 29, 2008
    #8
  9. Rich

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:28:22 -0800, SMS <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>> "Rich" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Check out DXO tests. Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
    >>>> Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
    >>>> They all beat it when it comes to image quality. Now, do you really
    >>>> want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
    >>>> any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> The funny thing here, Rich, is that P&S sales will continue to go
    >>> through
    >>> the roof regardless of your opinion simply because P&S's fit in your
    >>> pocket...

    >>
    >>Except D-SLR sales are increasing at a much faster rate than P&S sales.
    >>So clearly more and more buyers are realizing the advantages of a D-SLR.

    >
    > That has more to do with the market being saturated with inexpensive
    > P&S cameras and the fact that the P&S was the first inexpensive way
    > for the average snapshot-taker to shoot digital and make their own
    > prints at home. That market was bound to level off.
    >
    > Many of the early buyers of P&S cameras have become more interested
    > in, and proficient in, photography because of P&S cameras. They're
    > now upgrading to dslrs.
    >
    > Saying "upgrading" is not intended to denigrate the P&S. The
    > upgrading is partially just a perception on the part of the buyer, and
    > partially a real upgrading from a very basic P&S to choosing a dslr as
    > the next jump. It's quite possible to upgrade and stay with a P&S
    > camera.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    Exactly...

    Also, a P&S makes a great second camera, especially if it comes with a
    longer zoom than the DSLR kit...

    TakeCare,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 29, 2008
    #9
  10. Rich

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:ST66l.11992$...
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> "Rich" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Check out DXO tests. Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
    >>> Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
    >>> They all beat it when it comes to image quality. Now, do you really
    >>> want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
    >>> any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic
    >>>

    >>
    >> The funny thing here, Rich, is that P&S sales will continue to go through
    >> the roof regardless of your opinion simply because P&S's fit in your
    >> pocket...

    >
    > Except D-SLR sales are increasing at a much faster rate than P&S sales. So
    > clearly more and more buyers are realizing the advantages of a D-SLR.


    Good for all those new DSLR users, which I am one of...

    But, compare the absolutes, and then try to tell yourself that DSLRs are
    more popular than P&S cams...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 29, 2008
    #10
  11. Rich

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:12:51 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote in <TN56l.1163$z%.65@edtnps82>:
    >
    >>"Rich" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Check out DXO tests. Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
    >>> Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation models.
    >>> They all beat it when it comes to image quality. Now, do you really
    >>> want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when you can get
    >>> any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Panasonic

    >>
    >>The funny thing here, Rich, is that P&S sales will continue to go through
    >>the roof regardless of your opinion simply because P&S's fit in your
    >>pocket...

    >
    > And because they consistently produce good to very good images, with the
    > best consistently producing excellent images.
    >
    > --
    > Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
    > John


    At an affordable price...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 29, 2008
    #11
  12. Rich

    SMS Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:

    > But, compare the absolutes, and then try to tell yourself that DSLRs are
    > more popular than P&S cams...


    Of course they're not. It's just as in the days of film. More people
    bought Brownies, 110 & 126 Instamatics, Disc cameras, and P&S 35mm
    cameras than film SLRs, due to cost and size.

    But what's different this time is that the 35mm P&S cameras were closer
    in capability to the film SLRs than the digital P&S cameras are to the
    digital SLRs.

    A lot of people don't realize the tremendous advantages of a D-SLR
    because they've just accepted the limitation of the digital P&S and may
    not realize that they don't have to live with the unbearable AF lag and
    the poor low-light performance.

    At a banquet I was at last night we were doing the traditional banging
    on the glasses with spoons to get the newlyweds to kiss. It was rather
    amusing to look at the photos from the P&S cameras since none of them
    were fast enough to capture the scene.
    SMS, Dec 29, 2008
    #12
  13. Rich

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:20:03 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:15:42 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    ><> wrote in <it86l.1239$z%.642@edtnps82>:
    >
    >>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...

    >
    >>> That has more to do with the market being saturated with inexpensive
    >>> P&S cameras and the fact that the P&S was the first inexpensive way
    >>> for the average snapshot-taker to shoot digital and make their own
    >>> prints at home. That market was bound to level off.
    >>>
    >>> Many of the early buyers of P&S cameras have become more interested
    >>> in, and proficient in, photography because of P&S cameras. They're
    >>> now upgrading to dslrs.
    >>>
    >>> Saying "upgrading" is not intended to denigrate the P&S. The

    >
    >Saying "P&S" is denigrating to better compact cameras, intended or not.


    That's nonsense, John. "P&S" is the accepted and recognizable term to
    describe a particular style of camera. It carries no baggage.
    "Compact" is not an accepted and recognizable term.

    I understand that you are particularly sensitive to perceived slurs
    about P&S cameras, but trying to extend your perception to the world
    in general is silly.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Dec 29, 2008
    #13
  14. Rich

    Charles Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > Better compact digital cameras have no AF lag, and perform very well in
    > normal indoor lighting.


    Which ones? I have yet to find any like that. When you are used to a
    DSLR the AF lag on compact digital cameras is excruciating. As far as
    normal indoor lighting to me that means ASA 800 with little noise. I
    think such are coming, and in the next couple of years, but from what I
    have found compact digital cameras that have no AF lag and acceptable
    low light capabilities don't exist yet.

    --
    Charles
    Charles, Dec 29, 2008
    #14
  15. Rich

    nospam Guest

    In article <4i96l.9056$>, SMS
    <> wrote:

    > At a banquet I was at last night we were doing the traditional banging
    > on the glasses with spoons to get the newlyweds to kiss. It was rather
    > amusing to look at the photos from the P&S cameras since none of them
    > were fast enough to capture the scene.


    or maybe they were lousy photographers.
    nospam, Dec 29, 2008
    #15
  16. Rich

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >>Saying "P&S" is denigrating to better compact cameras, intended or not.

    > >
    > >That's nonsense, John. "P&S" is the accepted and recognizable term to
    > >describe a particular style of camera. It carries no baggage.
    > >"Compact" is not an accepted and recognizable term.

    >
    > I totally disagree.


    then you need to get out more. p&s is what most people call it
    including major camera sellers and even the manufacturers themselves.
    nospam, Dec 29, 2008
    #16
  17. Rich

    Charles Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > As always, YMMV -- I find the f/2.8 lens speed and optical image
    > stabilization of the FZ8 able to handle normal indoor lighting quite
    > well -- typically 1/30 sec exposure at ISO 200. Noise is pretty good
    > out of camera, and very low after processing with Neat Image.


    That would not cut it for me. I need ASA 400 or 800 with a f/2.8 lens
    speed. If the camera companies stop the megapixel race in the next two
    years I think we will see that in the compact cameras.

    --
    Charles
    Charles, Dec 29, 2008
    #17
  18. Rich

    SMS Guest

    HEMI - Powered wrote:
    > Charles added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
    >
    >> In article <>, John
    >> Navas <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Better compact digital cameras have no AF lag, and perform very
    >>> well in normal indoor lighting.

    >> Which ones? I have yet to find any like that. When you are used
    >> to a DSLR the AF lag on compact digital cameras is excruciating.
    >> As far as normal indoor lighting to me that means ASA 800 with
    >> little noise. I think such are coming, and in the next couple
    >> of years, but from what I have found compact digital cameras
    >> that have no AF lag and acceptable low light capabilities don't
    >> exist yet.
    >>

    > Personally, Charles, I have never seen ANY digital with zero AF
    > lag.


    This is true, though for all intents and purposes, the AF lag on a D-SLR
    is so short that it's essentially zero.

    > The question really is: how much is too much? And, besides the
    > obvious differences in camera type and the sophistication of the
    > algorithm(s) used, exactly where the AF point(s) are aimed and the
    > type of lighting plays a big part in whether there is a fast,
    > accurate lock or a lot of hunting around.


    The difference between phase detection auto-focus and contrast detection
    auto-focus is the key issue. Ricoh did put phase detection auto-focus on
    a couple of P&S models, but dropped it due to the expense.

    Of course there are no compact digital cameras with no AF lag, I don't
    know where anyone got that idea.
    SMS, Dec 29, 2008
    #18
  19. Rich

    Scott W Guest

    On Dec 29, 10:39 am, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:12:05 -0500, Charles <> wrote in
    > <291220081512055840%>:
    >
    > >In article <>, John Navas
    > ><> wrote:

    >
    > >> Better compact digital cameras have no AF lag, and perform very well in
    > >> normal indoor lighting.

    >
    > >Which ones? I have yet to find any like that. When you are used to a
    > >DSLR the AF lag on compact digital cameras is excruciating.

    >
    > Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and other FZ models).  Digital Photography Review
    > says, "the actual delay between pressing the button and the shot being
    > taken is almost instantaneous".  The Panasonic spec is 0.005 second
    > shutter release time lag (the time between pressing the button on the
    > camera and the photo being taken).


    That sounds like the time if the camera is pre-focused. The full
    autofocus time is more like 0.50 seconds.
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ8/FZ8A6.HTM


    > >As far as
    > >normal indoor lighting to me that means ASA 800 with little noise.  ....

    >
    > As always, YMMV -- I find the f/2.8 lens speed and optical image
    > stabilization of the FZ8 able to handle normal indoor lighting quite
    > well -- typically 1/30 sec exposure at ISO 200.  Noise is pretty good
    > out of camera, and very low after processing with Neat Image.


    I do a fair bit of shooting at ISO 800 and F/2.8 and 1/30 or slower.

    I have both a DSLR and a P&S, I use the one that works best for the
    conditions.

    Scott
    Scott W, Dec 30, 2008
    #19
  20. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Dec 29, 7:36 pm, Scott W <> wrote:
    > On Dec 29, 10:39 am, John Navas <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:12:05 -0500, Charles <> wrote in
    > > <291220081512055840%>:

    >
    > > >In article <>, John Navas
    > > ><> wrote:

    >
    > > >> Better compact digital cameras have no AF lag, and perform very well in
    > > >> normal indoor lighting.

    >
    > > >Which ones? I have yet to find any like that. When you are used to a
    > > >DSLR the AF lag on compact digital cameras is excruciating.

    >
    > > Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and other FZ models).  Digital Photography Review
    > > says, "the actual delay between pressing the button and the shot being
    > > taken is almost instantaneous".  The Panasonic spec is 0.005 second
    > > shutter release time lag (the time between pressing the button on the
    > > camera and the photo being taken).

    >
    > That sounds like the time if the camera is pre-focused.  The full
    > autofocus time is more like 0.50 seconds.http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ8/FZ8A6.HTM
    >
    > > >As far as
    > > >normal indoor lighting to me that means ASA 800 with little noise.  ....

    >
    > > As always, YMMV -- I find the f/2.8 lens speed and optical image
    > > stabilization of the FZ8 able to handle normal indoor lighting quite
    > > well -- typically 1/30 sec exposure at ISO 200.  Noise is pretty good
    > > out of camera, and very low after processing with Neat Image.

    >
    > I do a fair bit of shooting at ISO 800 and F/2.8 and 1/30 or slower.
    >
    > I have both a DSLR and a P&S, I use the one that works best for the
    > conditions.
    >
    > Scott


    And under what "conditions" would you use the P&S rather than the
    DSLR?
    Rich, Dec 30, 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. ultraviolet353

    really really mysterious IE6 problem--secure site

    ultraviolet353, Nov 20, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,169
    Boomer
    Nov 22, 2003
  2. Rick Altman

    I want people to see what I see...

    Rick Altman, Oct 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    504
    Mark B.
    Oct 4, 2003
  3. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,850
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    463
  5. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,178
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page