P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%
SMS
Barclays Capital estimates that consumer-oriented point and shoot
digital camera sales will shrink 24% in terms of revenue amid a global
slump in demand. Casio and Olympus recently cut prices on point and
shoot cameras, but analysts say that prices of point and shoot models
have bottomed out in terms of the manufacturers being able to cut prices
further, because margins are already close to zero. A shake out is
imminent in the digital camera business, with other producers set to
follow the lead of Konica-Minolta and abandon the business.
Digital SLR revenue is predicted to shrink by 12%, as prices fall due to
greater competition and the introduction of lower priced models. Digital
SLR cameras used to be purchased mainly by hobbyists and professionals,
but the addition of features such as �Live View� and video capability
have boosted sales volumes in the mass market, according to analyst Tak
Tomasako. "The main advantage of the digital SLR to the casual
photographer is the lack of shutter lag, that annoying delay on point
and shoot cameras between when the shutter release is pressed and the
photograph is taken," said Tomasako.
"The lack of live view and video recording capability also hurt demand
for digital SLRs in the mass market," continued Tomasako. "These
features were already present on point and shoot cameras, and consumers
expected them on digital SLRs as well, even though hobbyists and
professionals didn't care about those features. Now the digital SLR
manufacturers have added these features and are penetrating into the
mass market. For the manufacturer, there is the opportunity to sell not
only the camera, but a variety of high margin lenses and accessories."
Not all manufacturers will survive in the digital SLR business stressed
Tomasako. "Canon and Nikon currently have over 80% market share between
them, with Sony (who bought Konica-Minolta's digital SLR business) a
distant third. Olympus and Pentax barely register at all and will find
it difficult to continue. Olympus has teamed up with Panasonic to
promote their 4:3 and micro 4:3 system with little success. Pentax has
teamed up with Korea's Samsung to co-brand digital SLRs, also with
little success."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What I don't get about this news item is that if D-SLRs are penetrating
into the mass market, as they appear to be doing, won't the increase in
sales more than make up for the lower ASP, _increasing_ revenue while
decreasing margins?
Smarter Person
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Barclays Capital estimates that consumer-oriented point and shoot
>digital camera sales will shrink 24% in terms of revenue amid a global
>slump in demand. Casio and Olympus recently cut prices on point and
>shoot cameras, but analysts say that prices of point and shoot models
>have bottomed out in terms of the manufacturers being able to cut prices
>further, because margins are already close to zero. A shake out is
>imminent in the digital camera business, with other producers set to
>follow the lead of Konica-Minolta and abandon the business.
>
>Digital SLR revenue is predicted to shrink by 12%, as prices fall due to
>greater competition and the introduction of lower priced models. Digital
>SLR cameras used to be purchased mainly by hobbyists and professionals,
>but the addition of features such as �Live View� and video capability
Considering that P&S cameras sell 20:1 over DSLRs then that means that, in
total, P&S camera sales will only fall by 1.2% compared to 12% of all DSLR
sales.
Makes sense. People are finally waking up to the DSLR scam and con-came
that it truly is.
Savageduck
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 11:18:24 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Considering that P&S c.........
> Makes sense. People are finally waking up to the DSLR scam and con-came
> that it truly is.
This is what makes sense; Smarter Person = Dumb P&S troll
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Charles
"Smarter Person" <spe...@antispam.org> wrote in message
news:ukhb1517ksi430f2k...@4ax.com...
DSLRs are not a scam or a con-Game (corrected your sloppy spelling).
Correcting your sloppy thinking will take more effort than I can expend.
SMS
> DSLRs are not a scam or a con-Game (corrected your sloppy spelling).
>
> Correcting your sloppy thinking will take more effort than I can expend.
Also, what our friendly troll didn't understand was that the article was
talking about _revenue_ falling 24% and 12% for point & shoot and D-SLRs
respectively. In terms of volumes, P&S sales growth is going down and
revenue is falling dramatically, while D-SLR volume is going up and
revenue is falling moderately because the growth is mostly at the low
end of the market from consumers moving from P&S cameras to D-SLRs as
they learn more about digital photography.
"Sales growth for compact digital cameras, which account for 90 per cent
of the overall digital camera market, is expected to slow in fiscal
2009. But with demand for digital single-lens reflex cameras forecast to
remain solid, Hoya Corp. (TSE:7741) sees shipments of its Pentax brand
digital SLR cameras soaring 48 per cent to 340,000 units. And Olympus
Corp. (TSE:7733) projects a 25 per cent jump in shipments of digital
SLRs to 500,000 units."
I'd say that Olympus and Pentax are quite optimistic given the poor
consumer acceptance of their D-SLRs, but then again they're quoting
percentage increases of very low volme products. Canon just shipped
their 10 millionth digital SLR.
Personally I doubt if our troll has ever owned any digital camera at
all. Certainly his lack of knowledge seems to indicate no experience at all.
botox
brands: Pentax, Olympus.
Charles
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:_BmRl.33768$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Charles wrote:
>
>> DSLRs are not a scam or a con-Game (corrected your sloppy spelling).
>>
>> Correcting your sloppy thinking will take more effort than I can expend.
>
> Also, what our friendly troll didn't understand was that the article was
> talking about _revenue_ falling 24% and 12% for point & shoot and D-SLRs
> respectively. In terms of volumes, P&S sales growth is going down and
> revenue is falling dramatically, while D-SLR volume is going up and
> revenue is falling moderately because the growth is mostly at the low end
> of the market from consumers moving from P&S cameras to D-SLRs as they
> learn more about digital photography.
> Personally I doubt if our troll has ever owned any digital camera at all.
> Certainly his lack of knowledge seems to indicate no experience at all.
Some trolls are axe-grinders, and those can be semi-knowledgeable.
Some trolls are just flamers.
I no longer worry about Troll Taxonomy ... just plonk 'em. Try not to feed
'em. I know, they are such irresistible little demons.
One needs no credentials to create children or to post on the Internet. A
good thing, I suppose?
Charles
"botox" <fac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v0nRl.27038$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> The most significant issue is the likely disappearance of more venerable
> brands: Pentax, Olympus.
A significant market shakeout is due.
Savageduck
>
>
> I just changed my sock, and I'm back again.
>
Now go away.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savagefuckhead
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-05-22 21:01:20 -0700, TrollTagger <t...@trollkillers.org> said:
>>
>>
>> I just changed my sock, and I'm back again.
>>
>
>Now go away.
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
that befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and
posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
will ever be made for larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
(fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
instantly reveal to them their piss-poor photography skills. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
are just better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of the pretend-photographer usenet trolls yelling "You NEED
a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
a foolish thing."
SMS
This is true. Sony, Pentax/Samsung, and Olympus/Panasonic are out their
fighting among themselves for the 15% of the market for D-SLRs not taken
by Canon and Nikon. Who will be the first one to say "uncle?" And do the
remaining ones think that they'll get all the sales from the ones that
leave?
One interesting thing is that the two market leaders do not have in-body
stabilization, while the other players do have it. So for those buyers
that want a cheap, though less effective, way to do stabilization, they
have to go to one of the second tier suppliers. But now Nikon and Canon
are doing IS lens bundles which lessen the appeal of the less effective
in-body stabilization.
The new Canon EOS Rebel T1i, is an amazing value, and does HD video
(albeit only at 20fps in full HD). That camera alone may drive one or
two of the low volume manufacturers out of the D-SLR business.
KarlArkansas
In reply to someone who has obviously never used any camera with IS in
either lens or body, nor studied the image effects of both ... be aware
that optical IS imparts excess CA when the optical elements are shifted
widely to compensate for a lot of motion. It shows up most when using long
focal-length lenses, where IS has to work the hardest. But due to the
random nature of "when" the shot is actually taken during the IS optical
element's positions, this excessive CA isn't apparent in every photo. It's
a pot-shot on if optical IS is going to degrade your images beyond repair
or not. It's a bitch when that one shot you really wanted is ruined by
optical IS chromatic aberrations. Whereas sensor-based IS is never
afflicted with this drawback. The really bad part of optical IS CA is that
there are no editing tools to remove the kind of CA that is imparted by
optical IS. One side of an image will have a magenta-green shift, and the
other side of the image will have a blue-yellow shift, and it's never
linear across the image, nor will it be identical in any two images in
which it appears. The direction and spread of this highly annoying CA is
dependent on what direction and distance the IS optical elements shifted to
compensate at the time.
Each has their compromises. If I had to choose, I would choose sensor-shift
IS so as not to degrade image quality at any time. I already have a steady
enough hand where I don't need as much IS compensation as is afforded by
potentially harmful image damaging optical IS.
nospam
<k...@address.com> wrote:
> In reply to someone who has obviously never used any camera with IS in
> either lens or body, nor studied the image effects of both ... be aware
> that optical IS imparts excess CA when the optical elements are shifted
> widely to compensate for a lot of motion.
nonsense. chromatic aberration is not caused by optical stabilization.
KarlArkansas
Thus proving the difference ... between those who actually use cameras and
those who only know how to talk about them.
Try again, ignorant Troll.
Rich
They woke up to the P&S con ages ago and rendered those cameras
unprofitable for the companies making them.
rwalker
<savagefuckhead1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:08:00 -0700, Savageduck
><savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-05-22 21:01:20 -0700, TrollTagger <t...@trollkillers.org> said:
>>>
>>>
>>> I just changed my sock, and I'm back again.
>>>
>>
>>Now go away.
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely
How completely ignorant, completely empty, and completely predictable.
J. Samuals
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
rwalker
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 2009 22:09:16 -0400, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 03:56:39 -0500, Savagefuckhead
>><savagefuckhead1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:08:00 -0700, Savageduck
>>><savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2009-05-22 21:01:20 -0700, TrollTagger <t...@trollkillers.org> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just changed my sock, and I'm back again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now go away.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>
>>> Your reply is completely
>>
>>How completely ignorant, completely empty, and completely predictable.
>
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
As I said before . . . .
kevin
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
Chris Malcolm
Chromatic aberration is caused by bending a light ray at a glass-air
or glass/different-glass interface. The reason good lenses have little
chromatic aberration is that they go to considerable lengths of
optical engineering ingenuity to introduce cancelling chromatic
aberration. Generally speaking the better this is done the more
expensive the lens.
Optical image stabilisation works by bending the light a little bit
more in order to compensate for camera movement. So it's bound to
introduce some extra chromatic aberration. Of course in an an expenive
lens of high quality the designers will go to pains to compensate for
that too so as to keep it within the performance goals of the lens.
I'd be surprised, however, if on some Friday afternoon expensive
lenses, or some of the cheaper lenses, they didn't quite manage, and
careful testing would show the variation of chromatic aberration as
the IS shifts around.
--
Chris Malcolm
rwalker
nospam
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Chromatic aberration is caused by bending a light ray at a glass-air
> or glass/different-glass interface. The reason good lenses have little
> chromatic aberration is that they go to considerable lengths of
> optical engineering ingenuity to introduce cancelling chromatic
> aberration. Generally speaking the better this is done the more
> expensive the lens.
true, and not just chromatic aberration.
> Optical image stabilisation works by bending the light a little bit
> more in order to compensate for camera movement. So it's bound to
> introduce some extra chromatic aberration. Of course in an an expenive
> lens of high quality the designers will go to pains to compensate for
> that too so as to keep it within the performance goals of the lens.
stabilization shifts the image laterally by wiggling one or more lens
elements, not by altering the refraction, thus it will not have an
effect on chromatic aberration.
of course, any lens can exhibit chromatic aberration, stabilized or not.
Gene Walzer
Wow, he truly is a moron of maximum proportions. And just what do you think
changes where the image forms during IS functioning? The very thing that
forms the image--refraction.
Get a clue, idiot. But then again, you're just one of the many dozens of
resident keyboard trolls that post your stupidity to the world, in your
desperate attempts for any kind of attention at all in your pathetic excuse
for a life.
>
>of course, any lens can exhibit chromatic aberration, stabilized or not.
Go educate yourself the least little bit before you embarrass the
collective intellect of humanity any more. We can only hope that, one day,
you win the "Darwin Award" to remove your stupidity genes from the
gene-pool of the human species. Something tells me though that we have no
fear of you ever procreating. Nothing in life would ever have you, except
perhaps your tissues, towels, plushies, or pets.
Troll-Killer
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
nospam
<gwa...@saywhat.com> wrote:
> Wow, he truly is a moron of maximum proportions. And just what do you think
> changes where the image forms during IS functioning? The very thing that
> forms the image--refraction.
it's refracted whether stabilization is on or off.
Rich
Ron Hunter
If you disagree, then attempt to educate. Don't attack the person.
Nothing you said bears on the subject, only on the poster. Your
personal attack is uncalled for, and rude.
Deep Reset
"Troll-Killer" <t...@trollkillers.org> wrote in message
news:skfk15t7nkmssio03...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 19:30:20 -0400, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 23:07:34 -0500, kevin <k...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 23:57:44 -0400, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 21:25:38 -0500, J. Samuals <j...@trollkillers.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 22:09:16 -0400, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 03:56:39 -0500, Savagefuckhead
>>>>>><savagefuckhead1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:08:00 -0700, Savageduck
>>>>>>><savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 2009-05-22 21:01:20 -0700, TrollTagger <t...@trollkillers.org>
>>>>>>>>said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just changed my sock, and I'm back again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now go away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your reply is completely
>>>>>>
> 5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient.
Well, yes, they're lightweight, but don't forget to factor-in the weight of
a tripod, so you can give those teeny-tiny photosites a long enough exposure
to collect a decent charge, and render a noise-free image.
(Yes, I have both DSLR and P&S, but I live on a small rainy island in the
North Atlantic, and bright sunshine is a rarity)
Gene Walzer
wrote:
Did you miss the "educational" portion of the post? Perhaps you are as
dense as nospam.
Here it is, copied from above, so you won't miss it this time:
>> And just what do you think
>> changes where the image forms during IS functioning? The very thing that
>> forms the image--refraction.
>>
As for your other smarmy emotionally-insecure request, take it to Oprah.
She loves nothing better than to make her fortune off of the insecurities
and disadvantages of others. It's what she is, it's her whole life and
reason for being. You could easily (though partially) feed her gaping maw
of greedy desperation and needs.
Savageduck
Don't try and educate, argue, or reason with our resident P&S troll.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Ron,
You might have recognized the style of our resident P&S troll.
He is not going to gain anything, or change his behaviour, from your
attempt to instill any decency in him.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Ron Hunter
opinion.... Welcome to me twit filter.
Ron Hunter
Chris Malcolm
Wiggling a lens element changes the amount of refraction. and
therefore the amount of chromatic aberration.
> of course, any lens can exhibit chromatic aberration, stabilized or not.
Of course, but what you're failing to realise is that changing the
amount of refraction, which is how the image is shifted in optical
stabilisation, will change the amount of chromatic aberration, and
unlike the usual chromatic aberration it will be eccentric. Spend ten
minutes playing with a prism, a sunbeam. and a ruler, and you'll find
out how it works.
--
Chris Malcolm
Savageduck
Not quite so simple, as he constantly morphs his ID, so just recognize
him by style and headers, and act appropriately.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
rwalker
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 2009 19:30:20 -0400, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 23:07:34 -0500, kevin <k...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 23:57:44 -0400, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 21:25:38 -0500, J. Samuals <j...@trollkillers.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 22:09:16 -0400, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 03:56:39 -0500, Savagefuckhead
>>>>>><savagefuckhead1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:08:00 -0700, Savageduck
>>>>>>><savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 2009-05-22 21:01:20 -0700, TrollTagger <t...@trollkillers.org> said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just changed my sock, and I'm back again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now go away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your reply is completely
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How completely ignorant, completely empty, and completely predictable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>>
>>>>As I said before . . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>
>>> Your reply is completely off-topic.
>>
>>As I said before . . . .
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely
Blah, blah, blah. Woof, woof, woof. Roll over, play dead, learn a
new trick.
Ron Hunter
Well, people like that aren't worth much attention, which is what they
are after. I will just ignore him in the future.
J. Clarke
You mean that the refractive index of the glass is altered by the image
stabilization mechanism? Do tell.
SMS
> Well, people like that aren't worth much attention, which is what they
> are after. I will just ignore him in the future.
Filtering him works pretty well because despite the fact that he changes
his identity constantly, there are some things in his headers, and even
in the fake e-mail addresses he creates, that you can filter on.
You need a better news reader than Thunderbird or Outlook, and you have
to be willing to spend some time creating filters on unique attributes
in his headers.
One very good free Usnet news reader is 40tude Dialog, at
"http://www.40tude.com/dialog/".
I'm slowly migrating over from Thunderbird, copying my existing filters
and adding new ones, but in reality you need less filters in 40tude
Dialog because you can look at attributes other than just "from" or
"subject" though fortunately, most posters you want to filter are not
quite as obnoxious as our troll.
nospam
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
how is a simple prism which is *supposed* to split the colours
representative of a complex optical device that's explicitly designed
*not* to?
wiggling the stabilizing elements *moves* the image, it does not change
the refraction of it.
now it's possible that it might move it into part of the other elements
where the path is less optimized but that would have been taken into
account in their design. in other words, any effect is insignificant,
if it can even be measured.
but since you believe it can happen, where are the examples showing
that a lens with its moving elements centered have less chromatic
aberration than when they're at full excursion?
David J. Littleboy
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> Of course, but what you're failing to realise is that changing the
>> amount of refraction, which is how the image is shifted in optical
>> unlike the usual chromatic aberration it will be eccentric. Spend ten
>> minutes playing with a prism, a sunbeam. and a ruler, and you'll find
>> out how it works.
>
> You mean that the refractive index of the glass is altered by the image
> stabilization mechanism? Do tell.
No. He means that by shifting one or more central elements in the lens, the
construction, and thus optical properties, of the lens change. Thus it's not
unreasonable to expect that the amount of CA will change also.
Whether this is detectable or not is another question, of course.
Still, it's a good point that IS is another constraint, and implies worse
optical performance than one might otherwise get. Another reason in-camera
stabilization is a good idea.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
nospam
Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> > You mean that the refractive index of the glass is altered by the image
> > stabilization mechanism? Do tell.
>
> No. He means that by shifting one or more central elements in the lens, the
> construction, and thus optical properties, of the lens change. Thus it's not
> unreasonable to expect that the amount of CA will change also.
it's possible, but it's insignificant and certainly something that
would have been considered in the overall design.
> Whether this is detectable or not is another question, of course.
exactly. if it's not detectable, who cares.
> Still, it's a good point that IS is another constraint, and implies worse
> optical performance than one might otherwise get. Another reason in-camera
> stabilization is a good idea.
they both have advantages and disadvantages.
Ron Hunter
The filtering need not be perfect. I have no intention of switching
from Thunderbird. Better filtering is on the way, shortly. Such minor
irritations really aren't worth the trauma of switching newsreaders.
SMS
> The filtering need not be perfect. I have no intention of switching
> from Thunderbird. Better filtering is on the way, shortly. Such minor
> irritations really aren't worth the trauma of switching newsreaders.
It's not just our troll, it's stuff like the recent rash of postings of
merchandise originating from "news.usenetmonster.com". Amazingly this
provider actually did recognize the problem eventually, and shut the
poster down, but it was really annoying while it lasted.
Paul Furman
Both would tend to push at least one corner inward, improving one side,
making another worse. The troll just made this up though, it's a non-issue.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Rob G
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Barclays Capital estimates that consumer-oriented point and shoot
> digital camera sales will shrink 24% in terms of revenue amid a global
> slump in demand. Casio and Olympus recently cut prices on point and
> shoot cameras, but analysts say that prices of point and shoot models
> have bottomed out in terms of the manufacturers being able to cut prices
> further, because margins are already close to zero. A shake out is
> imminent in the digital camera business, with other producers set to
> follow the lead of Konica-Minolta and abandon the business.
>
> Digital SLR revenue is predicted to shrink by 12%, as prices fall due to
> greater competition and the introduction of lower priced models. Digital
> SLR cameras used to be purchased mainly by hobbyists and professionals,
> but the addition of features such as “Live View” and video capability
> have boosted sales volumes in the mass market, according to analyst Tak
> Tomasako. "The main advantage of the digital SLR to the casual
> photographer is the lack of shutter lag, that annoying delay on point
> and shoot cameras between when the shutter release is pressed and the
> photograph is taken," said Tomasako.
>
> "The lack of live view and video recording capability also hurt demand
> for digital SLRs in the mass market," continued Tomasako. "These
> features were already present on point and shoot cameras, and consumers
> expected them on digital SLRs as well, even though hobbyists and
> professionals didn't care about those features. Now the digital SLR
> manufacturers have added these features and are penetrating into the
> mass market. For the manufacturer, there is the opportunity to sell not
> only the camera, but a variety of high margin lenses and accessories."
>
> Not all manufacturers will survive in the digital SLR business stressed
> Tomasako. "Canon and Nikon currently have over 80% market share between
> them, with Sony (who bought Konica-Minolta's digital SLR business) a
> distant third. Olympus and Pentax barely register at all and will find
> it difficult to continue. Olympus has teamed up with Panasonic to
> promote their 4:3 and micro 4:3 system with little success. Pentax has
> teamed up with Korea's Samsung to co-brand digital SLRs, also with
> little success."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What I don't get about this news item is that if D-SLRs are penetrating
> into the mass market, as they appear to be doing, won't the increase in
> sales more than make up for the lower ASP, _increasing_ revenue while
> decreasing margins?
I've read through most of the posts in this thread and am amazed at
the abuse that flows back and forth not only in this thread but
throughout this NG in general.
I'm not a troll as I will bring something of my observations on the
subject shortly, but I am a regular user of NG's and forums in the UK
and I've never come across such polarised opinion and poor quality
discussion in terms of argumentative emotion on the subjects raised.
You really all need to look at yourselves and wonder just who you are
and whom you are trying to convince that you are any wiser than anyone
else. You accuse posters of being trolls but is it hardly surprising
that you are being wound up when you all lay yourselves so open to
being seen as such pompous idiots.
I'm an amateur photographer - I'm old enough to remember as a child
using box brownies and developing my own 35mm b&w films. I enjoy
recording life as it goes past, but I'm not a pro-am unlike many here
make themselves out to be. Anyway I did a brief test today, totally
unrelated to this thread. I've a Canon 300D with it's native lens,
and I've a Panasonic FX01. My test ? I wanted to investigate
recording many family papers - I can either scan them or I can photo
them, so I tried the cameras this morning. What astonished me,
particularly in line with this thread, that in an identical shot, the
P & S was far superior in detail to the SLR. I had to Sharpen the SLR
shot to be able to read the text. which in the P & S was clear and
readable without significant zooming in.
If you regard the postings in favour of P & S cameras as trolls then
so be it, but my test with the equipment I have has been a bit of an
eye opener.
Rob
Savageduck
> On 21 May, 19:18, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> I've read through most of the posts in this thread and am amazed at
> the abuse that flows back and forth not only in this thread but
> throughout this NG in general.
Such is the nature of opinionated individuals, regardless of level of
knowledge in any particular subject.
>
> I'm not a troll as I will bring something of my observations on the
> subject shortly, but I am a regular user of NG's and forums in the UK
> and I've never come across such polarised opinion and poor quality
> discussion in terms of argumentative emotion on the subjects raised.
> You really all need to look at yourselves and wonder just who you are
> and whom you are trying to convince that you are any wiser than anyone
> else. You accuse posters of being trolls but is it hardly surprising
> that you are being wound up when you all lay yourselves so open to
> being seen as such pompous idiots.
There are individuals who deliberately provoke response in these groups
for the purpose of espousing an argument based in fantasy, and/or
ignorance.
Some of us react to these "trolls" in anger, as their efforts seem
designed to destroy the interaction and value of these NGs
Sometimes our reactions are reflexively reactionary, sometime a thread
degrades or develops into a discussion which has nothing to do with the
OP.
Sometimes we (and I include myself) are just plain wrong.
>
> I'm an amateur photographer - I'm old enough to remember as a child
> using box brownies and developing my own 35mm b&w films. I enjoy
> recording life as it goes past, but I'm not a pro-am unlike many here
> make themselves out to be.
It sounds as if you have a history similar to many here, myself
included. Many of us are just photographers, some have a need to
identify themselves as "Pros" and some actually are "Pros". Many come
from other fields and have different experiences which can from time to
time be enlightening, and from time to time provoke further argument.
> Anyway I did a brief test today, totally
> unrelated to this thread. I've a Canon 300D with it's native lens,
...and this "native" lens is what exactly?
> and I've a Panasonic FX01. My test ? I wanted to investigate
> recording many family papers - I can either scan them or I can photo
> them, so I tried the cameras this morning. What astonished me,
> particularly in line with this thread, that in an identical shot, the
> P & S was far superior in detail to the SLR. I had to Sharpen the SLR
> shot to be able to read the text. which in the P & S was clear and
> readable without significant zooming in.
This may be true in your given circumstances, however as I noted you
failed to tell us which lens you are using with your DSLR. There are
some lens choices (that is the beauty of the DSLR, choice, flexibility
& adaptability beyond the P&S capability,) which may serve your purpose
better.
>
> If you regard the postings in favour of P & S cameras as trolls then
> so be it, but my test with the equipment I have has been a bit of an
> eye opener.
None of us consider postings in favour of P&S cameras "trolls", however
once the posting develops into an irrational evangelizing effort based
in provocative ignorance, it can only be considered a troll.
A certain truly "trollish" individual, who has chosen to change his NG
identity constantly has provoked this P&S /DSLR polarization. Using his
personally developed arguments based on nothing, to provoke reaction.
This individual has yet to provide comparative evidence of his claims.
Many of us use both DSLR and P&S, they both have a purpose and both
can, and have produced great and awful images.
>
> Rob
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Chris Malcolm
Have you noticed that in lenses which exhibit chromatic aberration
that it increases from zero in the middle to a maximum at the edges?
That's because the more you bend the light the more chromatic
aberration there is. And in optical image stabilisation you move the
image by bending the light path with refractive optical elements.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this to photographers! Don't you
guys understand how a lens works?
--
Chris Malcolm
Dan Ruthers
You're catching on. They're not photographers. They don't even use cameras.
They just pretend to in their virtual-reality life online. They don't even
understand the concept of a single lens let alone something more complex
like a rapidly shifting thick IS planar elements meant to shift an image's
position.
They're resident trolls, pure and simple. The whole lot of them. Proved
100% again. Proved every time they reply. All easily dismissed, all easily
disproved. It's quite boring actually. They're quite boring. Like shooting
fish in a barrel, every time. The only ones who can't see them for what
they are, are themselves. They've gone that self-delusional, this parade of
fools. Everyone else is well aware that they are just pretending to know
something about optics and photography.
I just like to watch them jump around making fools of themselves every so
often. Especially when they want to convince someone else to filter the
posts with real facts. All going off topic at great lengths on how to get a
worthwhile newsreader and set up filters. This way they won't be discovered
to be the morons that they actually are. As long as they can get the one
who has proved them wrong to be invisible to everyone else, it helps them
to continue on with their role-play-life deception and self-deception. It's
the only defense that they have to continue on with their charade.
Psychotics are like that, yes they are.
They don't want to discuss the facts that have proved them all to be the
role-playing morons that they are, they just want to make the person that
exposed them for what they truly are to just go away. It's all that they've
got in life. They're that just simple, they're just that useless. :-)
Doug McDonald
> Have you noticed that in lenses which exhibit chromatic aberration
> that it increases from zero in the middle to a maximum at the edges?
> That's because the more you bend the light the more chromatic
> aberration there is. And in optical image stabilisation you move the
> image by bending the light path with refractive optical elements.
>
> I can't believe I'm having to explain this to photographers! Don't you
> guys understand how a lens works?
>
Uh, yes, I understand.
You apparently don't.
Thewre are two types of chromatic aberration, longitudinal and lateral.
Longitudinal means the focal length varies with color, lateral
means image size varies with color. You are talking the latter.
All lenses, except ones that are absolutely symmetric about a central
stop (and this means they are macro lenses with a 1:1 image size!)
have lateral abberation. It is lens designer's job to minimize
or eliminate (which is in fact actually possible) it. Note that
the movable element in as IS (VR) lens is just one element of many
So long as it is centered, the lateral chromatic of it is taken into
the design, and it won;t be any bigger than any other lens design
done with equal care and budget. All this applies to lognitudinal
chromatic also.
Now what happens when it gets shifted laterally, to correct shake?
Well, exactly as you say. BUT what you fail to point out is that
since the lateral chromatic is zero at the center, the effect
is very very small. If the static lateral chromatic is in fact nonzero,
there will be some point in the field of view, even if the
movable element is shifted, that still has zero lateral chromatic.
If before the shift it is zero across the field, then there will
be a small amount added across the whole field. But being a teensy
shift anyway, the amount will be a small fraction of the shift, and
negligible. This can actually be verified by taking pictures while shaking
Finally --- in any case, the chromatic blue will be far smaller
than the blur due to the shake it is correcting.
In a formal sense the first order change to the longitudinal chromatic
is zero with the lateral shift.
Doug McDonald
H. Castner
Sigh ... another reply above, from just another role-playing resident
troll.
Come back and post again when you start to understand what you are trying
to explain. You stupid fuckin' troll.
You can't shift an image's radial position with a refracting element that
can also compensate across the board for all the CA it is going to impart.
The CA from optical-IS can be far far worse than that from the lens alone.
Go get some real cameras and lenses. Then come crawling back after you've
discovered what I and others already know from real-world tests. That
you're nothing but a know-nothing pretend-photographer troll. Pure and
simple. You just proved, again.
nospam
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > You mean that the refractive index of the glass is altered by the image
> > stabilization mechanism? Do tell.
>
> Have you noticed that in lenses which exhibit chromatic aberration
> that it increases from zero in the middle to a maximum at the edges?
with lateral chromatic aberration that's true.
> That's because the more you bend the light the more chromatic
> aberration there is. And in optical image stabilisation you move the
> image by bending the light path with refractive optical elements.
only if it's not corrected, which it is in any decent lens. also, the
stabilizing element wiggles *very* little, and therefore any effect on
any aberration (not just chromatic) is also very little. it's also
included in the lens design. in other words, the difference is
negligible, if it can even be detected.
but assuming what you say is true, there should be many examples of a
stabilized lens where the chromatic aberration is worse when the
stabilization is on than when it's off. let's see 'em.
> I can't believe I'm having to explain this to photographers! Don't you
> guys understand how a lens works?
yes.
tony cooper
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-05-26 13:48:46 -0700, Rob G <robkg...@btinternet.com> said:
>
>> On 21 May, 19:18, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> I've read through most of the posts in this thread and am amazed at
>> the abuse that flows back and forth not only in this thread but
>> throughout this NG in general.
>
>Such is the nature of opinionated individuals, regardless of level of
>knowledge in any particular subject.
True that is, but it does seem that the uninformed or misinformed are
more opinionated and more strident in their presentation.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
SMS
> Thewre are two types of chromatic aberration, longitudinal and lateral.
> Longitudinal means the focal length varies with color, lateral
> means image size varies with color. You are talking the latter.
<snip>
Very good explanation, but I think it went right over his head.
He could also learn about it at the following sites:
"http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/chromatic_aberration_01.htm"
"http://www.canon.com/bctv/faq/chrab.html"
What he really should do is attend a session of the Nikon School
Introduction to Digital SLR Photography. I took their class on film
photography decades ago, and it was very valuable. Since he's obviously
a photography newbie, he would benefit from it.
It hasn't even gone up very much in price in the past 20 years. It
actually won't get into chromatic aberration, let alone the two
different types, but it's a good class for him since he obviously has no
photographic experience.
David J Taylor
[]
> I'm an amateur photographer - I'm old enough to remember as a child
> using box brownies and developing my own 35mm b&w films. I enjoy
> recording life as it goes past, but I'm not a pro-am unlike many here
> make themselves out to be. Anyway I did a brief test today, totally
> unrelated to this thread. I've a Canon 300D with it's native lens,
> and I've a Panasonic FX01. My test ? I wanted to investigate
> recording many family papers - I can either scan them or I can photo
> them, so I tried the cameras this morning. What astonished me,
> particularly in line with this thread, that in an identical shot, the
> P & S was far superior in detail to the SLR. I had to Sharpen the SLR
> shot to be able to read the text. which in the P & S was clear and
> readable without significant zooming in.
>
> If you regard the postings in favour of P & S cameras as trolls then
> so be it, but my test with the equipment I have has been a bit of an
> eye opener.
>
> Rob
Rob,
Most likely, all you are seeing is a different "sharpness" setting in the
two cameras. If you want the same sharpness, just adjust it in the menu.
You may also be seeing the effect of the smaller lens aperture in the P&S
providing a greater depth-of-field, Remember that the lens supplied with
the early Canon DSLRs was rather a poor performer, I think that a more
recent DSLR and lens would perform noticeably better. Ensure that you are
using a tripod, and that the lenses are working near their optimum
aperture for best performance.
Cheers,
David
Chris Malcolm
> In article <783b81F...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > You mean that the refractive index of the glass is altered by the image
>> > stabilization mechanism? Do tell.
>>
>> Have you noticed that in lenses which exhibit chromatic aberration
>> that it increases from zero in the middle to a maximum at the edges?
> with lateral chromatic aberration that's true.
>> That's because the more you bend the light the more chromatic
>> aberration there is. And in optical image stabilisation you move the
>> image by bending the light path with refractive optical elements.
> only if it's not corrected, which it is in any decent lens.
But it's impossible to remove it entirely in a refractive lens, and
difficult and expensive to remove it to the extent that it's
impossible to see it on a full size image. That's why outside of the
most expensive lenses there is usually a little chromatic aberration
to be found. And since there are plenty of good DSLR lenses with a
little chromatic aberration, it wouldn't be too surprising if some of
those with optical image stabilisation made it a little worse when the
stabiliser was at its extreme of motion.
Of course the very best lenses will have made sure this effect is
below the resolution of the best cameras, but I'm talking about the
lenses most of us use, in which a certain amount of ultimate quality
has been sacrificed so that we can afford to buy the lens.
> also, the
> stabilizing element wiggles *very* little, and therefore any effect on
> any aberration (not just chromatic) is also very little. it's also
> included in the lens design. in other words, the difference is
> negligible, if it can even be detected.
> but assuming what you say is true, there should be many examples of a
> stabilized lens where the chromatic aberration is worse when the
> stabilization is on than when it's off. let's see 'em.
It's not a case of the aberration being there when the IS is switched
on. It's a case of it being there when it's not only switched on, but
being used in conditions which require its maximum excursion, and
taking a photograph at just that exact small fraction of a second when
the IS was at its maximum excursion.
So even if you had an optical lab, the experimental conditions for
being able to reproduce and measure that effect would be extremely
difficult to engineer. Otherwise you're simply left with taking lots
of shots under shaky conditions and sifting through them to find one
which happened to hit the right conditions.
Nobody is going to bother doing that. But among photographers fussy
enough about the very highest detail resolution to have done
experiments with IS such as whether it's worth using it on a slightly
shaky tripod in a wind, a few have noticed the very occasional odd bit
of eccentric chromatic aberration in an image. Slight, rare, and not
easily reproducible, but an effect only seen with optical IS on, and
that it's both rare and eccentric suggests that it's the IS that's
doing it.
I've tried googling up one of those reports, but I can't think of
specific enough search strings to pick one out of the mass of
irrelevant reports. I had no idea that this was such a contentious
issue. In future I'll make a note of such a report when I come across
one.
On reflection it occurs to me that perhaps this isn't a contentious
issue. Perhaps it's only in this contentious newsgroup that it's
contentious :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> In article <780hevF...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > of course, any lens can exhibit chromatic aberration, stabilized or not.
>>
>> Of course, but what you're failing to realise is that changing the
>> amount of refraction, which is how the image is shifted in optical
>> stabilisation, will change the amount of chromatic aberration, and
>> unlike the usual chromatic aberration it will be eccentric. Spend ten
>> minutes playing with a prism, a sunbeam. and a ruler, and you'll find
>> out how it works.
> how is a simple prism which is *supposed* to split the colours
> representative of a complex optical device that's explicitly designed
> *not* to?
It illustrates the simple basic property of lateral chromatic
aberration that it increases as the angle through which the light ray
is bent increases. That's why you get more lateral CA at the edges of
an image, and none in the centre.
> wiggling the stabilizing elements *moves* the image, it does not change
> the refraction of it.
If you'd ever played with a prism you wouldn't make such a silly
claim. The way optical IS moves the image is by bending the light rays
a little. That increases the amount of refraction applied to all the
rays passing through the lens by precisely the amount required to do
the shift, because the shift is done by refraction!
> now it's possible that it might move it into part of the other elements
> where the path is less optimized but that would have been taken into
> account in their design. in other words, any effect is insignificant,
> if it can even be measured.
Like the very best lenses there will no visible chromatic
aberration. But I can't afford those rare and extremely expensive
lenses. I buy lenses which are cheaper because they have a little
chromatic aberration which couldn't be removed at the price. I would
expect their IS systems to be built to the same standards,
i.e. optically pretty good, but not perfect.
> but since you believe it can happen, where are the examples showing
> that a lens with its moving elements centered have less chromatic
> aberration than when they're at full excursion?
How would you arrange to take a photograph at the instant when the IS
is at its full extension? This is a small effect which in systems
where it occurs will only rarely affect a photograph, and it's simply
not worth setting up the very expensive experimental rig required to
reproduce and measure it.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> I'm an amateur photographer - I'm old enough to remember as a child
> using box brownies and developing my own 35mm b&w films. I enjoy
> recording life as it goes past, but I'm not a pro-am unlike many here
> make themselves out to be. Anyway I did a brief test today, totally
> unrelated to this thread. I've a Canon 300D with it's native lens,
> and I've a Panasonic FX01. My test ? I wanted to investigate
> recording many family papers - I can either scan them or I can photo
> them, so I tried the cameras this morning. What astonished me,
> particularly in line with this thread, that in an identical shot, the
> P & S was far superior in detail to the SLR. I had to Sharpen the SLR
> shot to be able to read the text. which in the P & S was clear and
> readable without significant zooming in.
I have an old 3MP camera which I bought years ago as a cheap way of
copying text and diagrams in libraries which charge for
photocopying. It can photograph an A4 page sufficiently sharply that I
can read the tiniest footnote font easily. Every DSLR I've played has
been easily able to take much sharper higher resolution images than
that old 3MP P&S camera. That your 300D image was worse suggests
misuse.
There is so much more control available in a DSLR that it's much
easier to misuse it and take poor images than with a P&S. That you say
nothing about the optical settings of the cameras or how the jpeg
processing options were set up in each suggests that you're not aware
of the importance of these things.
--
Chris Malcolm
David J Taylor
[]
> On reflection it occurs to me that perhaps this isn't a contentious
> issue. Perhaps it's only in this contentious newsgroup that it's
> contentious :-)
Chris, if this was a real problem, I'm sure the reviewers would have
picked it up. In practice, if you want the ultimate quality, you'd be
working with the IS/VR switched off and using a tripod, I would
imagine....
David
nospam
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> But it's impossible to remove it entirely in a refractive lens, and
> difficult and expensive to remove it to the extent that it's
> impossible to see it on a full size image. That's why outside of the
> most expensive lenses there is usually a little chromatic aberration
> to be found. And since there are plenty of good DSLR lenses with a
> little chromatic aberration, it wouldn't be too surprising if some of
> those with optical image stabilisation made it a little worse when the
> stabiliser was at its extreme of motion.
sounds like you're assuming it would occur, not that it actually does
occur, and even if it does, how noticeable it is. and what about the
changes imparted by moving the internal elements when focusing or
zooming?
> Of course the very best lenses will have made sure this effect is
> below the resolution of the best cameras, but I'm talking about the
> lenses most of us use, in which a certain amount of ultimate quality
> has been sacrificed so that we can afford to buy the lens.
most have chromatic aberration well corrected, but it's easy to fix it
afterwards and some cameras even do that automatically.
> > also, the
> > stabilizing element wiggles *very* little, and therefore any effect on
> > any aberration (not just chromatic) is also very little. it's also
> > included in the lens design. in other words, the difference is
> > negligible, if it can even be detected.
>
> > but assuming what you say is true, there should be many examples of a
> > stabilized lens where the chromatic aberration is worse when the
> > stabilization is on than when it's off. let's see 'em.
>
> It's not a case of the aberration being there when the IS is switched
> on. It's a case of it being there when it's not only switched on, but
> being used in conditions which require its maximum excursion, and
> taking a photograph at just that exact small fraction of a second when
> the IS was at its maximum excursion.
yes, that was implied. obviously, if the stabilizer is not moving
much, there won't be much change.
> So even if you had an optical lab, the experimental conditions for
> being able to reproduce and measure that effect would be extremely
> difficult to engineer. Otherwise you're simply left with taking lots
> of shots under shaky conditions and sifting through them to find one
> which happened to hit the right conditions.
so in other words, it's not really a problem except possibly in very
rare edge cases. got it.
Chris Malcolm
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> On reflection it occurs to me that perhaps this isn't a contentious
>> issue. Perhaps it's only in this contentious newsgroup that it's
>> contentious :-)
> Chris, if this was a real problem, I'm sure the reviewers would have
> picked it up.
I'm suggesting it's a real but rather occasional problem of a kind
which reviewers would have difficulty in finding.
> In practice, if you want the ultimate quality, you'd be
> working with the IS/VR switched off and using a tripod, I would
> imagine....
Of course :-)
I'm currently working on how to get away from mirror slap shake when
using a tripod with a camera which lacks a mirror lock. I thought it
would be a purely vertical movement, but it appears to have a
horizontal component as well, giving a directional smear at about 20
degrees off vertical. Of course that could be artefact of my tripod,
head, plate, etc..
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> In article <7872u5F...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> But it's impossible to remove it entirely in a refractive lens, and
>> difficult and expensive to remove it to the extent that it's
>> impossible to see it on a full size image. That's why outside of the
>> most expensive lenses there is usually a little chromatic aberration
>> to be found. And since there are plenty of good DSLR lenses with a
>> little chromatic aberration, it wouldn't be too surprising if some of
>> those with optical image stabilisation made it a little worse when the
>> stabiliser was at its extreme of motion.
> sounds like you're assuming it would occur, not that it actually does
> occur, and even if it does, how noticeable it is. and what about the
> changes imparted by moving the internal elements when focusing or
> zooming?
I regarded it as a purely theoretical possibility which in practice
was negligible until I read a few independent reports which claimed to
have noticed something which looked like it.
>> Of course the very best lenses will have made sure this effect is
>> below the resolution of the best cameras, but I'm talking about the
>> lenses most of us use, in which a certain amount of ultimate quality
>> has been sacrificed so that we can afford to buy the lens.
> most have chromatic aberration well corrected, but it's easy to fix it
> afterwards and some cameras even do that automatically.
It's easy to fix simple predictably centred aberration. If this occurs
it would be eccentric and variable, which would be very much harder to
fix in software.
>> > also, the
>> > stabilizing element wiggles *very* little, and therefore any effect on
>> > any aberration (not just chromatic) is also very little. it's also
>> > included in the lens design. in other words, the difference is
>> > negligible, if it can even be detected.
>>
>> > but assuming what you say is true, there should be many examples of a
>> > stabilized lens where the chromatic aberration is worse when the
>> > stabilization is on than when it's off. let's see 'em.
>>
>> It's not a case of the aberration being there when the IS is switched
>> on. It's a case of it being there when it's not only switched on, but
>> being used in conditions which require its maximum excursion, and
>> taking a photograph at just that exact small fraction of a second when
>> the IS was at its maximum excursion.
> yes, that was implied. obviously, if the stabilizer is not moving
> much, there won't be much change.
>> So even if you had an optical lab, the experimental conditions for
>> being able to reproduce and measure that effect would be extremely
>> difficult to engineer. Otherwise you're simply left with taking lots
>> of shots under shaky conditions and sifting through them to find one
>> which happened to hit the right conditions.
> so in other words, it's not really a problem except possibly in very
> rare edge cases. got it.
And also not difficult to avoid, since all you'd have to do would be
take a few shots, which is probably what most people do in worryingly
shaky conditions anyway.
--
Chris Malcolm
David J Taylor
[]
> I'm currently working on how to get away from mirror slap shake when
> using a tripod with a camera which lacks a mirror lock. I thought it
> would be a purely vertical movement, but it appears to have a
> horizontal component as well, giving a directional smear at about 20
> degrees off vertical. Of course that could be artefact of my tripod,
> head, plate, etc..
Is the mirror drive single-sided? I must admit to having never then the
effects of mirror slap during my use of SLRs and DSLRs. Perhaps I don't
use the particular range of exposures where it matters, or my 10Mpix isn't
enough to show it?
Cheers,
David
Chris Malcolm
I first noticed it long ago in film days when taking SLR pictures
of murals in a church on a tripod by available light with a 200mm lens
and exposure of around 1/8th sec. It caused annoying softening of
images printed at A5 size, I didn't know how shutter speed dependent
it was, and since I usually avoided it by luck of much longer
exposures, it took me a long time to realise what was messing up some
of my shots. They were contract shots and the time lags of film
processing meant I had to schedule reshoots when it obtruded and look
a bit unprofessional.
I was very annoyed to discover what it was, and that my SLR (like most
at the time) didn't have MLU. I swore then never to buy an SLR without
MLU ever again!
But I weakened when considering the purchase of a DSLR without it, and
was being assured that the smaller lighter mirror in APS-C sensor
DLSRs, bettr technology, etc., had now reduced the problem to
insignificance.
And so it seemed, because with my max zoom of 250mm, a 35mm equiv of
375, it seemed to be no longer there. My 18-250mm zoom was a bit soft
at 250mm, so it might have been lurking in the softness, but since I
was now looking at my images on computer screens at magnifications
corresponding to prints of about A2 size, if it was there it had
obviously got a lot smaller.
Then I got a 500mm lens. It didn't take me long to find mirror slap as
a slightly off vertical smearing of at least a few pixels in 14MP
images which obtruded at exposures slower than 1/300th on a tripod.
That lens also had such a razor sharp DoF that it revealed a slight
back focussing error in my DSLR which I first had to fix to get really
sharp focus. Fixing that slight error had the unexpected effect of
slightly improving the softness of my zoom at 250mm and f6.3. Seems
part of its softness there had been due to the slight back
focus. Having been sensitised by the 500mm to the problems of distant
views usually being softened by what astronomers call "seeing", the
shifting refractions of air at different temperatures, especially on
sunny days, I also discovered that some of what I'd thought was the
well known optical softness of my zoom at 250mm and f6.3 was actually
due to these convection currents in the air. When the image is sharp
they cause localised smearing of detail, and they also sometimes fool
the AF into focussing on a thermal refraction error and thus throwing
the focus off.
With my now improved long shot technique and educated critical eye I
could now also just see mirror slap with my 250mm zoom. It had before
been concealed by being muddled up in the other performance
limitations of that lens, the back focus error, and my earlier poorer
long lens technique when going for maximum detail resolution.
What's even more annoying is that my camera (Sony A350) has inside it
all the technology necessary for MLU. All it would take to provide it
would be a software upgrade. Its absence is purely a bit of cynical
model marketing positioning.
--
Chris Malcolm
David J Taylor
[]
> With my now improved long shot technique and educated critical eye I
> could now also just see mirror slap with my 250mm zoom. It had before
> been concealed by being muddled up in the other performance
> limitations of that lens, the back focus error, and my earlier poorer
> long lens technique when going for maximum detail resolution.
>
> What's even more annoying is that my camera (Sony A350) has inside it
> all the technology necessary for MLU. All it would take to provide it
> would be a software upgrade. Its absence is purely a bit of cynical
> model marketing positioning.
Thanks for your most interesting remarks, Chris, particularly about the
"seeing" and long lenses which I do appreciate (the more so for having an
ex-astronomer wife). Looking at a random set of my own images, out of 639
no more than 10 have an exposure longer than 1/10s. I tend to go for
higher ISO rather than longer exposure, give a choice. Of course, the
fact that I don't carry a tripod round with me means that /if/ I need to
brace, I do so against available walls, ledges etc., which are perhaps
more solid than a flimsy tripod. When using the 300mm, I'm most likely
handholding on some moving target, and lucky to get a sharp image at all!
It all helps to explain why I haven't noticed what you have noticed.
Agreed on the lack of MLU. Mine has it, but only for cleaning the sensor!
Cheers,
David
John Turco
>
> God finally intervening in the sale of the odious P&S's?
Hello, Rich:
If there >is< a God, then, you're surely going to end up, in His special "Hell for Trolls."
Burn, baby...BURN!!!! :-)
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
John Turco
Hello, Steven:
Uh, Doug McDonald was replying to Chris Malcolm -- >not< to the so-called
"DSLR Troll."
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>