What would makers do without the horrible 1/2.33 sensor?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Aug 18, 2009.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Now mostly 12 megapixels. Out of 134 P&S cameras in French mag, I
    think 3/4 or more had that crappy sensor. It is the commodity sensor
    of the decade. Pure junk. No matter how many bells and whistles you
    put on the P&S, you still end up with the same results.
    Rich, Aug 18, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >Now mostly 12 megapixels. Out of 134 P&S cameras in French mag, I


    The big cameras are too big for you, the small cameras are too small,
    the expensive ones are too expensive and the cheap ones are too cheap
    for you.

    You're just an idiot troll.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Aug 19, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Timmy Two Thumbs wrote:
    > "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    > news:4a8b8825$0$1586$...
    > > Rich <> wrote:

    >
    > >> Now mostly 12 megapixels. Out of 134 P&S cameras in French mag, I
    > >> think 3/4 or more had that crappy sensor. It is the commodity sensor
    > >> of the decade. Pure junk. No matter how many bells and whistles you
    > >> put on the P&S, you still end up with the same results.

    >
    > >
    > > The big cameras are too big for you, the small cameras are too small,
    > > the expensive ones are too expensive and the cheap ones are too cheap
    > > for you.
    > >
    > > You're just an idiot troll.

    >
    >
    > Maybe he's a troll, I don't know, but he makes a good point. Where are the
    > APS-C compact digitals? Off the top of my head, I can only recall Sigma
    > making one, and that has a fixed FL f/4 lens.


    The new Sigma is f2.8 but fixed lens, fixed focal length cameras are
    dinosaurs to most buyers.
    Rich, Aug 19, 2009
    #3
  4. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Timmy Two Thumbs <> wrote:
    >"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >> Rich <> wrote:


    >>> Now mostly 12 megapixels. Out of 134 P&S cameras in French mag, I
    >>> think 3/4 or more had that crappy sensor. It is the commodity sensor
    >>> of the decade. Pure junk. No matter how many bells and whistles you
    >>> put on the P&S, you still end up with the same results.

    >
    >>
    >> The big cameras are too big for you, the small cameras are too small,
    >> the expensive ones are too expensive and the cheap ones are too cheap
    >> for you.
    >>
    >> You're just an idiot troll.

    >
    >Maybe he's a troll, I don't know, but he makes a good point.


    That cheap cameras don't perform as well as expensive cameras?

    > Where are the
    >APS-C compact digitals?


    Where are the dSLRs that you can fit into your pocket? Where are the
    medium-format 30 megapixel cameras that you can buy for $200?

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Aug 20, 2009
    #4
  5. Rich

    SneakyP Guest

    (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    news:4a8cc048$0$1641$:

    > Timmy Two Thumbs <> wrote:
    >>"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>> Rich <> wrote:

    >
    >>>> Now mostly 12 megapixels. Out of 134 P&S cameras in French mag, I
    >>>> think 3/4 or more had that crappy sensor. It is the commodity
    >>>> sensor of the decade. Pure junk. No matter how many bells and
    >>>> whistles you put on the P&S, you still end up with the same
    >>>> results.

    >>
    >>>
    >>> The big cameras are too big for you, the small cameras are too
    >>> small, the expensive ones are too expensive and the cheap ones are
    >>> too cheap for you.
    >>>
    >>> You're just an idiot troll.

    >>
    >>Maybe he's a troll, I don't know, but he makes a good point.

    >
    > That cheap cameras don't perform as well as expensive cameras?
    >
    >> Where are the
    >>APS-C compact digitals?

    >
    > Where are the dSLRs that you can fit into your pocket? Where are the
    > medium-format 30 megapixel cameras that you can buy for $200?
    >


    I'm wondering where the human eye equivalent camera is myself.

    ~ for under $200.


    Ah, limitations on silicon! Perhaps a biologically based sensor then?

    OH, but that'd be also more than $200- how about $200 million?
    The poor troll wants a free lunch- or for the year 2102. Take your
    pick.
    SneakyP, Aug 21, 2009
    #5
    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. Steven M. Scharf

    D-SLR Sensor Resolution and Sensor Size Comparison Size Matters!

    Steven M. Scharf, May 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    5,422
    Georgette Preddy
    May 16, 2004
  2. IMKen
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    848
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jun 22, 2004
  3. MeMe

    Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution?

    MeMe, Feb 10, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,111
  4. Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,018
  5. Rich
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    364
    John Turco
    Feb 22, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page