How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 21, 2010.

  1. RichA

    Guest Guest

    big mini? what an odd name. was there a mini mini?
     
    Guest, Jul 11, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    Thanks for demonstrating again, if it were needed, the value of RAW.
     
    Bruce, Jul 11, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    DanP Guest

    No need, Big Mini covered the whole market.

    DanP
     
    DanP, Jul 11, 2010
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    As I have said several times before - and I will repeat it once again
    for your benefit - I do not use RAW to gain extra resolution. I use
    it to gain extra dynamic range.

    from experience, depending on the camera, RAW can give between 1.0 and
    3.0 stops of extra dynamic range over an in-camera JPEG. Typically,
    the improvement is 1.5 to 2.0 stops.

    The improvement is of particular importance when using small-sensor
    digital cameras whose dynamic range tends to be quite limited. An
    extra 1.5 to 2.0 stops is a significant improvement.

    However, I do recognise that probably >99% of digital camera users
    have not the faintest idea what dynamic range is, nor why it is so
    important. All they seem to understand, and judge cameras by, is the
    numbers of megapixels that are crammed on to their very tiny sensors.
     
    Bruce, Jul 11, 2010
  5. RichA

    SMS Guest

    On 11/07/10 8:16 AM, Bruce wrote:

    Which is why RAW support was dropped from most P&S models. Canon even
    dropped RAW from their G series for one generation (the G7) which was
    pretty stupid considering the target market for that line is people who
    actually do know what dynamic range is. Thank goodness for CHDK.

    It's rather ironic that the cameras with the worst dynamic range, that
    would benefit the most from RAW, usually don't have RAW, while the
    D-SLRs all have it but don't gain (in terms of percentages) nearly as
    much dynamic range as the P&S models.

    The new APS-C mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras should have good
    dynamic range. They'll still lack some of the other advantages of D-SLRs
    though.
     
    SMS, Jul 11, 2010
  6. RichA

    Phil B. Guest

    IN *YOUR* CAMERA!

    NOT IN *ALL* CAMERAS.

    IN *GOOD* CAMERAS THE FULL DYNAMIC RANGE IS ALREADY REPRESENTED IN THE JPG
    FILE.

    YOU OWN A PIECE OF SHIT CAMERA.

    GOT THAT?
     
    Phil B., Jul 11, 2010
  7. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    What a weasel. Is there, or is there not, a volume knob on the radio?
     
    tony cooper, Jul 12, 2010
  8. RichA

    Guest Guest

    right on cue.
     
    Guest, Jul 12, 2010
  9. RichA

    Peter Guest


    He's playing with his joystick
     
    Peter, Jul 13, 2010
  10. RichA

    John Turco Guest


    Kodak lists different digicam categories, at its Web store.

    KODAK EASYSHARE Digital Cameras
    <http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/list/Digital_Cameras/categoryID.28887600>

    Here they are, in the same vertical and horizontal orders, as they appear
    on the above page:

    "SLICE"

    "Performance"

    "Sleek & Stylish"

    "Point & Shoot"

    ----

    "SLICE" "Performance" "Sleek & Stylish" "Point & Shoot"

    Thus, it appears that "Point & Shoot" brings up the rear (with "super zoom"
    models dominating the "Performance" group).
     
    John Turco, Jul 20, 2010
  11. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    As to my own observations, I'd say that so-called "P&S" digicams are
    ridiculed, far more often that DSLR models.
    The "super zoom" camera market is a very crowded one, and DSLR sales
    still haven't caught up to it.
    Personally, I've been reading this newsgroup (and sporadically posting
    to it), since April of 2006. I've learned a lot, here -- and I'm sure
    you will, too.
     
    John Turco, Jul 20, 2010
  12. RichA

    John Turco Guest


    Check these staggering specifications of >my< original digicam (Largan
    "Lmini 350"):

    * 350,000 pixels

    * f/6-44mm lens (fixed-focus and barely bigger than a pinhole)

    * electronic shutter (1/30th - 1/1000th second)

    * 2MB internal flash memory (no card slot)

    * optical viewfinder (no LCD VF)

    * serial connector

    * CR123A lithium battery (3V)

    It was a Christmas Eve, 2000 purchase, from Insight.com. A paltry
    $46.52 USD ($39.99 + $6.53 shipping), and my humble introduction
    to digital photography.

    I haven't used the Lmini 350, since late April of 2002. About two
    months beforehand, I'd bought a Kodak DC3200 (fixed-focused camera),
    and against its "awesome" 1 MP resolution, 1.5" color LCD VF and CF
    card slot, my poor Largan beast became grossly overmatched.

    Seriously, the DC3200's superiority was quite stunning. The bigger
    images were more pleasing to behold, and Kodak's renowned color put
    the Lmini 350's pix to shame. (The latter are adequate, if there's
    nothing better to compare them with.)
     
    John Turco, Jul 20, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.