Hardware Worship Religion
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
that this or that camera - lens etc. is so much better than all the
others because of some specific technical difference.
That is all well and good, but how many consider that the
difference is usually meaningless to most users. Further they seldom
bother checking to see if there is any meaningful differences in real
world results. Meaningful means a difference that would be noticed in
the final intended use.
It seems to me it is only the final product that is important.
John Navas
<tggfl45k68sp860f1...@4ax.com>:
Yep. There are some people here who should be out taking pictures
instead of spending so much time here attacking those that are.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
David J Taylor
So no-one is allowed to take a technical interest to increase their
understanding and discuss it here? Look at the threads where I've
commented about the relevancy or otherwise if viewing images at 1:1 on the
screen.
You obviously wouldn't approve of people whose interest in vintage cards,
because the cars aren't used for journeys!
Room for both, don't you think?
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<IBP5l.12139$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
The great majority of the hardware postings here are of little or no
real value, just lobbing of claims back and forth by various advocacy
groups, much like adolescents arguing on a playground.
Chris H
sligoNo...@hotmail.com writes
> Time and time again I see post after post of someone arguing
>that this or that camera - lens etc. is so much better than all the
>others because of some specific technical difference.
Not at all.. I like Nikon because God uses one :-)
(that and the fact that Canon users are going to hell for being heretics
and in league with the devil.)
> That is all well and good, but how many consider that the
>difference is usually meaningless to most users. Further they seldom
>bother checking to see if there is any meaningful differences in real
>world results. Meaningful means a difference that would be noticed in
>the final intended use.
That's torn it... you have brought reality in to it!
You have to remember that there are people where who seem to have a far
higher colour and resolution perception than mere mortals.......
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
John Navas
in <aufgtKF$J9VJ...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>:
>In message <tggfl45k68sp860f1...@4ax.com>,
>sligoNo...@hotmail.com writes
>> That is all well and good, but how many consider that the
>>difference is usually meaningless to most users. Further they seldom
>>bother checking to see if there is any meaningful differences in real
>>world results. Meaningful means a difference that would be noticed in
>>the final intended use.
>
>That's torn it... you have brought reality in to it!
>
>You have to remember that there are people where who seem to have a far
>higher colour and resolution perception than mere mortals.......
ROTFL!
RustY ©
<sligoNo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tggfl45k68sp860f1...@4ax.com...
> .......... meaningless to most users.
Too True.......
Alan Smithee
news:tggfl45k68sp860f1...@4ax.com...
> Time and time again I see post after post of someone arguing
I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before choosing
an item to buy, whether it be a camera, a TV or a car. Some people are
happy to just go into a shop and let the person behind the counter advise
them, others want to choose themselves and find researching part of the
decision making, hence sparking a debate. Afterall, camera equipment costs
money, so it pays to know what's around and what the pro's/con's are.
Photography is also quite a widely spread hobby and for quite a few, part of
the hobby it talking about it, whether it be camera equipment or anything
else to do with photography. It doesn't cost anything to talk about it and
you learn at the same time. If hardware isn't something that is of any
interest, it's easy to ignore the thread.
I quite often hear people refer to a camera as just a tool, but for quite a
lot of people (myself included) it's also a toy. The same people who refer
to a camera as a tool will also say that you don't hear trades people
discussing their tools, well this is incorrect. Mechanics talk about tools,
whether it be Snap-on, Mac, etc. Farmers talk about tractors, etc. I have
even heard hairdressers talking about brands of precision engineered
Japanese scissors.
Another common phrase I have heard is that "it's not the camera, it's the
photographer". Well, this is true, however that said I don't see these
people using pinhole cameras, so go figure. Features do play a part in
helping the photographer get the photo and just because you are an amateur,
it doesn't mean features offered on higher end bodies such as the ability to
be able to take low noise photos of your dog/cat/kid in low light without a
flash for example, or a decent autofocus/metering system are of no use to
you. If anything, the camera used by amateurs can be more important,
because it allows them to get shots they may not otherwise get. I remember
a quote from a movie that said something along the lines of the first weapon
a rookie assasin learns is the rifle. The closer they get to being a pro,
the closer they can get to the subject. The knife, for example, is the last
thing they master.
So, whether it's a discussion on Nikon v Canon, PC v Mac, HD v Blueray,
Stainless Steel frying pan v Cast Iron frying pan, there is always going to
be pro's and cons and therefore there is always going to be a debate.
The part I can't understand though (and the part I think you were referring
to) is why some people get so defensive over certain brands. Mind you, I
don't think there are many hardcore fanboys in here, just one hardcore P&S
fan.
John Navas
wrote in <m8SdnXJ7ZYNXc8rU...@pipex.net>:
>The part I can't understand though (and the part I think you were referring
>to) is why some people get so defensive over certain brands. Mind you, I
>don't think there are many hardcore fanboys in here, just one hardcore P&S
>fan.
Thus displaying your own bias.
Alan Smithee
news:95sfl4t0nsblqj1cv...@4ax.com...
>>The part I can't understand though (and the part I think you were
>>referring
>>to) is why some people get so defensive over certain brands. Mind you, I
>>don't think there are many hardcore fanboys in here, just one hardcore P&S
>>fan.
> Thus displaying your own bias.
On the contrary.
John Navas
wrote in <WoWdneIkRKHoaMrU...@pipex.net>:
Therein lies the problem.
ASAAR
>>>The part I can't understand though (and the part I think you were
>>>referring
>>>to) is why some people get so defensive over certain brands. Mind you, I
>>>don't think there are many hardcore fanboys in here, just one hardcore P&S
>>>fan.
>
>> Thus displaying your own bias.
>
> On the contrary.
John (a moderately hardcore P&S camera user, IIRC) probably
thought you were referring to a real person. I assume that your
target was instead the sock puppet anti-DSLR troll, that's posted
mostly drivel under hundreds of different names by now. He may also
be overly sensitive to accusations of brand bias, as seen in some of
his recent comments aggressively defending MS and Norton products.
John Navas
<esufl45j02nqiiqaf...@4ax.com>:
The display of bias is in accusing just the "P&S" side of the debate
(using the term loosely) of being hardcore, as well as the use of the
term itself. There is (too much) advocacy and bashing on both sides.
It would be nice to have a truce, but it ain't gonna happen here.
ASAAR
>> John (a moderately hardcore P&S camera user, IIRC) probably
>> thought you were referring to a real person. I assume that your
>> target was instead the sock puppet anti-DSLR troll, that's posted
>> mostly drivel under hundreds of different names by now. He may also
>> be overly sensitive to accusations of brand bias, as seen in some of
>> his recent comments aggressively defending MS and Norton products.
>
> The display of bias is in accusing just the "P&S" side of the debate
> (using the term loosely) of being hardcore, as well as the use of the
> term itself. There is (too much) advocacy and bashing on both sides.
> It would be nice to have a truce, but it ain't gonna happen here.
If (as I suspect) Alan was referring to the troll, who is nothing
if not hardcore, then your "Thus displaying your own bias." reply
was unfortunate and wrong. But I agree that there's bias here, and
more often than not it's pro-DSLR / anti-P&S, and this group is
further divided into brand chauvinist fanatics, as opposed to the
larger numbers that are just normal fans of their own brands and
accept that cameras from other manufacturers are just as worthy for
most purposes. The fanatics can also be more finely divided, and
one such subgroup would be the Canon fanatics that greatly enjoy
ridiculing Nikon's products. I'm sure that they don't believe much
of what they say, and the hyperbolic disparagement is intentional,
done more to tease the owners of the attacked products, akin to
playing "the dozens". In my schooldays (whether in class or in the
schoolyard) these insult competitions were known as ranking or
sounding. If one insult resulted in a funnier, more insulting
reply, someone listening in the background would often shout "Ooh,
sound on the rebound!" It's not always lighthearted sport.
Alan Smithee
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:32:36 -0500, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote in
>>>>>The part I can't understand though (and the part I think you were
>>>>>referring
>>>>>to) is why some people get so defensive over certain brands. Mind you,
>>>>>I
>>>>>don't think there are many hardcore fanboys in here, just one hardcore
>>>>>P&S
>>>>>fan.
>>>> Thus displaying your own bias.
>>> On the contrary.
>> John (a moderately hardcore P&S camera user, IIRC) probably
>>thought you were referring to a real person. I assume that your
>>target was instead the sock puppet anti-DSLR troll, that's posted
>>mostly drivel under hundreds of different names by now. He may also
>>be overly sensitive to accusations of brand bias, as seen in some of
>>his recent comments aggressively defending MS and Norton products.
> The display of bias is in accusing just the "P&S" side of the debate
> (using the term loosely) of being hardcore, as well as the use of the
> term itself. There is (too much) advocacy and bashing on both sides.
> It would be nice to have a truce, but it ain't gonna happen here.
What do you mean both sides? Most people have P&S's as well as their other
camera's. I have three. Hell, I even have a camera phone too.
Mr. Strat
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Yep. There are some people here who should be out taking pictures
> instead of spending so much time here attacking those that are.
Or in your case, you might want to actually learn how to create decent
images rather than continue producing the mediocre crap you've done for
so long.
Mr. Strat
<sligoNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, some are better or worse than others. The camera in my cell
phone, for example, will just about beat the performance of any digital
camera that Sigma has ever made.
RustY ©
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:281220082053528975%r...@nospam.techline.com...
>
>.............The camera in my cell
> phone, for example, will just about beat the performance of any digital
> camera that Sigma has ever made.
How true - How true........ And its mostly due to the plastic lens being
better than Sigma glass.
Stephen Bishop
You mean like what you have been doing, John?
Stephen Bishop
There has certainly been some camera bashing going on, but not nearly
as much as some people believe.
From where I sit, I don't ridicule anyone for their choice of camera.
What I find amazing, though, is how some will dig themselves into
defensive positions in the face of objective evidence and pick at
gnats over the words people use to refer to certain types of
cameras... and then accuse others of bias for simply acknowledging
the facts.
Here are the facts, apart from any bias or brand favoritism:
1. P&S / superzoom / compact / whatever-the-proper-term-is cameras
are best if you want an all-in-one solution that you can carry
anywhere with you. Depending on the brand and model, you can get
reasonably good quality if it is adequate for what your needs are.
2. Dslr cameras, by virtue of the larger sensors and lower pixel
density, will outperform smaller cameras in terms of image quality.
This has been demonstrated many times over by objective testing.
Subjectively, images from larger sensors will generally appear more
"photographic" and less "digital."
Both types of their cameras have their place. IMO it is simply
foolish to say that one is "better" than the other, just as it is
equally foolish to try to deny the above basic facts.
If you want the best image quality, go with a dslr. If you want the
most stealth and portability, go with the p&s. Period. Don't even
waste time trying to justify how one camera type is as good as or
better than the other type when they are both designed for different
purposes.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
Certainly there is not only room for both, but IMO there
should be a fusion of both. My original observation was that there
are many people who appear, from what they post here, to be far more
obsessed with the hardware than in the art of photography.
In real life, I see far more need for learning to use the
tools at hand, then trying to find new tools when you don't understand
how to best use what you have.
In the" real world" I refereed to few people ever learn to use
the tools they have. I am no exception to that rule. The stress
placed on hardware, I believe leads most people to believe that the
answer to how to get better results is better hardware, while in
reality new hardware may make the situation worse.
This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
with film photography.
When working in retail photography many years ago, I saw the
results of many of my customers and it was not surprising to see
someone with an Instamatic 104 do better than someone with a Lecia.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before choosing
>an item to buy, ..
All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.
However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.
David J Taylor
[]
> Certainly there is not only room for both, but IMO there
> should be a fusion of both. My original observation was that there
> are many people who appear, from what they post here, to be far more
> obsessed with the hardware than in the art of photography.
I think that immediately springs from the name of the group - it's
concerned with those aspects which are "digital", and not those which are
artistic. Perhaps if more people took an interest in the technical
aspects of the appliances we use every day - TV, mobile phones, even
cars - we would have a better-informed society?
> In real life, I see far more need for learning to use the
> tools at hand, then trying to find new tools when you don't understand
> how to best use what you have.
Agreed.
> In the" real world" I refereed to few people ever learn to use
> the tools they have. I am no exception to that rule. The stress
> placed on hardware, I believe leads most people to believe that the
> answer to how to get better results is better hardware, while in
> reality new hardware may make the situation worse.
Agreed. But I also blame the instruction manuals a little, as they are
not as helpful as they could be. Oh, and perhaps I blame scene modes as
well! <G>
> This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
> with film photography.
>
> When working in retail photography many years ago, I saw the
> results of many of my customers and it was not surprising to see
> someone with an Instamatic 104 do better than someone with a Lecia.
Oh, yes, having an "eye" for a photo is a great gift.
Perhaps the rec.photo.technique hierarchy contains the artistic
discussions missing here?
David
Alan Smithee
news:soihl4puc8qt541sl...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:25:01 -0000, "Alan Smithee" <m...@privacy.net>
>>I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before
>>choosing
>>an item to buy, ..
> All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
> the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.
>
> However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
> the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
> difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
> a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.
Which ever way you look at it, better camera features give you more options
for your 'art'. Some of the great photos I have seen are are deliberately
out of focus and are noisy/grainy (hell, quite a lot of them aren't even in
colour ;-)). But, if it's unintentional, an out of focus shot or a noisy
shot is still a out of focus shot or a noisy shot.
I mentioned that I have heard quite a few people say that it isn't the
camera, it's the photographer. In most cases, what they really mean is that
it's not the photographer, it's the post processing skills. If you look at
sites such as Worth1000, DeviantArt, CD/DVD cover sites, AOP, etc. you can
see that post processing plays a huge part (and always has). On the other
hand, sites like Reuters/National Geographic however are a different type of
'art'.
Sometimes though, people just want good photos of their friends, family,
pets, etc. If that means shooting at 10fps to get a good photo of their kid
hitting a tennis ball at the ideal moment because they are not so good at
timing the shot, so be it. If that means shooting at high ISO indoors
because they don't have a studio and a set of Profoto packs and heads
allowing them to shoot at f22@ISO100, so be it.
I know where you are coming from, but there is no disadvantage of having a
better features to get the shot you want. Whether it's worth paying more
for those features though is a different story and an individual choice.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<q%36l.12397$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>sligoNo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>[]
>> Certainly there is not only room for both, but IMO there
>> should be a fusion of both. My original observation was that there
>> are many people who appear, from what they post here, to be far more
>> obsessed with the hardware than in the art of photography.
>
>I think that immediately springs from the name of the group - it's
>concerned with those aspects which are "digital", and not those which are
>artistic.
I think the name just distinguishes digital from film without anything
non-artistic implied.
John Navas
<lh1gl4hksl4kh1c3k...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:43:46 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>
>>> John (a moderately hardcore P&S camera user, IIRC) probably
>>> thought you were referring to a real person. I assume that your
>>> target was instead the sock puppet anti-DSLR troll, that's posted
>>> mostly drivel under hundreds of different names by now. He may also
>>> be overly sensitive to accusations of brand bias, as seen in some of
>>> his recent comments aggressively defending MS and Norton products.
>>
>> The display of bias is in accusing just the "P&S" side of the debate
>> (using the term loosely) of being hardcore, as well as the use of the
>> term itself. There is (too much) advocacy and bashing on both sides.
>> It would be nice to have a truce, but it ain't gonna happen here.
>
> If (as I suspect) Alan was referring to the troll, who is nothing
>if not hardcore, then your "Thus displaying your own bias." reply
>was unfortunate and wrong.
I stand by what I wrote. Here's why:
Judgmental terms like "hardcore fanboys" and "hardcore P&S" are what I
was referring to. They exhibit bias, and tend to inflame rather than
inform.
It's impossible to be completely free of bias, and we're so comfortable
with our own biases that we tend not to see them as bias when we
unconsciously express them.
>But I agree that there's bias here, and
>more often than not it's pro-DSLR / anti-P&S, and this group is
>further divided into brand chauvinist fanatics, as opposed to the
>larger numbers that are just normal fans of their own brands and
>accept that cameras from other manufacturers are just as worthy for
>most purposes. The fanatics can also be more finely divided, and
>one such subgroup would be the Canon fanatics that greatly enjoy
>ridiculing Nikon's products. I'm sure that they don't believe much
>of what they say, and the hyperbolic disparagement is intentional,
>done more to tease the owners of the attacked products, akin to
>playing "the dozens". In my schooldays (whether in class or in the
>schoolyard) these insult competitions were known as ranking or
>sounding. If one insult resulted in a funnier, more insulting
>reply, someone listening in the background would often shout "Ooh,
>sound on the rebound!" It's not always lighthearted sport.
Well put.
John Navas
<soihl4puc8qt541sl...@4ax.com>:
Agreed.
John Navas
wrote in <dpGdnSTSGOMqRMXU...@pipex.net>:
><sligoNo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
>> the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.
>>
>> However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
>> the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
>> difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
>> a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.
>
>Which ever way you look at it, better camera features give you more options
>for your 'art'.
Not necessarily, including differences of opinion in what is actually
"better".
My car will go far faster than the speed limit, but because of the speed
limit I'm going to arrive at just the same time as someone driving a
gutless econo car, and we both may arrive later than someone on a motor
scooter in city traffic.
What matters is suitability to the task at hand. It's why I shoot water
sports with a super-zoom compact instead of a dSLR.
Henri Cartier-Bresson likewise famously used a simple rangefinder
because it was best suited to his task, easily handled and unobtrusive.
SLR for all your "better" features was less options to him, not more.
>I mentioned that I have heard quite a few people say that it isn't the
>camera, it's the photographer. In most cases, what they really mean is that
>it's not the photographer, it's the post processing skills.
What many of them actually mean is the person behind the camera when the
shutter is released. An eye for photography is far more important than
post processing skills, which can't make up for not getting the great
image in the first place.
"The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches
behind it." -Ansel Adams
>I know where you are coming from,
I'm frankly not sure you do.
>but there is no disadvantage of having a
>better features to get the shot you want.
There is often disagreement over what are "better" features, and some of
what you think are "better" would be worse for the kind of photography
I'm often doing.
>Whether it's worth paying more
>for those features though is a different story and an individual choice.
It's not just a matter of money. That's biased and judgmental.
Mr. Strat
<nospam...@now.com> wrote:
> From where I sit, I don't ridicule anyone for their choice of camera.
I will under certain circumstances. Navas, for example, uses some
crappy Panasonic thing to create his mediocre images. If he didn't set
himself up as knowledgeable, I'd probably let it pass.
Sigma camera owners, on the other hand, always get a kick in the ass
from me. I probably shouldn't since they already got screwed when they
bought the camera.
John Navas
in <2w06l.92586$Iz4....@newsfe19.ams2>:
ROTFL!
ASAAR
>> I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before choosing
>> an item to buy, ..
>
> All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
> the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.
>
> However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
> the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
> difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
> a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.
Other parts of it are that artists (painters) tend not to produce
much that's really decent until after they put in the many hours
required to learn their craft and develop the necessary skills.
It's much easier for novice photographers, who don't need the same
amount of practice and dedication to be able to occasionally produce
a nice picture. So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
good enough.
Another difference is that brushes are simpler than cameras. They
don't come with 500 page manuals. Much can be learned from teachers
or from observing good painters at work, but most of all it takes
practice, lots and lots of practice. And eventually the paintings
really improve. Most photographers never RTFM, never learn more
than a tiny subset of what their cameras can do, and are happy with
that. Many of the photographers here are much more interested in
the technical side of their cameras, partly because they're so
complex, and partly because they're constantly evolving, unlike
brushes. New paints and materials may surface from time to time,
but the pace is much slower, and much less studying is required. To
be really good, painters have to learn a lot of artistic theory,
composition, etc. But that's not a difference. Good photographers
have to learn that as well.
John Navas
<uk6il49jte9de813i...@4ax.com>:
> Other parts of it are that artists (painters) tend not to produce
>much that's really decent until after they put in the many hours
>required to learn their craft and develop the necessary skills.
>It's much easier for novice photographers, who don't need the same
>amount of practice and dedication to be able to occasionally produce
>a nice picture. So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
>small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
>beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
>good enough.
With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
Ways too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.
> Another difference is that brushes are simpler than cameras. ...
I'm pretty sure every serious painter I know would disagree with that.
rwalker
<nospam...@now.com> wrote:
snip
>
>If you want the best image quality, go with a dslr. If you want the
>most stealth and portability, go with the p&s. Period. Don't even
>waste time trying to justify how one camera type is as good as or
>better than the other type when they are both designed for different
>purposes.
>
>
Well put.
John Navas
wrote in <0feil41udtbc2rv38...@4ax.com>:
Rubbish.
Go with a compact digital if you care about:
* Size
* Weight
* Handling ease
* Super-zoom capability
* Very good to excellent results in most situations
* Much lower cost
ASAAR
>> So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
>> small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
>> beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
>> good enough.
>
> With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
> Ways too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
> images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.
I know that it didn't occur to you, but "good enough is good
enough" wasn't intended to be a slur. It only recognizes that
people have different preferences and priorities. In fact this was
a phrase I first heard used in a business sense, where those
companies striving to achieve perfection often ended up as big
losers, while the ones that knew when their products were good
enough to go into production were usually successful.
There isn't enough time to become proficient in everything that
might interest us, and if photography is chosen, other interests
might have to suffer. There are many things other than photography
where I feel that "good enough is good enough". My audio system is
one. My TV is another. Same for my computer. I don't own any of
the really top of the line DSLR bodies or lenses, and it doesn't
bother me at all. Why did you assume what I didn't say or mean?
Snapshot shooting isn't really what interests me, but it's fine for
most people (the "them") and I see nothing wrong with their
preference. You really seem to be going out of your way to find
things to criticize and argue about.
>> Another difference is that brushes are simpler than cameras. ...
>
> I'm pretty sure every serious painter I know would disagree with that.
And I'm quite sure that they're wrong. But you didn't say whether
you agree with what you assume is their opinion. I know that
painters have a great interest in brushes, pigments, etc., and can
spend an inordinate number of hours discussing them with other
artists, just as some musicians talk about and spend much of their
lives looking for the perfect mouthpiece, reed or the wood used for
their guitars. The complexity might be a concern for luthiers and
other craftsmen, but musicians don't deal with that kind of
complexity. In camera terms, this might be like searching for a
lens that has the elusive bokeh that you prefer, which may not be
the bokeh that others prefer. But this is far from complex and
doesn't require the kinds of study and practice that learning to
become proficient using cameras requires.
I recall recently reading some well known photographer (sorry,
can't recall the name) who said that if he didn't use his camera for
a period, maybe a month or so, he'd lose his "chops" and it would
take at least several days of shooting to regain his former skill
level. Musicians on the other hand usually lose less of their
"chops" and gain more in creativity after a similar layoff, which
I've experienced many times. This effect is probably similar for
artists and writers. Give painters new brushes that are unfamiliar,
and they will immediately be able to put them to good use, even if
they have to adjust their style and technique. Replace a camera
with another brand and photographers will at best be able to limp
along using very basic modes. It could easily take days or weeks
for them to approach their former shooting proficiency.
John Navas
<bdjil4du0hj73v2uo...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:50:13 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>
>>> So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
>>> small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
>>> beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
>>> good enough.
>>
>> With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
>> [Way] too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
>> images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.
>
> I know that it didn't occur to you, but "good enough is good
>enough" wasn't intended to be a slur. It only recognizes that
>people have different preferences and priorities. In fact this was
>a phrase I first heard used in a business sense, where those
>companies striving to achieve perfection often ended up as big
>losers, while the ones that knew when their products were good
>enough to go into production were usually successful.
It was just a clarification, but fair enough regardless.
> There isn't enough time to become proficient in everything that
>might interest us, and if photography is chosen, other interests
>might have to suffer. There are many things other than photography
>where I feel that "good enough is good enough". My audio system is
>one. My TV is another. Same for my computer. I don't own any of
>the really top of the line DSLR bodies or lenses, and it doesn't
>bother me at all. Why did you assume what I didn't say or mean?
Because it's often a slur here, meant to suggest that someone's
standards are lower, a negative value judgment.
>Snapshot shooting isn't really what interests me, but it's fine for
>most people (the "them") and I see nothing wrong with their
>preference. You really seem to be going out of your way to find
>things to criticize and argue about.
You seem to be pretty sensitive on what was only a clarification.
Your use of the term "snapshot shooting" suggests that you did mean
"good enough" in the sense of a lower standard. To be clear, I was
pointing out that "good enough" to many people means that the difference
is either insignificant or meaningless. For example, just because
someone thinks they can see sharpening halo when pixel-peeping an image
doesn't mean that it will be even visible when the image is printed. It
might well even be desirable, depending on the particular printer.
>> I'm pretty sure every serious painter I know would disagree with that.
>
> And I'm quite sure that they're wrong.
Are you a serious painter?
>Give painters new brushes that are unfamiliar,
>and they will immediately be able to put them to good use, even if
>they have to adjust their style and technique. Replace a camera
>with another brand and photographers will at best be able to limp
>along using very basic modes. It could easily take days or weeks
>for them to approach their former shooting proficiency.
I don't agree.
-hh
> > Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
>
> >>If you want the best image quality, go with a dslr. If you want the
> >>most stealth and portability, go with the p&s. Period. Don't even
> >>waste time trying to justify how one camera type is as good as or
> >>better than the other type when they are both designed for different
> >>purposes.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> Go with a compact digital if you care about:
> * Size
That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.
> * Weight
That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.
> * Handling ease
That's "portability", John.
> * Super-zoom capability
That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.
> * Very good to excellent results in most situations
That falls short of "the best image quality", John.
> * Much lower cost
That's a dependent variable.
-hh
John Navas
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in
<6917ee55-04b6-4c60...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Go with a compact digital if you care about:
>> * Size
>
>That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.
More than that.
>> * Weight
>
>That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.
More than that.
>> * Handling ease
>
>That's "portability", John.
More than that.
>> * Super-zoom capability
>
>That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.
Way more than that.
>> * Very good to excellent results in most situations
>
>That falls short of "the best image quality", John.
I couldn't care less.
>> * Much lower cost
>
>That's a dependent variable.
Nonsense.
Mark Thomas
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:03:35 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
>> ...short of "the best image quality", John.
> I couldn't care less.
And that's ALL you need to know. As they say..
'case closed'
-hh
> -hh<recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> > >
> >> Go with a compact digital if you care about:
> >> * Size
>
> >That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.
>
> More than that.
So then Stephen was correct, just not to the full degree that you
personally want. This means that Navas's claim of ' Rubbish' is
functionally recanted.
> >> * Weight
> >> * Handling ease
> >> * Super-zoom capability
Ditto, ditto, ditto. Navas continues to recant.
> >> * Very good to excellent results in most situations
>
> >That falls short of "the best image quality", John.
>
> I couldn't care less.
We know.
> >> * Much lower cost
>
> >That's a dependent variable.
>
> Nonsense.
'Best' is only achieved through the application of greater efforts
which invokes the laws of diminishing returns, which is invariably
expensive. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
-hh
ASAAR
>> Snapshot shooting isn't really what interests me, but it's fine for
>> most people (the "them") and I see nothing wrong with their
>> preference. You really seem to be going out of your way to find
>> things to criticize and argue about.
>
> You seem to be pretty sensitive on what was only a clarification.
Really? You completely misunderstood and criticized what I said,
implying that I intended it as a slur. That's NOT a clarification.
>>> So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
>>> small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
>>> beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
>>> good enough.
>>
>> With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
>> [Way] too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
>> images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.
and then excused your misinterpretation by saying
> Because it's often a slur here, meant to suggest that someone's
> standards are lower, a negative value judgment.
An acceptable excuse, but then this excuse contradicts your
previous claim that you hadn't criticized, but clarified. It's easy
to see where this leads, which is that you're just another of those
on the internet that will never admit error, no matter how much it
damages their credibility. In this newsgroup you're not unique,
although not yet as offensive as a couple of those that share some
of your other attributes. I can imagine how you'll respond. Try to
surprise me.
SneakyP
news:ovhhl45mer1nrbvfq...@4ax.com:
> This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
> with film photography.
>
In contrast...
what was news to me was the fact that films will compress the dynamic range
in the upper regions whereas digital will tend to white-out the saturated
areas. Digital also has a non-logarithmic scale of discreet ranges
whereas film will have a better picture that is smoother in the darker
ranges.
The more data a digital will capture, the better the picture is whereas the
darker ranges in a film will capture the data better than the whiter areas
because it isn't plagued with electronic noise interfering with the darker
portion of the picture.
Completely backwards, but nevertheless so much different.
Just asking all here: have there been any DSLR cameras that can do what
the film type have been shown to do?
My perception is that those film cameras do a much better job of capturing
pictures, but that was a little over a year ago.
--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.
Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
down :0)
SneakyP
news:4luhl4t7s0fi9tb19...@4ax.com:
perhaps the name should have simply been rec.photo.
.digital, and .film, could have been sub-groups off of that.
Anyone familiar with Medium Format Cameras? I've yet to see a Digital be
able to take those types of pictures.
David J Taylor
> sligoNo...@hotmail.com wrote in
> news:ovhhl45mer1nrbvfq...@4ax.com:
>
>> This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
>> with film photography.
>>
> In contrast...
>
> what was news to me was the fact that films will compress the dynamic
> range in the upper regions whereas digital will tend to white-out the
> saturated areas. Digital also has a non-logarithmic scale of
> discreet ranges whereas film will have a better picture that is
> smoother in the darker ranges.
> The more data a digital will capture, the better the picture is
> whereas the darker ranges in a film will capture the data better than
> the whiter areas because it isn't plagued with electronic noise
> interfering with the darker portion of the picture.
> Completely backwards, but nevertheless so much different.
Digital is linear when captured, only non-linear when converted to JPEG.
You are correct about the white saturation. I am not so sure you are
correct about the low-light or toe end of the film range. Why do
astronomers now use digital? Is digital or film photon-limited at the low
end?
> Just asking all here: have there been any DSLR cameras that can do
> what the film type have been shown to do?
> My perception is that those film cameras do a much better job of
> capturing pictures, but that was a little over a year ago.
Fuji had some dual-pixel CCD cameras at one time - perhaps the Fuji S5 -
designed for high-end range extension by adding in a less sensitive sensor
pixel as well as the standard pixel.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/03012202fujisuperccdsr.asp
Cheers,
David
Chris H
<inv...@invalid.invalid> writes
>Anyone familiar with Medium Format Cameras? I've yet to see a Digital be
>able to take those types of pictures.
Most of them are now Digital Have been for some time 25-60MP backs on
them.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Stephen Bishop
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:58:33 -0500, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com>
>wrote in <0feil41udtbc2rv38...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:32:52 -0500, Stephen Bishop
>><nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>If you want the best image quality, go with a dslr. If you want the
>>>most stealth and portability, go with the p&s. Period. Don't even
>>>waste time trying to justify how one camera type is as good as or
>>>better than the other type when they are both designed for different
>>>purposes.
>>
>>Well put.
>
>Rubbish.
>
>Go with a compact digital if you care about:
> * Size
> * Weight
> * Handling ease
> * Super-zoom capability
> * Very good to excellent results in most situations
> * Much lower cost
Interesting that you called it rubbish but essentially just repeated
what I had already said.
Stephen Bishop
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:39:07 -0500, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote in
><lh1gl4hksl4kh1c3k...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:43:46 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>> John (a moderately hardcore P&S camera user, IIRC) probably
>>>> thought you were referring to a real person. I assume that your
>>>> target was instead the sock puppet anti-DSLR troll, that's posted
>>>> mostly drivel under hundreds of different names by now. He may also
>>>> be overly sensitive to accusations of brand bias, as seen in some of
>>>> his recent comments aggressively defending MS and Norton products.
>>>
>>> The display of bias is in accusing just the "P&S" side of the debate
>>> (using the term loosely) of being hardcore, as well as the use of the
>>> term itself. There is (too much) advocacy and bashing on both sides.
>>> It would be nice to have a truce, but it ain't gonna happen here.
>>
>> If (as I suspect) Alan was referring to the troll, who is nothing
>>if not hardcore, then your "Thus displaying your own bias." reply
>>was unfortunate and wrong.
>
>I stand by what I wrote. Here's why:
>
>Judgmental terms like "hardcore fanboys" and "hardcore P&S" are what I
>was referring to. They exhibit bias, and tend to inflame rather than
>inform.
Like when you refer to others as the house n-word, John?
But you have made it abundantly clear to everyone that you consider
the simple term "p&s" to be both biased and denigrating even without
the "hardcore" adjective added.
>It's impossible to be completely free of bias, and we're so comfortable
>with our own biases that we tend not to see them as bias when we
>unconsciously express them.
At least you are close to admitting that you have your own bias.
Stephen Bishop
>On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:25:01 -0000, "Alan Smithee" <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before choosing
>>an item to buy, ..
>
> All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
>the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.
>
> However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
>the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
>difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
>a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.
This has been true for as long as photography has existed. Painters
have always been interested in their tools with respect to how they
fit their own technique and vision; but there has always been a subset
of photographers who are obsessed with the tools to the point of
owning the "best" tool being more important than what they actually
produce with it. Fortunately for all of us, this is what drives
camera sales and encourages competition among the gear manufacturers.
IMO there is truly a disctinction between the "camera bug" or "gear
enthusiast" and the artist / photographer even though the interests of
both may meet in the middle.
Photography is one of those things that can be either a left or right
brained pursuit. That's why it's possible for the wealthy camera
enthusiast to consistently get mediocre images while bragging about
how "sharp" they are; while the artist with the lesser camera can
consistently produce interesting and compelling images.
That being said, the artist will be able to produce even better images
with better tools at his disposal.
Stephen Bishop
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:07:02 -0000, "Alan Smithee" <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote in <dpGdnSTSGOMqRMXU...@pipex.net>:
>
>><sligoNo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
>>> the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.
>>>
>>> However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
>>> the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
>>> difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
>>> a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.
>>
>>Which ever way you look at it, better camera features give you more options
>>for your 'art'.
>
>Not necessarily, including differences of opinion in what is actually
>"better".
>
>My car will go far faster than the speed limit, but because of the speed
>limit I'm going to arrive at just the same time as someone driving a
>gutless econo car, and we both may arrive later than someone on a motor
>scooter in city traffic.
>
>What matters is suitability to the task at hand. It's why I shoot water
>sports with a super-zoom compact instead of a dSLR.
>
>Henri Cartier-Bresson likewise famously used a simple rangefinder
>because it was best suited to his task, easily handled and unobtrusive.
>SLR for all your "better" features was less options to him, not more.
Exactly. His pictures were all about the spontaneity of the moment,
not technical quality. However, very, very few photographers have
the talent to pull that off. And I really do mean VERY few. That's
what made Cartier-Bresson so great. He was so good at content that
nobody cared that many of his images were not in sharp focus or had
minor issues with exposure, etc. But for the vast majority of
photographs, technical flaws are a distraction.
Your super-zoom compact may be suitable for watersports from the
perspective of being more portable and less painful to you if it falls
overboard or gets splashed with a wave. But in terms of image quality
it may not be the most suitable; because watersports often involves
very high contrast lighting and the need to shoot fast action under
rapidly changing conditions, often at higher ISOs to capture the peak
action. You may be comfortable with what you have, but the point you
seem to miss is that a camera designed for these kinds of extreme
shooting conditions would give you better results. By "better" I'm
only referring to image quality things like noise, blown highlights
and consistently sharp action pictures.
If your super-zoom were the ideal sports/action camera, then you would
see more professional sports/action photographers using them. That
just isn't reality.
But if what you are getting is good enough for your purposes, just be
happy with it. There's no need to shout "bias" at those with higher
expectations of image quality than you have.
>>I mentioned that I have heard quite a few people say that it isn't the
>>camera, it's the photographer. In most cases, what they really mean is that
>>it's not the photographer, it's the post processing skills.
>
>What many of them actually mean is the person behind the camera when the
>shutter is released. An eye for photography is far more important than
>post processing skills, which can't make up for not getting the great
>image in the first place.
Absolutely true. "GIGO" applies to photography as much as it does
to computer programming.
>
>"The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches
>behind it." -Ansel Adams
Yet Ansel Adams personally chose to use the cameras that gave him the
best possible image quality even though they were very inconvenient to
use. Why is that?
>
>>I know where you are coming from,
>
>I'm frankly not sure you do.
>
>>but there is no disadvantage of having a
>>better features to get the shot you want.
>
>There is often disagreement over what are "better" features, and some of
>what you think are "better" would be worse for the kind of photography
>I'm often doing.
>
>>Whether it's worth paying more
>>for those features though is a different story and an individual choice.
>
>It's not just a matter of money. That's biased and judgmental.
Why do you have to end so many of your posts by accusing others of
being biased and judgmental? Don't you think that's a bit biased and
judgmental on your part?
Stephen Bishop
Exactly.
Anyone with an automatic camera can get an acceptable picture from
time to time. That's simply because the expectations are lower.
This is the main reason why beginning photography classes required
students to use a simple manually-adjustable camera; so they would
learn to actually see photographs and learn to manipulate their
cameras to achieve what they see.
Stephen Bishop
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:08:10 -0500, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote in
><uk6il49jte9de813i...@4ax.com>:
>
>> Other parts of it are that artists (painters) tend not to produce
>>much that's really decent until after they put in the many hours
>>required to learn their craft and develop the necessary skills.
>>It's much easier for novice photographers, who don't need the same
>>amount of practice and dedication to be able to occasionally produce
>>a nice picture. So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
>>small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
>>beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
>>good enough.
>
>With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
>Ways too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
>images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.
So true. There is no reason to discuss the fine points of cooking
among those who are satisfied with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
That's not a slur, either. I love a good pb&j every now and then!
>
>> Another difference is that brushes are simpler than cameras. ...
>
>I'm pretty sure every serious painter I know would disagree with that.
How so? Are your painter friends obsessed with the number of
bristles or do they themselves "bristle" when someone refers to their
favorite brush as being merely a brush?
-hh
> sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >"Alan Smithee" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >>I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before
> >>choosing an item to buy, ..
>
> > All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
> >the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.
> >
> > However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
> >the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
> >difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
> >a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.
A camera/lens is a more complicated "thing" than a brush and jar of
pigment, so its easier to talk hardware than techniques.
Another potentially contributing factor may also be that "A" set of
camera hardware can be used for multiple photographic applications ...
portrait, landscape, macro, wildlife, etc ...
... whereas in traditional classic 'art', the medium can be where the
specialization occurs: oils, watercolor, acrylic, tempera, ink,
charcoal, chalk, conté crayons, even Sumi calligraphy, etchings,
engravings, lithography, woodcuts (and as kids, potato cuts :-) and
mediums more traditionally 3D in murals and sculptures made of paster
of paris, paper, clay, wood, metals, marble, etc, etc, etc...
These all tends to some degree to have inward looking self-
specialization: we tend to find more 'portraits' done in Italian
marble than 'landscapes', and an artist doing a woodcut uses a chisel,
which is oblique to the interests of a painter for his brushes, even
though they might come back to intersection by both being interested
in trying to use a pointillist technique.
> This has been true for as long as photography has existed. Painters
> have always been interested in their tools with respect to how they
> fit their own technique and vision; but there has always been a subset
> of photographers who are obsessed with the tools to the point of
> owning the "best" tool being more important than what they actually
> produce with it...
> Photography is one of those things that can be either a left or right
> brained pursuit. That's why it's possible for the wealthy camera
> enthusiast to consistently get mediocre images while bragging about
> how "sharp" they are; while the artist with the lesser camera can
> consistently produce interesting and compelling images.
This happens as well with artists in other mediums...there's
invariably a contingent of 'painters' who insist on using the very
best pigment brands, etc, even though they're not particularly skilled
at their craft. It doesn't take all that long to find that there's a
lot of mediocre art that's on "high quality" materials.
> That being said, the artist will be able to produce even better images
> with better tools at his disposal.
Agreed. It is frequently a surprise to discover that some famous
masterpiece was done on a scraped (recycled) canvas, is only half the
size that you thought it would be, and so forth. For example, the
Mona Lisa isn't painted on canvas (its on a plank of wood) and the
original composition was altered through partial repainting (she
originally had been wearing a bonnet).
-hh
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
...
>Anyone familiar with Medium Format Cameras? I've yet to see a Digital be
>able to take those types of pictures.
Yes, I have a 2ź and a 4x5 and I have worked with 8x10 and
20x24. They each have their place. I have not used either the 2ź or
the 4x5 for a long time, although I still have the dark room set up.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
><sligoNo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>Which ever way you look at it, better camera features give you more options
>for your 'art'.
Well I think we agree, but I would not say more options ways
means better options.
>Sometimes though, people just want good photos of their friends, family,
>pets, etc. If that means shooting at 10fps to get a good photo of their kid
>hitting a tennis ball at the ideal moment because they are not so good at
>timing the shot, so be it. If that means shooting at high ISO indoors
>because they don't have a studio and a set of Profoto packs and heads
>allowing them to shoot at f22@ISO100, so be it.
I totally agree there.
>
>I know where you are coming from, but there is no disadvantage of having a
>better features to get the shot you want. Whether it's worth paying more
>for those features though is a different story and an individual choice.
>
I disagree, at least in part. More can make for more
confusing. Frankly I don't spend the time with my camera I once did.
I don't know my camera as I once knew my cameras. Sometime I find
myself spending more time and effort to get the camera to do what I
want, than I did with the simpler say manual 2ź.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:08:10 -0500, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote in
><uk6il49jte9de813i...@4ax.com>:
...
>
>With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
>Ways too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
>images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.
>
Agreeded.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
<nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:08:51 -0500, sligoNo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>This has been true for as long as photography has existed. Painters
>have always been interested in their tools with respect to how they
>fit their own technique and vision;
True, I for one like to use a roller, and get the job done
fast. I hate painting the trim.
> but there has always been a subset
>of photographers who are obsessed with the tools to the point of
>owning the "best" tool being more important than what they actually
>produce with it.
Agreed
John Navas
<fh3jl45bfqeks97ph...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:29:45 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>
>>> Snapshot shooting isn't really what interests me, but it's fine for
>>> most people (the "them") and I see nothing wrong with their
>>> preference. You really seem to be going out of your way to find
>>> things to criticize and argue about.
>>
>> You seem to be pretty sensitive on what was only a clarification.
>
> Really? You completely misunderstood and criticized what I said,
>implying that I intended it as a slur. That's NOT a clarification.
I didn't and don't think you intended it as a slur, and I'm sorry you
feel that way. I thought and still think your choice of terms is
unconscious (like your use of the term "snapshot" above), and thus
I tried to assure you I was being respectful when I responded with my
clarification.
>>> With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
--------------------
>>> [Way] too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
>>> images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.
>
> and then excused your misinterpretation by saying
I wasn't excusing anything -- I didn't and don't think there was
anything to excuse. I didn't attack you personally, as you now have me
-- I just expressed my own opinion.
>> Because it's often a slur here, meant to suggest that someone's
>> standards are lower, a negative value judgment.
>
> An acceptable excuse, but then this excuse contradicts your
>previous claim that you hadn't criticized, but clarified.
You're seeing offense where none was intended.
>It's easy
>to see where this leads, which is that you're just another of those
>on the internet that will never admit error, no matter how much it
>damages their credibility. In this newsgroup you're not unique,
>although not yet as offensive as a couple of those that share some
>of your other attributes. I can imagine how you'll respond. Try to
>surprise me.
And now you've responded by attacking me personally, something I haven't
done to you. Are you trying to pick a fight with me?
If you're not, tell you what -- it's the holiday season, and if you'll
be nice enough to apologize for this, I'll just forget it. For my part
I apologize for offending you.
-hh
>
> Interesting that you called it rubbish but essentially just repeated
> what I had already said.
Second time that this has been specifially pointed out to Navas.
Naturally, John's been (cough!) "too busy" posting elsewhere to have
the courtesy to acknowledge his error. Apparently, John's time is
being completely monopolized by trying to lean on ASAAR to apologize
for the statement:
"It's easy to see where this leads, which is that [Navas is] just
another of those on the internet that will never admit error, no
matter how much it damages their credibility..."
-hh
ASAAR
>> An acceptable excuse, but then this excuse contradicts your
>> previous claim that you hadn't criticized, but clarified.
>
> You're seeing offense where none was intended.
It's possible that you didn't consciously intend to offend, but
much of what you write appears to contradict what you later say was
your intent. Before sending quickly composed replies, why not try
saving them for an hour or two. Then re-read them to see if they
can be edited to get your points across with more tact and fewer
unintentional(?) insults.
>> It's easy
>> to see where this leads, which is that you're just another of those
>> on the internet that will never admit error, no matter how much it
>> damages their credibility. In this newsgroup you're not unique,
>> although not yet as offensive as a couple of those that share some
>> of your other attributes. I can imagine how you'll respond. Try to
>> surprise me.
>
> And now you've responded by attacking me personally, something I haven't
> done to you. Are you trying to pick a fight with me?
You didn't surprise me. You see accurate descriptions of your
behavior as personal attacks, but fail to see that you're overly
critical of so many posts from so many people that many here see
that you're guilty of the bias and judgementalism that you so
readily use to tar others with your broad brush.
> If you're not, tell you what -- it's the holiday season, and if you'll
> be nice enough to apologize for this, I'll just forget it. For my part
> I apologize for offending you.
My, my, how gracious of you. False, insincere apologies
accomplish nothing. What's clear is that what's needed is a
recognition of, and a change in your aggressive, arrogant, and
condescending behavior, which many people here have reasonably
interpreted as *your* attempt to pick fights. It's unfortunate, but
you'll almost certainly see this as another "personal attack", when
it's simply a description of how you present yourself to the world.
John Navas
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:4luhl4t7s0fi9tb19...@4ax.com:
>perhaps the name should have simply been rec.photo.
>.digital, and .film, could have been sub-groups off of that.
That's pretty much what there is -- see
<http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?sel=usenet%3Drec.photo>
>Anyone familiar with Medium Format Cameras? I've yet to see a Digital be
>able to take those types of pictures.
Images stitched from compact digital can be quite comparable to medium
format. See <http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/detail.htm>
I did a 30 MP stitch of the huge Embarcadero Center office building
complex in San Francisco with my compact digital. You can clearly see
the people behind the windows by zooming in.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<sEk6l.12673$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>SneakyP wrote:
>> what was news to me was the fact that films will compress the dynamic
>> range in the upper regions whereas digital will tend to white-out the
>> saturated areas. Digital also has a non-logarithmic scale of
>> discreet ranges whereas film will have a better picture that is
>> smoother in the darker ranges.
>> The more data a digital will capture, the better the picture is
>> whereas the darker ranges in a film will capture the data better than
>> the whiter areas because it isn't plagued with electronic noise
>> interfering with the darker portion of the picture.
>> Completely backwards, but nevertheless so much different.
>
>Digital is linear when captured, only non-linear when converted to JPEG.
>You are correct about the white saturation. I am not so sure you are
>correct about the low-light or toe end of the film range.
Not really -- see published film response curves.
>Why do
>astronomers now use digital? Is digital or film photon-limited at the low
>end?
Both are, but digital is getting better and better at filtering signal
from noise, reflected in much higher ISO capability than film.
John Navas
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in
<3911ffdf-d34f-42e0...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
>>
>> Interesting that you called it rubbish but essentially just repeated
>> what I had already said.
>
>Second time that this has been specifially pointed out to Navas.
Stephen is in my twit filter, so I don't see what he posts unless
someone quotes it.
>Naturally, John's been (cough!) "too busy" posting elsewhere to have
>the courtesy to acknowledge his error. Apparently, John's time is
>being completely monopolized by trying to lean on ASAAR to apologize
>for the statement:
There was no error. What I called "rubbish" was the silly "best image
quality" mantra, which is quite from what I wrote. Read more carefully.
>"It's easy to see where this leads, which is that [Navas is] just
>another of those on the internet that will never admit error, no
>matter how much it damages their credibility..."
'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
ASAAR
>> "It's easy to see where this leads, which is that [Navas is] just
>> another of those on the internet that will never admit error, no
>> matter how much it damages their credibility..."
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
It's easy to toss of glib comments such as this, but some will see
the irony in that you were unable to glean anything from the
presented evidence, choosing to misinterpet it instead as an attack.
Stephen Bishop
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:03:35 -0800 (PST), -hh
><recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in
><6917ee55-04b6-4c60...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> Go with a compact digital if you care about:
>>> * Size
>>
>>That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.
>
>More than that.
>
>>> * Weight
>>
>>That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.
>
>More than that.
>
>>> * Handling ease
>>
>>That's "portability", John.
>
>More than that.
>
>>> * Super-zoom capability
>>
>>That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.
>
>Way more than that.
>
>>> * Very good to excellent results in most situations
>>
>>That falls short of "the best image quality", John.
>
>I couldn't care less.
At least you are now saying that you don't really care about image
quality. One step at a time.
Stephen Bishop
So not only do you boast that you with your compact camera is as good
as a larger sensor camera in the hands of a professional photographer;
now you're boasting that you are also better than a professional with
a medium format film camera?
Stephen Bishop
This is true. Digital has much better high ISO capability than film.
However, p&s cameras are pretty much useless above ISO 400, and most
are not as good as film even at that speed. To take advantage of
digital's ISO advantage you need a larger CMOS type sensor like what
is found in dslrs.
Stephen Bishop
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:56:36 -0800 (PST), -hh
><recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in
><3911ffdf-d34f-42e0...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting that you called it rubbish but essentially just repeated
>>> what I had already said.
>>
>>Second time that this has been specifially pointed out to Navas.
>
>Stephen is in my twit filter, so I don't see what he posts unless
>someone quotes it.
Sigh. I guess I'm in good company.
Perhaps someone would be good enough quote my responses to John. It
isn't fair to him to have others read them without him having the
opportunity to respond.
>>Naturally, John's been (cough!) "too busy" posting elsewhere to have
>>the courtesy to acknowledge his error. Apparently, John's time is
>>being completely monopolized by trying to lean on ASAAR to apologize
>>for the statement:
>
>There was no error. What I called "rubbish" was the silly "best image
>quality" mantra, which is quite from what I wrote. Read more carefully.
>
>>"It's easy to see where this leads, which is that [Navas is] just
>>another of those on the internet that will never admit error, no
>>matter how much it damages their credibility..."
>
>'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
>whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
Once again, John, your modus operandi is to ignore the evidence,
scream bloody murder, attack the man, then twit-filter the messenger.
John Navas
<l6ikl41g6tgdfpbt2...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:59:02 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>> And now you've responded by attacking me personally, something I haven't
>> done to you. Are you trying to pick a fight with me?
>
> You didn't surprise me. You see accurate descriptions of your
>behavior as personal attacks,
That says it all. So be it.
John Navas
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in
<825016f1-91c2-4377...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>:
>Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
>> sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >"Alan Smithee" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before
>> >>choosing an item to buy, ..
>>
>> > All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
>> >the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.
>> >
>> > However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
>> >the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
>> >difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
>> >a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.
>
>A camera/lens is a more complicated "thing" than a brush and jar of
>pigment, so its easier to talk hardware than techniques.
I think the real difference here is that cameras are far more expensive
than brushes, and some people feel the need to validate and justify such
large expenditures.
-hh
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
>
> >> Interesting that you called it rubbish but essentially just
> >> repeated what I had already said.
>
> >Second time that this has been specifially pointed out to Navas.
>
> Stephen is in my twit filter, so I don't see what he posts unless
> someone quotes it.
That's not an excuse, since if you feel so strongly about someone to
actually put them through a 'twit' filter, then you should also have
enough self-control to refrain from taking a cheap shot at him when
you see them quoted.
> >Naturally, John's been (cough!) "too busy" posting elsewhere to have
> >the courtesy to acknowledge his error. Apparently, John's time is
> >being completely monopolized by trying to lean on ASAAR to apologize
> >for the statement:
>
> There was no error. What I called "rubbish" was the silly "best image
> quality" mantra, which is quite from what I wrote. Read more carefully.
That *might* have been a plausible explantion had you used it two
posts earlier and if in those two posts you hadn't proactively and
overtly contradict what you're now trying to claim.
The first overt contradiction was that the introduction of the
specific metrics of "size", "weight", "handling", etc was done by you
(12/29/08; 4:10pm posting)
The second overt contradiction was that when it was then pointed out
(10:03pm) how {size/weight/handling/etc} were essentially already what
Stephen said, instead of taking that opportunity at that time to say
that he had (somehow) been misinterpreted ... despite introducing the
"size/weight/handling" terms ... John instead elected instead to re-
assert his {size/weight/handling/etc} elements, point by point
(10:09pm), saying: "More than that" for the first three, and "Way
more than that" for super-zoom.
And for the now supposedly all-important Rubbish referring to just
"the best image quality", John's entire comment (10:09) was but four
words: "I couldn't care less.".
> >"It's easy to see where this leads, which is that [Navas is] just
> >another of those on the internet that will never admit error, no
> >matter how much it damages their credibility..."
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
The requisite evidence is detailed above.
URLs to the original posts are:
4:10pm:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/f9adefffca17a1a1?
hl=en>
10:09pm:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/77205e518d827546?
hl=en>
-hh
John Navas
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in
<6fe7c69e-78ae-4632...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Stephen is in my twit filter, so I don't see what he posts unless
>> someone quotes it.
>
>That's not an excuse, since if you feel so strongly about someone to
>actually put them through a 'twit' filter, then you should also have
>enough self-control to refrain from taking a cheap shot at him when
>you see them quoted.
I don't think that follows.
>> There was no error. What I called "rubbish" was the silly "best image
>> quality" mantra, which is quite from what I wrote. Read more carefully.
>
>That *might* have been a plausible explantion had you used it two
>posts earlier and if in those two posts you hadn't proactively and
>overtly contradict what you're now trying to claim.
I think it was actually quite clear other than to those looking for
something to bitch about.
Mr. Strat
<3911ffdf-d34f-42e0...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> "It's easy to see where this leads, which is that [Navas is] just
> another of those on the internet that will never admit error, no
> matter how much it damages their credibility..."
Navas has credibility? When did that start?
Mr. Strat
<nospam...@now.com> wrote:
> So not only do you boast that you with your compact camera is as good
> as a larger sensor camera in the hands of a professional photographer;
> now you're boasting that you are also better than a professional with
> a medium format film camera?
Navas is a retard.
danny-garver
>SneakyP wrote:
>> sligoNo...@hotmail.com wrote in
>> news:ovhhl45mer1nrbvfq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
>>> with film photography.
>>>
>> In contrast...
>>
>> what was news to me was the fact that films will compress the dynamic
>> range in the upper regions whereas digital will tend to white-out the
>> saturated areas. Digital also has a non-logarithmic scale of
>> discreet ranges whereas film will have a better picture that is
>> smoother in the darker ranges.
>> The more data a digital will capture, the better the picture is
>> whereas the darker ranges in a film will capture the data better than
>> the whiter areas because it isn't plagued with electronic noise
>> interfering with the darker portion of the picture.
>> Completely backwards, but nevertheless so much different.
>
>Digital is linear when captured, only non-linear when converted to JPEG.
>You are correct about the white saturation. I am not so sure you are
>correct about the low-light or toe end of the film range. Why do
>astronomers now use digital? Is digital or film photon-limited at the low
>end?
Google for "reciprocity failure". This is why Olympus limited their (at the
time) revolutionary OTF (off the film) exposure metering system in their OM-2n
SLRs from the original design having 12+ minute auto-exposures down to only a 2
minute limit. This way the novice trying to use their cameras for longer than 2
minute exposures wouldn't be shocked with the color-shifts involved due to film
reciprocity failure. I lucked out and still have one from the first batch of
original OM-2n cameras that wasn't crippled to 2-minute exposures--to save the
typical photographer moron from himself.
Digital sensors do not have this problem.
>
>> Just asking all here: have there been any DSLR cameras that can do
>> what the film type have been shown to do?
>> My perception is that those film cameras do a much better job of
>> capturing pictures, but that was a little over a year ago.
>
>Fuji had some dual-pixel CCD cameras at one time - perhaps the Fuji S5 -
>designed for high-end range extension by adding in a less sensitive sensor
>pixel as well as the standard pixel.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/03012202fujisuperccdsr.asp
>
>Cheers,
>David
Jake Hawlins
wrote:
Not one of you arm-chair photographer morons get it, do you.
CONTENT WILL BEAT QUALITY EVERY TIME.
Buy the most precise high-resolution camera in the world. But if you don't
capture something worth being seen by others you have just wasted all your
money. Capture something worth seeing on a cell-phone camera and every news
agency and photo studio in the world would just love to be able to display your
photo and try to sell it for you.
You virtual net-photographers don't have a clue about the real world of
photography. But that's no surprise. You fondle your computer monitor as it
displays an image of a camera, that being the closest that you'll ever get to a
real camera, let alone knowing what sells and what people want to see.
David J Taylor
[]
> Google for "reciprocity failure". This is why Olympus limited their
> (at the time) revolutionary OTF (off the film) exposure metering
> system in their OM-2n SLRs from the original design having 12+ minute
> auto-exposures down to only a 2 minute limit. This way the novice
> trying to use their cameras for longer than 2 minute exposures
> wouldn't be shocked with the color-shifts involved due to film
> reciprocity failure. I lucked out and still have one from the first
> batch of original OM-2n cameras that wasn't crippled to 2-minute
> exposures--to save the typical photographer moron from himself.
>
> Digital sensors do not have this problem.
Good point. I was hoping that my remarks would trigger the film champion
to do a little searching. Reciprocity failure is a defect absent in
digital (although some cameras have the "warm sensor" problem...).
David
Ron Hunter
resolution images. There are problems with this approach, but some
truly startling images can result, none of which could have been done
with any medium format film camera.
Ron Hunter
P&S cameras won't go past ISO 200 without objectionable (to me) noise,
much comparable to older ASA 400 speed film.
Stephen Bishop
Hence John's constant endorsement of his brand of p&s camera and his
continued claim, against all evidence, that it performs better than
cameras with larger sensors.
Give it a rest, John. Instead of trying to convince yourself and
others of something that is obviously incorrect; just admit that the
output of that type of camera is good enough for you but not on par
with other cameras with better image quality. Otherwise you are just
deceiving yourself; and worse, deceiving others who might actually
believe what you say and make the wrong purchasing decision.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
Comparing apples to apples, then: doing the same thing by stitching
together images from a larger sensor camera will yield even more
startling results.
Stephen Bishop
<jhaw...@whybother.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:56:36 -0800 (PST), -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting that you called it rubbish but essentially just repeated
>>> what I had already said.
>>
>>Second time that this has been specifially pointed out to Navas.
>>
>>Naturally, John's been (cough!) "too busy" posting elsewhere to have
>>the courtesy to acknowledge his error. Apparently, John's time is
>>being completely monopolized by trying to lean on ASAAR to apologize
>>for the statement:
>>
>>"It's easy to see where this leads, which is that [Navas is] just
>>another of those on the internet that will never admit error, no
>>matter how much it damages their credibility..."
>>
>>
>>-hh
>
>Not one of you arm-chair photographer morons get it, do you.
>
>CONTENT WILL BEAT QUALITY EVERY TIME.
>
>Buy the most precise high-resolution camera in the world. But if you don't
>capture something worth being seen by others you have just wasted all your
>money. Capture something worth seeing on a cell-phone camera and every news
>agency and photo studio in the world would just love to be able to display your
>photo and try to sell it for you.
We're still waiting for you to display your images with that amazing
and sale-able content. If you don't want to post the actual images,
then a list of your clients and locations where your incredible work
may be viewed will do.
But you are correct in that content will beat quality. But only up to
a point.
Quality without content is a wasted image. It's also true that
content without quality is a wasted opportunity. Consistently
relying on content to cover up poor quality only goes so far, unless
you are an unusually gifted photographer.
The point is that content and quality are equally important. Using
one as an excuse for lacking the other is really no excuse.
Unless, of course, your professional experience is limited to
capturing newsworthy images of bigfoot and flying saucers to sell to
the tabloids.
>You virtual net-photographers don't have a clue about the real world of
>photography. But that's no surprise. You fondle your computer monitor as it
>displays an image of a camera, that being the closest that you'll ever get to a
>real camera, let alone knowing what sells and what people want to see.
Yet you are here, making such claims and sweeping generalizations but
never backing them up with real evidence. Sounds like you are the
virtual one.
Douglas
"Stephen Bishop" <nospam...@now.com> wrote in message
news:ighml4p3ug5bdq5u3...@4ax.com...
The Panasonic FZ20 does quite a lot better than you seem prepared to give it
credit for.
At a wedding when my shooter droped one of our Fuji s5's. She had to resort
to using our FZ20 Panasonic which we use for low light (Yes, low light)
inside churches due to it's silent operation.
She had to shoot the entire (460 shot) wedding with the little Panasonic.
Surprise, surprise. It's images ...particularly it's low light images exceed
the quality obtainable with a 20D Canon DSLR with a 24 - 70 "L" lens.
This is not idle chatter or false claims. It's fact:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/previews/scott-katrina/
Here's another fact you probably don't want to accept either. This time not
from an advanced camera like the FZ20 but a lowly 6 year old Olympus 3.4
megapixel camera. Low light, hand held when the 20D Canon was no match for
it. Mirror slap and downright weight meant the 20D simply couldn't take the
shot without a tripod and guess what we didn't have?
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/55467407 Alienjones is me incidentally.
So unless you want to get involved in a pissing competition with someone who
uses cameras for a living and really does know what a "pissy little P&S" can
do that makes DSLRs look pretty sick. Start addressing people with some
respect.
Your opinion is just that, your opinion. Speak it by all means but give
other the common courtesy of letting them express their's too without being
bullied by half witted, self proclaimed "experts" like you who really
haven't got a clue at all.
So here's the news flash mate. Give up on the personal insults and
accusations of deception because in the hands of a 'real' photographer as
opposed to a wannabe like yourself, these P&S cameras which incidentally
have a Leica lens equaled only by a few many times more expensive DSLR
optics, are indeed a highly capable camera. Well able to take photos of a
professional quality not even the Pro print labs believed came from such a
camera.
-hh
>
> Here's another fact you probably don't want to accept either. This time not
> from an advanced camera like the FZ20 but a lowly 6 year old Olympus 3.4
> megapixel camera.
But wouldn't said "lowly" P&S be actually expected to perform better
than the FZ20, for the very reason that its lower pixel count means
lower pixel density and thus, larger individual receptors?
>
> Your opinion is just that, your opinion. Speak it by all means but give
> other the common courtesy of letting them express their's too without being
> bullied by half witted, self proclaimed "experts" like you who really
> haven't got a clue at all.
>
> So here's the news flash mate. Give up on the personal insults and
> accusations of deception because in the hands of a 'real' photographer as
> opposed to a wannabe like yourself, these P&S cameras which incidentally
> have a Leica lens equaled only by a few many times more expensive DSLR
> optics, are indeed a highly capable camera. Well able to take photos of a
> professional quality not even the Pro print labs believed came from such a
> camera.
Gosh, that's not a particularly courteous statement. And the self-
aggrandizing dick-waving is hardly illustrative of diplomacy in one's
professionalism.
I understand and am sensitive to cultural variances and while I
recognize that Australians do have a bit of a reputation
internationally for being a tad rude, in the most diplomatic means
possible, I suggest that you consider a brief self-retrospective of
yourself before take offense at others, which I believe in your
colorful lingo would be summarized as a kindly request for you to go
(ahem) "get stuffed".
I trust that I have made myself sufficiently clear, but if you are
still confused, please bring this to my attention for clarificationd
and I'll repeat the above acclimation with my keyboard's caps lock
enabled.
-hh
John Navas
wrote in <to6dnVBbnbVT3cbU...@giganews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:06:48 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
>> <sEk6l.12673$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>> Why do
>>> astronomers now use digital? Is digital or film photon-limited at the low
>>> end?
>>
>> Both are, but digital is getting better and better at filtering signal
>> from noise, reflected in much higher ISO capability than film.
>>
>I agree, but ONLY for DSLR cameras with larger image sensors. My own
>P&S cameras won't go past ISO 200 without objectionable (to me) noise,
>much comparable to older ASA 400 speed film.
Are you presuming that your own cameras are representative of all
compact digital cameras?
I think you'd find that ISO 400 images from my Panasonic super-zoom
(with in-camera Noise Reduction turned down and post-processing in Neat
Image) are better than ISO 400 film.
John Navas
<wTI6l.6130$cu....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
>"Stephen Bishop" <nospam...@now.com> wrote in message
>news:ighml4p3ug5bdq5u3...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:02:05 -0800, John Navas
>> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hence John's constant endorsement of his brand of p&s camera and his
>> continued claim, against all evidence, that it performs better than
>> cameras with larger sensors.
I've never said that, but Stephen is apparently so desperate to put down
both me and the camera that he'll stoop to straw man arguments. The
record speaks for itself.
>Your opinion is just that, your opinion. Speak it by all means but give
>other the common courtesy of letting them express their's too without being
>bullied by half witted, self proclaimed "experts" like you who really
>haven't got a clue at all.
>
>So here's the news flash mate. Give up on the personal insults and
>accusations of deception because in the hands of a 'real' photographer as
>opposed to a wannabe like yourself, these P&S cameras which incidentally
>have a Leica lens equaled only by a few many times more expensive DSLR
>optics, are indeed a highly capable camera. Well able to take photos of a
>professional quality not even the Pro print labs believed came from such a
>camera.
Well said.
nospam
<dga...@trollbegone.org> wrote:
> >Digital is linear when captured, only non-linear when converted to JPEG.
> >You are correct about the white saturation. I am not so sure you are
> >correct about the low-light or toe end of the film range. Why do
> >astronomers now use digital? Is digital or film photon-limited at the low
> >end?
>
> Google for "reciprocity failure". This is why Olympus limited their (at the
> time) revolutionary OTF (off the film) exposure metering system in their OM-2n
> SLRs from the original design having 12+ minute auto-exposures down to only a
> 2
> minute limit. This way the novice trying to use their cameras for longer than
> 2
> minute exposures wouldn't be shocked with the color-shifts involved due to
> film
> reciprocity failure. I lucked out and still have one from the first batch of
> original OM-2n cameras that wasn't crippled to 2-minute exposures--to save the
> typical photographer moron from himself.
>
> Digital sensors do not have this problem.
instead they have thermal noise.
Stephen Bishop
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:52:13 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
>wrote in <to6dnVBbnbVT3cbU...@giganews.com>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:06:48 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>>> <david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
>>> <sEk6l.12673$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>>>> Why do
>>>> astronomers now use digital? Is digital or film photon-limited at the low
>>>> end?
>>>
>>> Both are, but digital is getting better and better at filtering signal
>>> from noise, reflected in much higher ISO capability than film.
>>>
>>I agree, but ONLY for DSLR cameras with larger image sensors. My own
>>P&S cameras won't go past ISO 200 without objectionable (to me) noise,
>>much comparable to older ASA 400 speed film.
>
>Are you presuming that your own cameras are representative of all
>compact digital cameras?
No, not really.
>
>I think you'd find that ISO 400 images from my Panasonic super-zoom
>(with in-camera Noise Reduction turned down and post-processing in Neat
>Image) are better than ISO 400 film.
Better in what regard?
George Kerby
On 12/30/08 12:49 PM, in article gsqkl4dg58s1gup0g...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:25:11 GMT, SneakyP <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote in <Xns9B83E414...@69.16.185.247>:
>
>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:4luhl4t7s0fi9tb19...@4ax.com:
>
>> perhaps the name should have simply been rec.photo.
>> .digital, and .film, could have been sub-groups off of that.
>
> That's pretty much what there is -- see
> <http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?sel=usenet%3Drec.photo>
>
>> Anyone familiar with Medium Format Cameras? I've yet to see a Digital be
>> able to take those types of pictures.
>
> Images stitched from compact digital can be quite comparable to medium
> format. See <http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/detail.htm>
>
> I did a 30 MP stitch of the huge Embarcadero Center office building
> complex in San Francisco with my compact digital. You can clearly see
> the people behind the windows by zooming in.
Yeah.
And, if you spend 3 hours shooting and stitching together 500 images from
your POS P&S you can probably get results as good as from an 8" x 10" Sinar,
you friggin' idiot.
Stephen Bishop
>
>"Stephen Bishop" <nospam...@now.com> wrote in message
>news:ighml4p3ug5bdq5u3...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:02:05 -0800, John Navas
>> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hence John's constant endorsement of his brand of p&s camera and his
>> continued claim, against all evidence, that it performs better than
>> cameras with larger sensors.
>>
>> Give it a rest, John. Instead of trying to convince yourself and
>> others of something that is obviously incorrect; just admit that the
>> output of that type of camera is good enough for you but not on par
>> with other cameras with better image quality. Otherwise you are just
>> deceiving yourself; and worse, deceiving others who might actually
>> believe what you say and make the wrong purchasing decision.
>>
>>
>>
>Actually Stephen...
>The Panasonic FZ20 does quite a lot better than you seem prepared to give it
>credit for.
Don't complain to me, attack the professional reviewers who have put
the camera through its paces and came to those conclusions.
>At a wedding when my shooter droped one of our Fuji s5's. She had to resort
>to using our FZ20 Panasonic which we use for low light (Yes, low light)
>inside churches due to it's silent operation.
>
>She had to shoot the entire (460 shot) wedding with the little Panasonic.
>Surprise, surprise. It's images ...particularly it's low light images exceed
>the quality obtainable with a 20D Canon DSLR with a 24 - 70 "L" lens.
>
>This is not idle chatter or false claims. It's fact:
>http://www.douglasjames.com.au/previews/scott-katrina/
Those previews look nice enough. But for you to claim as "fact" that
it exceeds the Canon and L glass is a bit of a stretch, and certainly
a matter of opinion, not fact.... which by coincidence is what you
seem to be blasting me about here.
>
>Here's another fact you probably don't want to accept either.
Why make such a presumption?
>This time not
>from an advanced camera like the FZ20 but a lowly 6 year old Olympus 3.4
>megapixel camera. Low light, hand held when the 20D Canon was no match for
>it. Mirror slap and downright weight meant the 20D simply couldn't take the
>shot without a tripod and guess what we didn't have?
>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/55467407 Alienjones is me incidentally.
Nice image, but I've actually owned an Oly of similar vintage; and
while it was capable of some nice images in many situations, it could
not hold up to scrutiny.
>So unless you want to get involved in a pissing competition with someone who
>uses cameras for a living and really does know what a "pissy little P&S" can
>do that makes DSLRs look pretty sick. Start addressing people with some
>respect.
Sounds to me like you're the one being a bit pissy here.
>
>Your opinion is just that, your opinion. Speak it by all means but give
>other the common courtesy of letting them express their's too without being
>bullied by half witted, self proclaimed "experts" like you who really
>haven't got a clue at all.
So it is your opinion that cameras like your Oly are more capable than
cameras like a Canon 20D with L glass?
>
>So here's the news flash mate. Give up on the personal insults and
>accusations of deception because in the hands of a 'real' photographer as
>opposed to a wannabe like yourself,
What makes you think I'm a wannabe? Is that your version of
uninformed opinion and insults?
> these P&S cameras which incidentally
>have a Leica lens equaled only by a few many times more expensive DSLR
>optics, are indeed a highly capable camera.
If you have been reading this entire thread, you will see that I've
agreed that these cameras can indeed produce excellent output under
some conditions.
>Well able to take photos of a
>professional quality not even the Pro print labs believed came from such a
>camera.
And your point is? It sounds like you are saying that those cameras
are superior to larger sensor cameras. If so, then my unashamed
opinion is that you're just blowing smoke.
>
>
>
>
Douglas
It goes like this Stephen...
Under some conditions a Nikon D3 or a Canon D1 will simply not be able to
take pictures of the quality a FZ 20 Panasonic can. Likewise under some
conditions a Canon with "L" glass will out perform the Panasonic. That's
fact. But while you have set about with bullying tactics to force you
opinion on others, I have simply shown you pictures from 2 cameras of a type
you are saying with great vigor and in a bullying manner, can't equal
...much less exceed the image quality of a DSLR.
Even with your reply to me, as in your replies to anyone with a different
opinion to you, you have engaged in a personal attack. This is just not
acceptable behaviour. When I do it to you and other cyber bullies you try to
make out I'm some sort of antagonist.
For God sake Stephen. Stop trying to force your opinion on others with
bullying personal attacks. My opinion contradicts yours but not to the point
of a blanket statement, just at some point, a P&S will out perform the best
DSLRs money can buy. Recognize that. It's fact. If all your knowledge is cut
and pasted from "Professional Reviewers" then you are a newsgroup troll
blowing smoke out your ass.
Try and stick to what you know for a change. That ought to fit on a
(landscape orientation) postage stamp or two.
Douglas
Jeff R.
> Under some conditions a Nikon D3 or a Canon D1 will simply not be
> able to take pictures of the quality a FZ 20 Panasonic can.
Name one.
--
Jeff R.
John Navas
in <495c4b76$0$19326$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>:
Check my back posts on shooting water sports.
J. Clarke
You left the lens at home?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Douglas
"Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:495c4b76$0$19326$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
When you need a DOF at F/2.8 greater than a few Centermeters
When you are told to be quiet in a cathedrial, during a wedding
Panasonic... Switch off the volume = silent shutter
Any DSLR... Don't use it.
You have probably already stolen my images at the links I provided. Go try
and duplicate them with a DSLR - silently and hand held.
Douglas
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gjhkd...@news3.newsguy.com...
> Jeff R. wrote:
>> Douglas wrote:
>>> Under some conditions a Nikon D3 or a Canon D1 will simply not be
>>> able to take pictures of the quality a FZ 20 Panasonic can.
>>
>> Name one.
>
> You left the lens at home?
>
> --
> --
> --John
ROTFL at that one.
The first fact is:
For a wedding photographer trying to take unobtrusive shots in a church at
1/15th shutter speed and silently. There is no DSLR ever made that can come
near a FZ20 or FZ30 Panasonic. Even with the new range of DSLRs from Nikon,
you can't take more than one shot silently unless you exit the church after
each shot to flip the mirror up which requires manual exposure and blind
focus. Can't be done!
The second fact is:
Only recently have "Super Zoom" lenses on DSLRs begun to get the same sort
of results as the 18X F/2.8 leica lens and almost none can show as optically
correct results at an equivlant lens length of 340mm whilst still offering
28mm equivlance and 6" macro mode with image stabilization in a camera
costing half what the so called "Super Zooms" which are mostly 3.5 - 5.6,
not F/2.8 sell for.
I use Fujifilm and Nikon DSLRs in my wedding photography studio. Every time
I use the Panasonics I originally bought years ago for Santa shoot
concessions, I am both amazed and horrified at their capabilities. I would
(under some circumstances) happily use one to shoot an entire wedding. As it
is now, I only use them inside, under relatively low light to avoid
disturbing a ceremony. The results I get simply cannot be gotten with a
DSLR.
Anyone who puts shit on these cameras because of some well known weaknesses
they have without also putting shit on DSLRs for their (mostly) spring
loaded mirror slap and absolutely shocking slow (for DSLR) shutter speed
performance is just trying to fan the flames of an argument they are
unwilling to weigh the sides fairly with.
Douglas
Jeff R.
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:gjhkd...@news3.newsguy.com...
>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>> Douglas wrote:
>>>> Under some conditions a Nikon D3 or a Canon D1 will simply not be
>>>> able to take pictures of the quality a FZ 20 Panasonic can.
>>>
>>> Name one.
>>
>> You left the lens at home?
ha ha
(rolls eyes)
>> --
>> --John
>
> ROTFL at that one.
>
> The first fact is:
> For a wedding photographer trying to take unobtrusive shots in a
> church at 1/15th shutter speed and silently. There is no DSLR ever
> made that can come near a FZ20 or FZ30 Panasonic.
*rubbish!*
>... Even with the new
> range of DSLRs from Nikon, you can't take more than one shot silently
> unless you exit the church after each shot to flip the mirror up
> which requires manual exposure and blind focus. Can't be done!
Maybe so, but why bother?
The results would be unacceptable for a wedding.
Unless you have very low standards.
>
> The second fact is:
(not a fact at all)
> Only recently have "Super Zoom" lenses on DSLRs begun to get the same
> sort of results as the 18X F/2.8 leica lens and almost none can show
> as optically correct results at an equivlant lens length of 340mm
> whilst still offering 28mm equivlance and 6" macro mode with image
> stabilization in a camera costing half what the so called "Super
> Zooms" which are mostly 3.5 - 5.6, not F/2.8 sell for.
Irrelevant.
I use three lenses to cover the same range as my FZ30, and I accept that
inconvenience for the vastly superior image quality they give.
Yes Doug, I have an FZ30 and I speak from experience. The lens is utter
crap at the long end - takes ages to focus (and often cannot,) and exhibits
textbook terrible CA.
The noise from the FZ30 renders it useless in low light too.
> I use Fujifilm and Nikon DSLRs in my wedding photography studio.
> Every time I use the Panasonics I originally bought years ago for
> Santa shoot concessions, I am both amazed and horrified at their
> capabilities. I would (under some circumstances) happily use one to
> shoot an entire wedding. As it is now, I only use them inside, under
> relatively low light to avoid disturbing a ceremony. The results I
> get simply cannot be gotten with a DSLR.
With you at the shutter, maybe.
I shot a wedding last weekend, with my Nikon SLR and one lens (24-120).
Never needed any wider or any longer. The bride and groom are absolutely
tickled at the results, and no-one complained at the noise disturbing the
ceremony. ...
and BTW - I took my Canon G10 as emergency backup. Didn't even consider the
FZ30. (Didn't need it though. The Nikon performed flawlessly for over 300
shots.)
BTW, Doug... have you actually *been* to a wedding lately? Every man and
his dog is carrying a camera nowadays, and the flashes punctuate every
phrase in the ceremony. The subtle "ker-shlunk" of the Nikon shutter is
nothing by comparison.
>
> Anyone who puts shit on these cameras because of some well known
> weaknesses they have without also putting shit on DSLRs for their
> (mostly) spring loaded mirror slap and absolutely shocking slow (for DSLR)
> shutter speed performance is just trying to fan the flames of
> an argument they are unwilling to weigh the sides fairly with.
Nope.
I put shit on the FZ30 because the lens is very poor - especially at the
long end - and the sensor is unacceptably noisy. Manual focussing is a
joke - the "enlarged" section on the LCD is almost impossible to use.
I bought it because, like you, I fell for the Leica name. Never again. I
also liked the fold-out LCD for overhead and low shots (still do), but
cannot put up with the noise.
There is simply no comparison with my humble Nikon, which is superior in
every respect except portability. (Oh - and movies)
Another thing - important for me - is that the FZ30 cannot be attached to a
microscope or a telescope except afocally, which is not good enough for my
purposes. The Nikon slots on beautifully at prime focus - where it belongs.
The only really good thing about the FZ30 is that I am often asked for a
loaner camera (hazard of the profession I'm in) and I am always delighted to
lend out the PanaCraptic. With any luck they'll break it and pay for a
replacement.
--
Jeff R.
>
> Douglas
Jeff R.
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:49:57 +1100, "Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng>
> wrote in <495c4b76$0$19326$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>:
>
>> Douglas wrote:
>>> Under some conditions a Nikon D3 or a Canon D1 will simply not be
>>> able to take pictures of the quality a FZ 20 Panasonic can.
>>
>> Name one.
>
> Check my back posts on shooting water sports.
No thanks.
Can't you summarise in a few lines?
Although - I wouldn't mind taking my FZ30 to shoot water sports... because I
couldn't care less if I dropped the bloody thing in the drink.
Couldn't do that with the DSLR.
--
Jeff R.
Stephen Bishop
>
>"Stephen Bishop" <nospam...@now.com> wrote in message
>news:ighml4p3ug5bdq5u3...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:02:05 -0800, John Navas
>> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hence John's constant endorsement of his brand of p&s camera and his
>> continued claim, against all evidence, that it performs better than
>> cameras with larger sensors.
>>
>> Give it a rest, John. Instead of trying to convince yourself and
>> others of something that is obviously incorrect; just admit that the
>> output of that type of camera is good enough for you but not on par
>> with other cameras with better image quality. Otherwise you are just
>> deceiving yourself; and worse, deceiving others who might actually
>> believe what you say and make the wrong purchasing decision.
>>
>>
>>
A few additional thoughts:
>Actually Stephen...
>The Panasonic FZ20 does quite a lot better than you seem prepared to give it
>credit for.
I always give credit where it is due.
>At a wedding when my shooter droped one of our Fuji s5's. She had to resort
>to using our FZ20 Panasonic which we use for low light (Yes, low light)
>inside churches due to it's silent operation.
Look at what you just said. She had to "resort" to using the
Panasonic when the S5 broke. There is a reason why your S5 is your
primary camera. Why not use the Panasonic as your primary tool if
you truly believe it performs better for your purposes than does the
"pro" gear?
I have never disagreed with the fact that p&s cameras can perform very
well under certain conditions.
What you are missing in the midst of that flurry of angry and baseless
insults toward me is that John's online behavior is well-known as
someone who posts some arrogant statements, and then resorts to
name-calling and insults when others don't agree with him.
I respect John's or anyone's opinion, yours included. What I don't
respect is anyone's attitude that their opinion is beyond question and
those who disagree deserve to be called "twits" or "house n-words" or
any other choice names that John has used to denigrate people.
Stephen Bishop
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:41:16 GMT, "Douglas" <ju...@the.groups> wrote in
><wTI6l.6130$cu....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
>
>>"Stephen Bishop" <nospam...@now.com> wrote in message
>>news:ighml4p3ug5bdq5u3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:02:05 -0800, John Navas
>>> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hence John's constant endorsement of his brand of p&s camera and his
>>> continued claim, against all evidence, that it performs better than
>>> cameras with larger sensors.
>
>I've never said that, but Stephen is apparently so desperate to put down
>both me and the camera that he'll stoop to straw man arguments. The
>record speaks for itself.
John, you don't know the record because you twit-file those who don't
agree with your views.
There is no straw man. You indeed said that you get better results
with your camera than do professionals who miss shots because they
have to fumble around with their dslrs.
I've never put you down for your choice of camera. Period. You
just happen to see everything as a personal insult, even the innocent
choice of the universally-accepted term "p&s."
>>Your opinion is just that, your opinion. Speak it by all means but give
>>other the common courtesy of letting them express their's too without being
>>bullied by half witted, self proclaimed "experts" like you who really
>>haven't got a clue at all.
>>
>>So here's the news flash mate. Give up on the personal insults and
>>accusations of deception because in the hands of a 'real' photographer as
>>opposed to a wannabe like yourself, these P&S cameras which incidentally
>>have a Leica lens equaled only by a few many times more expensive DSLR
>>optics, are indeed a highly capable camera. Well able to take photos of a
>>professional quality not even the Pro print labs believed came from such a
>>camera.
>
>Well said.
By "well-said," are we to assume that now you're endorsing the term
"p&s" as he used it?
HEMI - Powered
jour ...
> I've never put you down for your choice of camera. Period.
> You just happen to see everything as a personal insult, even the
> innocent choice of the universally-accepted term "p&s."
Whether it be in politics or cameras - where there IS politics! -
it seems that some people assume others are speaking in code words
that somehow are demeaning or offensive to them. Once anyone
believes that a given word or phrase is a code word to them, no
matter how anyone uses it, no matter how factually comments are
made, no matter the effort to avoid any unpleasantness, those who
deal in code words STILL are offended.
Since the term P & S appears to be gaining traction against the
older terms for middle capability cameras such as EVF and ZLR, it
pretty much puts everything from a $10 toy to an advanced "P & S"
that rivals a DSLR in cost. So what?
Seems to me that if people want to be insulted by a generic phrase,
they will be no matter what you or I or anyone else say or how we
describe our views. I mean, there must be people out there who get
offended when people say "Kleenex" or "Xerox", huh?
And, it seems to me that this is THEIR problem to sort out, not
ours.
Have a great holiday!
--
Jerry, aka HP
"If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
Florida billboard