Try doing this with a P&S

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 8, 2009.

  1. It would be unfair of me to deny the opportunity for writing practice
    to someone so in need.
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 16, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. It's been pointed out again and again that few use that term in any way,
    shape or form perjoratively. In fact, I now always refer to my P+S as a
    compact when writing in the photo groups.
    John McWilliams, Jul 16, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Or neither!
    John McWilliams, Jul 16, 2009
  4. RichA

    Guest Guest

    he has patented the method?
    Guest, Jul 17, 2009
  5. RichA

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Jul 17, 2009
  6. RichA

    Guest Guest

    the fact you keep resorting to claiming the term 'p&s' is pejorative
    only shows how desperate and insecure you really are about the choice
    of camera. it's not pejorative, except to you.

    like it or not, it's common usage to call a non-dslr a p&s. camera
    stores do it. the vast majority of people do it. even the camera
    *manufacturers* do it, such as olympus:

    Our new Micro Four Thirds camera upholds the legacy of the celebrated
    PEN family of cameras, with the photographic optics of an SLR and the
    size and simplicity of a point and shoot.

    nobody is saying that it can't, but that *under identical conditions*
    an slr will have a higher quality output and possibly be able to take
    photos that another camera cannot. for example, high fps with a
    nikon/canon slr or using a lens that simply does not exist with camera
    that has a non-removable lens.

    whether it matters or not to the user is an entirely different story.
    Guest, Jul 17, 2009
  7. It might be if I hadn't read it and assumed that you had. The problem
    is that it quite specifically doesn't support either of the claims you
    make in the two previous sentences. It's quite explicit about it. It
    does make some interesting claims. I suggest you read it.
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 17, 2009
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 17, 2009
  9. RichA

    Guest Guest

    what it does is break cameras into two categories, p&s and slr. if the
    term was actually pejorative, why would the manufacturer use it at all?
    they call their sp-590uz, 570uz and 565uz a point and shoot camera, so
    clearly they're *not* only referring to the small simple models:


    go to, where they break cameras into two groups, point and
    shoot and slr, and at the moment they have a panasonic fz-18 listed in
    the p&s category. in fact, they only list p&s for panasonic:


    b&h breaks cameras into three groups, p&s, rangefinder and slr:


    apparently no rangefinders in b&h's used section yet, so just two
    categories there, slr and point & shoot:


    the reality is that the term point & shoot means non-dslr and is used
    that way by users, camera stores and camera makers. it is *not* a
    pejorative term, unless one is insecure about their choice of camera or
    has an agenda.
    Guest, Jul 17, 2009
  10. [/QUOTE]
    I guess in that case you just have reading comprehension problems not
    to have noticed the repeatedly emphasised and detailed caveat that
    what Reichmann was showing was that "an inexpensive pocket camera can
    produce very high quality images, at least on moderate sized
    prints". He specified many times exactly what he meant by "moderate
    sized prints" -- 13"x19". He also pointed out that of course at larger
    sized prints the superiority of the Hasselblad was obvious. He also
    pointed out that this was only true when the photographic conditions
    are good enough to avoid the performance areas which would show up the
    Hasselblad superiority even with that downsizing.

    That's a very interesting claim, not least because many people would
    find it difficult to believe, that when the Hasselbald images are
    downsized appropriately, and the photographic conditions are good
    enough to avoid the P&S problem areas, you can't tell the
    difference. The P&S in question is also arguably the best you can get
    at any price for image quality, and although peanuts in price compared
    to a Hasselblad, is a pretty expensive P&S.

    That's very far from the wild claim of general unqualified superiority
    you're making. It's not a long document, so I suggest you read it
    slowly and carefully a few times over. That might help you to grasp
    what Reichmann trying to explain to you. You might also like to note
    that he managed to make his case without using a single swear word.
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 18, 2009
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 18, 2009
  12. Only it does not even beat it with the 18-55mm kit lens on.
    A high end compact from "this year" versus an entry level DSLR
    from January 2008 --- in fact, the successor, the 500D is out
    already --- with the kit zoom (the lowest end of lenses).

    The cyan fringing of the SX10 is plainly visible in the first crop
    (the "SX10-IS beat an EOS-450D DSLR in [...] CA performance" by
    having more CA?) and the kit zoom is plainly broken (decentered,
    I guess), given that it clearly outresolves the P&S cameras in
    the top left corner but is soft at the bottom right corner.

    The same tests tells us that the resolution of the SX10 is 2150lpph
    vertical, 2150lpph horizontal verus 2200lpph vertical, 2225lpph
    horizontal for the 450D with the kit lens. In other words, the
    "SX10-IS beat an EOS-450D DSLR in resolution" by having less?

    Why not add that the SX10-IS beats the 450D with the kit lens in
    High ISO noise by a large margin as well? After all, it has
    more noise!
    Well, you obviously had to try to find something. Will you
    resort to scratching lenses to 'even the field' next?
    Suuure. And I recall you not being able to read tests. You
    just proved it a few lines above.
    In High ISO noise, truly, they do.
    I, at least, compare today's P&S cameras to DSLRs from many years
    ago and find that, for example, *my* old DSLR still outperforms P&S
    cameras where it matters. Of course, for good weather shapshooters
    P&S cameras perform well enough.
    Yes, how about the glacial AF lag, the lacking usability of
    manual focus in most situations. Tell me more!
    Which cannot be switched off, doesn't preview and is slow.
    You're rambling nonsense here.
    Of course, you'd need to use a compact camera some day to find
    out the truth.
    Just like you do with DSLRs and comparisons. Let's do what you
    did in your choosen comparison up there: let's compare a cheap
    point&shoot with a bad lens versus a high end DSLR.
    Yes, you do manage.
    A good description of yourself, troll.
    Yep, that's you.
    And you cannot prove it, either, it's just in your imagination.
    Tell you what, you bring your choice of P&S, I'll bring a DSLR
    from 2004 with lenses and gear, we'll go shooting.

    I'll see your one candle lit available light portraits and
    challenge you to shoot juggling or similar tasks without flash
    at 1/100s f/2 ISO 3200 or worse. You want flash? Go ahead,
    party shots and studio portraits will show us what's what.
    We'll shoot sports, too, where fast AF and high frame rate counts.

    And then we'll look at the large prints.
    Nailed you to a point.
    And reality is that DSLRs are better.
    Yes, you'd know P&S are fine only in very limited circumstances,
    where DSLRs have a much larger radius of usefulnes.
    Because you want to be blind, obnoxious and stupid.
    You really do.
    Yep, troll, nymshifter, address faker, liar, rude person ---
    it's indeed you.
    The stupid name and inate claims give you away immediately.
    You have said it just fine, you are a fool.
    You are obnoxious, but not clever enough to rate "manipulative".

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 18, 2009
  13. RichA

    Guest Guest

    no, actually they aren't. what most people are saying is that different
    cameras have different advantages/disadvantages.
    then it's a good thing that's not what i'm doing.
    under the *same* conditions, an slr will be able to take any photo a
    compact camera can and produce a higher quality image. this is basic
    physics. the drawback of course, is that an slr camera is larger and
    may not be well suited for carrying, but that is a separate issue.
    for example, needing a lens that is outside the range of the compact
    camera or better high iso performance. as for hostile conditions, how
    many compact cameras are weather sealed? high end slrs and many lenses,
    even consumer lenses, are sealed.

    every camera has its own set of advantages and disadvantages and
    there's always a situation where one camera is better suited than
    another camera.
    imagine that:)
    Guest, Aug 15, 2009
  14. I guess that's why this dslr takes a much worse image than a P&S camera
    under identical conditions, even though the P&S is using a 20x difficult to
    manufacture zoom lens and the dslr is only using a simple to configure 3x
    zoom lens.

    Still the dslr can't match the image quality of the P&S camera. It must be
    doing something outside the laws of your "basic physics", right? So much
    for your basic physics. Time for you to take yourself back to grade-school.

    Go grow up.

    P&S cameras are now rivaling images even taken with medium-format
    Hasselblad cameras, let alone throwback slr designs.
    The dslr Trolls Never Quit, Aug 16, 2009
  15. I don't know why I wrote that. The P&S obviously sucks even against a
    dslr with a broken cheap kit lens.
    I must have misread that article. On rereading I finally understand
    that this is only true in exceptional circumstances on limited print
    sizes. And I must admit I never manage to get such stunning shots.
    I always get flat faces and red eyes instead.

    I got to grow up!
    The dslr Trolls Never Quit, Aug 16, 2009
  16. RichA

    Guest Guest

    depends on what?
    true, it may be insignificant.
    if you put two cameras side by side and trigger them at the same time,
    the conditions are by definition, identical.
    that's because the sensor technology has improved. you can't say pixel
    size doesn't matter when you are changing something else.
    sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. to a studio photographer, the size
    of the camera is absolutely irrelevant.
    but at least the lens *exists* and you can get one if you need it. that
    *can't* occur on a compact.
    that's fine, but this isn't about style, but the physics of the camera.
    and that doesn't matter if the lens is not changed or if the
    photographer finds a place that's protected from the weather.
    Guest, Aug 17, 2009
  17. RichA

    -hh Guest

    As an exercise in reality, perhaps Mr. Navas will have better success
    than our resident P&S Troll in citing a specific make/model/parts of a
    P&S system that is demonstrated to shoot wider than 75°
    underwater....and preferably substantially more so (94° = the Nikonos
    15mm WA lens).

    -hh, Aug 17, 2009
  18. RichA

    SMS Guest

    LOL, you expect reality from Navas? Are you new here?

    Actually, if you don't care about quality you can buy an extreme wide
    angle fish-eye adapter (0.42x) and turn a P&S with 35mm at the wide end
    into 15mm at the wide end.


    Now the underwater part. Again, remember that quality of the finished
    product has already been compromised twice, once by the P&S, once by the
    crappy add-on lens, so a third time isn't a big deal.

    SMS, Aug 18, 2009

  19. Instead of using the poorest cheapest glass that you can find on the net as
    an example, one of the various name-brands (all from the same company) that
    is bundled with all "beginner's kits" that come from scam-dealers, how
    about a slightly better quality 0.25x wide-angle adapter for P&S cameras
    for under $100. One that goes from an available 9mm full-circle 180º
    fisheye up to the camera's own 36mm starting point when using the camera's
    own zoom lens to set the focal-length. Then you can capture photos like the
    following test shot at an 18mm 35mm-eq. focal-length FOV with your P&S zoom
    lens, pixel-sharp from corner to corner with no CA. 18mm is just before any
    of the full-circle fisheye vignetting starts. The 9mm fisheye images just
    as sharp and CA free. I have another test shot done at 9mm fisheye if you
    don't believe it.

    Are you so lame that you can't find accessory lenses as good as this?
    Raynox accessory glass is also well done but quite a bit higher priced.
    Though the wider range of multipliers they offer can be worth their prices.

    If I was useless troll like you I'd choose every example photo taken with
    an image-destroying "lensbaby" piece of shit to show how all lenses on all
    dslrs perform.

    Why do you keep spreading your ignorance, misinformation, and lies? Is it
    because you're so jealous that you can't own any camera? Is it because you
    know nothing about any cameras or lenses and just spout your nonsense in
    the hopes that you might attract some (just as delusional) imaginary
    "dslr-troll friends" online?
    Exposing The SMS Troll Yet Again, Aug 18, 2009
  20. H.E. President Alhaji Dr. Yahya A.J.J. Jammeh, Aug 18, 2009
    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.