Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11
Morey Staffer
Rich
<moreystaff...@pickdomainofyourchoice.com> wrote:
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res...
A silly toy. Pretty soon, ownership of a P&S will brand you as
nothing more than someone who uses a camera phone. A lazy loser.
Sherry Miller
>
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>
If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
for their budget line of DSLR's.
bradford andersen
So .... that means, what? That you're going to have to throw another $2000+
worth of lenses at the DSLR in order to make it beat the image quality and keep
the same zoom range as the P&S camera? Sounds like what you are saying.
Jurgen
news:3tu9i4ts1h4hnqng9...@4ax.com:
There is a small thing called "resolving power" that is convieniently
missing from the assment of this camera. The crap sensor is one exaple and
the plastic element lens is another of why it will never really rival a
DSLR.
Good luch with your faith in the toy. It doesn't "beat" a DSLR or for that
matter even rival one with image quality. All it has is a lens that might
last out the camera and might not - that has a reach few people will ever
need at a sacrifice in quality that will never show up until you try to
print an enlargement.
Nice enough plastic camera with a plastic lens that although it out reaches
the Olympus in the same range, will never come close to the same quality as
the Olympus produces. Dream on children.
David J Taylor
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.
David
ParkerGrant
Why? A talented photographer they can do all their photography even at ISO25 if
they want to. Many real pros have done just that for many decades. High ISO is
the amateur's crutch. Someone thinking that a selling point is just revealing
that they know very little about how to use a camera properly and even less
about the art of photography.
harvey_carpell
Another online idiot that doesn't realize that acrylic lens elements can
outperform even the best and most expensive fluorite designs. Oh well.
bugbear
>
> Why? A talented photographer they can do all their photography even at ISO25 if
> they want to.
I await such shots from a moody, smoky acoustic gig
in a club.
BugBear
ben_pallace
wrote:
Depends on the effect that you want to achieve. Some motion-blur is more than
welcomed, it is required to impart some moods and overall ambiance to make a
photo a success. A pro might also request that some strategically placed, but
unobtrusive, lighting might be allowed.
I have some photos of this nature taken at ISO80 from quite a few all-night
outdoor music events. Most of the event lit up with just campfires with a few
dim colored lights hitting the stage. Taken hand-held with a 300mm f.l. lens.
You wait for the right moment to click the shutter. When the artist's face might
be perfectly still but their hand might be in motion to show their work on the
frets of the guitar. Or the moment when their head dips to a limit of its motion
and catching a flair of blurry hair, but the face remains tack-sharp for that
partial second. It's all about the timing, knowing your subject, and being able
to anticipate when to trip the shutter. It's called talent, and the art of
photography. Something that so few of you ever seem to discuss. Most likely
because none of you know what it is. You all want that camera to do it all for
you, don't you. Buy another one, maybe there's talent inside that next camera.
Maybe it's listed on the box or in the manual somewhere. Keep looking, you might
one day find it.
SMS
That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.
Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.
Tod Burnstein
I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) to beat the images from that camera.
2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?
Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
bother to carry them with you that is.
Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
up.
What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.
Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.
Chris Malcolm
By that argument the most talented professionals are those using
pinhole cameras. Lenses are just an amateur's crutch.
--
Chris Malcolm
Ross Brown
Nobody said that clean high ISOs aren't nice to have, but they're certainly not
a requirement by any stretch of the imagination. A pro could take images with a
pinhole camera and their talent will show loud and clear through that pinhole
lens. The same cannot be said of an amateur. In the hands of an amateur those
high ISOs used with the most expensive camera and glass will not help them. They
think it will, but it never does. Their photos still look like they were taken
by an amateur snap-shooter tourist. Look at the ones that used to post in this
newsgroup as perfect examples. Always priding their photography on their chosen
camera and yet all their photos still looked like crap. There's nothing they can
do to stop that from happening. They're caught in a trap of their own making and
their own stupidity. Always blaming or applauding the camera, always trying to
get one that's even more automatic. A camera with a built in "talent button", or
so they hope. Never realizing that it is they, not their camera, who must learn
how to take photos worth viewing, even if they only have a pinhole camera at
their disposal.
Doug Jewell
Based on your description of the lighting, (campfire, a few
dim stage lights), I'd estimate the subject brightness to
typically be about EV4. If you are understating the actual
lighting, and the stage lights are quite a bit brighter than
you are describing, then maybe you'd get to EV6 brightness.
If that is the case, at ISO 80 and F2.8, you'd need a
1/10sec exposure. Handheld at 300mm for 1/10 sec to give
tack sharp images? not bloody likely, even with an excellent
IS system.
Steve
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:23:18 -0600, Morey Staffer
<moreys...@pickdomainofyourchoice.com> wrote:
>
>
>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
Shows me that if you don't mind crappy pictures even in daylight, you
can get a P&S or a Rebel XSi with a cheap lens. Now, if you want to
see some of the differences in capability of the *camera* vs. the
lens, from the exact same review see:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/noise.shtml
Steve
SMS
If anything, that comparison convinced me not to buy an SX10!
I do have the Canon 18-55mm kit lens, but I got it because the
difference in price between body-only and the kit was very small. It's
actually not as bad as that comparison shows, when used in the proper
conditions.
They could have used even worse lenses if they wanted to; the kit lenses
Canon used to include on their film Rebel cameras.
The key point is that with a D-SLR you're not stuck with crappy lenses
like you are with P&S cameras, which often don't even have glass lenses
but horrible acrylic lenses.
OTOH, if all you care about is zoom range, and don't care about image
quality, noise, dynamic range, etc., then the SX10 is an excellent
choice. They'll sell a lot of them to people that don't know any better.
frank
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >Sherry Miller wrote:
> >> Morey Staffer wrote:
>
>
> >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
> >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
> >> for their budget line of DSLR's.
>
> >That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
> >as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
> >that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.
>
> >Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.
>
> I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
> enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) to beat the images from that camera.
>
> 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
> extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
> much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?
>
> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
> bother to carry them with you that is.
>
> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
> up.
>
> What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
> ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
> similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.
>
> Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.
Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
optics.
Patrick Jorgens
So finds someone who doesn't have the talent to use anything lower than ISO1600.
Advertised how much more crippled you are. :-)
ParkerGrant
wrote:
>Based on your description of the lighting, (campfire, a few
>dim stage lights), I'd estimate the subject brightness to
>typically be about EV4. If you are understating the actual
>lighting, and the stage lights are quite a bit brighter than
>you are describing, then maybe you'd get to EV6 brightness.
>If that is the case, at ISO 80 and F2.8, you'd need a
>1/10sec exposure. Handheld at 300mm for 1/10 sec to give
>tack sharp images? not bloody likely, even with an excellent
>IS system.
f/2.4 lens at 300mm
With IS I am able to take tack-sharp hand-held images at 1 second exposure at
430mm f.l. (35mm eq.) Here's a quick sample for you:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/3046389190_e8899ef47f_o.jpg
A 100% crop, this one with -1/3EV compensation too. Check the EXIF.
(Now let's hear all the talentless insecure trolls yell it's fake, or that it
wasn't hand-held.)
You reveal much about your amateur's snapshooter status.
Keep trying. You'll figure out how to do photography and use a camera one day.
Or not.
Donald Rippley
wrote:
Can't even do the math eh? Figured as much.
There's one other little important tidbit that only amateur trolls wouldn't
know, or be able to keep in their itty minds, "Content trumps quality -- EVERY
TIME."
ParkerGrant
wrote:
>
>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/3046389190_e8899ef47f_o.jpg
Sorry, bad link. Try again:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/3046478954_f20aed5157_o.jpg
Stephen Bishop
So a high-end superzoom camera can outperform the cheapest Canon kit
lens at 100% magnification under some conditions? No suprises there.
Do the same test with a better entry-level dslr like the Nikon D40 and
a decent mid-range Nikkor lens.
Hmmm... Let's see your images that show your abilities to create
actual photographs with that camera without the pixel peeping
nonsense.
Stephen Bishop
Let's see your pictures to see how much talent you have at any ISO.
Pete D
"Donald Rippley" <drip...@donaldsdomain.org> wrote in message
news:0t9bi4174dvt2l015...@4ax.com...
Silly girl, how sad for you.
frank
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:08:28 -0800 (PST), frank <dhssresearc...@netscape.net>
No, I've done more math than you can ever dream of in your life. More
photography also. How about a few thousand rolls of 35mm a year. Not
to mention digital.
And no, I don't post on line.
Wanker.
Colin.D
>
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>
In case your zealousness for your shitty little P&S has carried you
completely away, toy cameras are off-topic in
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems. Especially as you are bad-mouthing dslrs
in favor of an off-topic camera.
I am not going to enter any debate over the imaginary benefits of your
little toy; suffice to say that you and your ilk are just ignorant
pretenders to the art of photography - which is far and away past mere
technical considerations.
P&S cameras are ok at what they are intended for, which is definitely
not professional photography. Any attempt to say they are equivalent or
better than dslrs is just pissing in the wind.
Colin D.
Gabe Atquist
Heaven knows you DSLR worshippers can't stop from bad-mouthing P&S cameras every
time you open your mouths or get on your keyboards. Now that the tables are
turned its not fair? Really.
This very much has to do with DSLR equipment. It shows that your misplaced
camera devotion is quickly being surpassed by lighter, quieter, more efficient,
less expensive. Did you cry when you lost your job at that buggy-whip factory
too?
Awww... what's the matter, did another P&S camera beat another DSLR? Why does it
bother you so that in the hands of a real professional there's is no difference
and many advantages to shooting with a P&S compared to a cumbersome, noisy,
focal-plane-shutter-crippled DSLR.
You'll get over it. Just like you got over the use of antiquated film.
Some people just have to be dragged and kicking into the 21st century.
"At every crossway on the road that leads to the future, each progressive spirit
is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past." - Maeterlinck
SMS
> bradford andersen <bradan...@removetoreply.com> wrote in
> news:3tu9i4ts1h4hnqng9...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:42:31 -0600, Sherry Miller
>> <ssm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Morey Staffer wrote:
>>>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res
>>>> ults.shtml
>>>>
>>> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
>>> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
>>> lens for their budget line of DSLR's.
>> So .... that means, what? That you're going to have to throw another
>> $2000+ worth of lenses at the DSLR in order to make it beat the image
>> quality and keep the same zoom range as the P&S camera? Sounds like
>> what you are saying.
>>
>>
>
> There is a small thing called "resolving power" that is convieniently
> missing from the assment of this camera. The crap sensor is one exaple and
> the plastic element lens is another of why it will never really rival a
> DSLR.
Yeah, that's one attribute I wish would be included in the camera
databases. Too many people look only at specifications, without
understanding what _isn't_ specified.
> Good luch with your faith in the toy. It doesn't "beat" a DSLR or for that
> matter even rival one with image quality. All it has is a lens that might
> last out the camera and might not - that has a reach few people will ever
> need at a sacrifice in quality that will never show up until you try to
> print an enlargement.
Very true. All the experts agree on this.
Steve
If you can take pictures at low ISO, it's obvious it doesn't take
talent because you don't have any. It takes talent to take pictures
at high ISO, which is why you can't do it.
Steve
So according to you, the 21st century means we have to accept crappy
pictures?
You really think those P&S pictures look good? No wonder you like P&S
cameras. You're satisfied with crap. I don't think those DSLR
pictures are so hot either. But at least with the DSLR, you have the
option to improve them. With the P&S, you're stuck with crappy
images. But at least they're smaller.
Steve
joshua_brandt
Clarify that statement: All "'expert' pretend-photographer resident-DSLR-trolls
on usenet agree on this." Then you will be believed.
"I always break the word expert in two -- into X, the unknown quantity; and
spurt, a drip working under pressure." - Edwina Mountbatten
TobyTarkins
Think again about what you just typed. Then when you realize what you wrote,
slap your forehead, but do it with a good 5lb. sledge this time. All the other
times you've slapped yourself in the head it hasn't done much good. We must
increase your therapeutic dosage. If the 5lb. sledge has no effect, then try a
5lb. splitting-mallet. Eventually you'll come to you'll realize why you are so
stupid.
Steve
What don't you understand? It's self evident that since you say you
can only take pictures at low ISO, then it takes no talent to do that.
It's self evident that since you have no talent and admit that you
can't take pictures at high ISO, then it takes talent to take pictures
at high ISO. It also seems evident that you're incapable of following
a simple logical argument.
Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
See your psychiatrist about increasing your Sledgamine ® dosage.
Jurgen
news:0gtbi4he1f3pcgbrs...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Good luch with your faith in the toy. It doesn't "beat" a DSLR or
>>> for that matter even rival one with image quality. All it has is a
>>> lens that might last out the camera and might not - that has a reach
>>> few people will ever need at a sacrifice in quality that will never
>>> show up until you try to print an enlargement.
>>
>>Very true. All the experts agree on this.
>
> Clarify that statement: All "'expert' pretend-photographer
> resident-DSLR-trolls on usenet agree on this." Then you will be
> believed.
>
> "I always break the word expert in two -- into X, the unknown
> quantity; and spurt, a drip working under pressure." - Edwina
> Mountbatten
>
I guess it school holiday time again.
The children come to play in an adult world.
Complete with their juvenile opinions and fake knowledge. Josh, get some
experience under your belt before you start telling professional
photographers you know more than them. You don't. You just prooved that.
DanDan
The only thing that you have proved is that you are so UNprofessional that you
can't take a good image with any camera in your hands. If you truly were a "pro"
then you could even get pro-photos from a pinhole camera.
You are so fuckingly transparent it's not even funny.
Toby
Toby
SMS
<snip>
> I guess it school holiday time again.
>
> The children come to play in an adult world.
> Complete with their juvenile opinions and fake knowledge. Josh, get some
> experience under your belt before you start telling professional
> photographers you know more than them. You don't. You just prooved that.
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| Thank you, | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| rec.photo.digital | ( (_) )
| management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
======================================================================
bernard_adams
>Have a look at the results at ISO 400-1600
>
>Toby
>
That's wonderful. For some snapshot-hack that requires those ISOs because they
lack the talent of a REAL photographer.
brandon faust
______________________
| |
| Please ignore all |
| the morons who call |
/| /| | smarter people |
||__|| |"trolls", due to their|
/ O O\__ | own insecurities. |
/ \ | Thank-you. |
/ \ \|______________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
Stephen Bishop
<parke...@hiddenfromspam.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:21:02 GMT, "David J Taylor"
><david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sherry Miller wrote:
>>
>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>>
>>> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
>>> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
>>> lens for their budget line of DSLR's.
>>
>>Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
>>didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
>>price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.
>>
>>David
>
>Why? A talented photographer they can do all their photography even at ISO25 if
>they want to. Many real pros have done just that for many decades. High ISO is
>the amateur's crutch. Someone thinking that a selling point is just revealing
>that they know very little about how to use a camera properly and even less
>about the art of photography.
Let's see some examples of your talent at shooting moving subjects in
low ambient light at ISO 25.
Stephen Bishop
<parke...@hiddenfromspam.com> wrote:
How convenient that the picture you linked above is "no longer
available."
IS is more of an amateur's crutch than high ISO. I'm surprised that
someone with your talents would even consider using it.
Stephen Bishop
Ok, that link worked. Unfortunately, even at that low magnification
the purple fringing is terrible. That's typical of many p&s cameras.
allan corans
Cool. An idiot that doesn't even know how to read all the messages in his
new-reader.
Skinner Kroft
Have you thought of seeing an optometrist? Or getting a decent monitor? Of
course not. The fluorescent mauve sky in your world looks just fine to you.
Case closed. He can't even see with his own eyes.
Stephen Bishop
<gabea...@notforpublicuse.org> wrote:
I think he was abused as a child by being beaten with a dslr. That
would explain the irrational phobia toward them and his preference for
smaller inferior cameras.
OMG, I shouldn't joke about such things. It may be true.
Berstein Connors
>
>
>I think he was abused as a child by being beaten with a dslr. That
>would explain the irrational phobia toward them and his preference for
>smaller inferior cameras.
>
>
>OMG, I shouldn't joke about such things. It may be true.
>
>
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is off-topic. Here are some 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 (tel-extender) 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 tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. 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 is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR 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 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit 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, from the obnoxious 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 strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass 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 allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, 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.
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!" 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. The irony is that, by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. 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.
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 everyone 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."
Neil Ellwood
> There's one other little important tidbit that only amateur trolls
> wouldn't know, or be able to keep in their itty minds, "Content trumps
> quality -- EVERY TIME."
You are not talking about your brain - it has No content and No quality.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
R. Mark Clayton
"Morey Staffer" <moreys...@pickdomainofyourchoice.com> wrote in message
news:0hp9i4lmr1bsk7p0e...@4ax.com...
>
>
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>
Historically SLR's have beaten point and shoot by a large margin because: -
Reflex system mean you can see what you are shooting.
Exchangeable lenses mean you can select the best lens for the subject.
[usually] better quality construction.
High build quality with lots of moving parts was essential for film SLR
because the film had to be kept closely in the focal plane and high
precision was needed with the mirror.
The camera was large, because to get adequate resolution 35mm film was
required and the mirror gets in the way. You can get 8MP in phones now.
With the advent of digital cameras a mirror is no longer required (except by
purists) and the image can be made visibly electronically. The much higher
sensitivity and lower noise ratio on digital imagers means the camera (and
hence lenses) can be physically smaller without loss of resolution. The
only moving parts become the shutter and focussing, vastly reducing the
complexity [and cost] of the camera.
Expect to see electronic exchangeable lens cameras make a large dent in the
true SLR market quite soon.
Toby
"bernard_adams" <bad...@insertdomainchoicehere.net> wrote in message
news:ol3ci4lbn5e5orm85...@4ax.com...
Oh, I get it. Real photographers create their own light, so as not to have
to depend on ambient conditions.
Actually real photographers don't even need a camera, as the pixels are
created by divine transubstantiation. :^/)
Toby
Toby
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:qJ6dncA0H8PsI7vU...@bt.com...
Went to the InterBEE show in Tokyo yesterday, and I have, for the first
time, seen EVFs that begin to look reasonable in terms of resolution and
response. Of course they are the size of P&S cameras, in order to pack in
all those pixels, and they eat a lot of juice (these are for high-end
consumer videocams costing about $10,000), but there is progress...
The new RED cameras are supposed to be able to do 100 fps. Certainly a
mirror will forever be incapable of that kind of frame rate.
Toby
Toby
J. Clarke
> "bernard_adams" <bad...@insertdomainchoicehere.net> wrote in message
> news:ol3ci4lbn5e5orm85...@4ax.com...
>> On 20 Nov 2008 19:01:01 -0600, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Have a look at the results at ISO 400-1600
>>>
>>> Toby
>>>
>>
>> That's wonderful. For some snapshot-hack that requires those ISOs
>> because they
>> lack the talent of a REAL photographer.
>
> Oh, I get it. Real photographers create their own light, so as not
> to
> have to depend on ambient conditions.
Uh, what do you believe to be the purpose of such devices as flash
bulbs, strobes, and M122 hundred pound photoflash bombs?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Rich
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:35:26 -0600, ParkerGrant
>
> >On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:51:48 -0600, ParkerGrant <parkergr...@hiddenfromspam.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/3046389190_e8899ef47f_o.jpg
>
> >Sorry, bad link. Try again:
>
> >http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/3046478954_f20aed5157_o.jpg
>
> Ok, that link worked. Unfortunately, even at that low magnification
> the purple fringing is terrible. That's typical of many p&s cameras.
Dpreview could use a standard review for all P&S's:
-Coloured fringing at the edge of the field.
-Difficult achieving good focus on the long end.
-Focus response and shutter response slow.
-High noise at any ISO beyond 200 with noticeable, detail-killing
noise reduction beyond 800.
AndyEmers
>On Nov 20, 9:04 pm, Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:35:26 -0600, ParkerGrant
>>
>> <parkergr...@hiddenfromspam.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:51:48 -0600, ParkerGrant <parkergr...@hiddenfromspam.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/3046389190_e8899ef47f_o.jpg
>>
>> >Sorry, bad link. Try again:
>>
>> >http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/3046478954_f20aed5157_o.jpg
>>
>> Ok, that link worked. Unfortunately, even at that low magnification
>> the purple fringing is terrible. That's typical of many p&s cameras.
Trolls like to imagine things.
There's no purple fringing in that photo. It would occur around the bright-white
objects. The white lights only have a wide blue haze around them due to a
plastic cover of a digital display. The small line at the top that looks purple
is due to antialiasing artifacts on a nearly-horizontal fine line. Which would
happen on any sensor depending on how strong of an antialiasing filter it has.
Keep in mind this is a 100% crop that allows for that to be seen.
>
>Dpreview could use a standard review for all P&S's:
Why just P&S cameras? These problems exist in all digital cameras. DSLRs
especially when using their wide-angle lenses.
>-Coloured fringing at the edge of the field.
Learn something about optics and digital imaging. Colored fringing at the edges
is called lateral chromatic aberration. This is due to optics, not sensors. It's
more prevalent in many DSLR lenses because they can't be figured as accurately
due to their larger physical dimensions. Purple fringing can occur anywhere in a
photo and appears around all edges of strong contrasting details, not just in
one direction around an object's edge.
>-Difficult achieving good focus on the long end.
Learn something about how to use a camera properly. The only reason people have
a difficult time achieving focus at the long-end of the zoom range is that
contrast focusing depends on a steady subject so it has some contrasting edges
to latch onto. Inept amateurs don't know how to hold a camera steady when using
long focal-lengths. Contrast-focusing delay is idiot-user error (and trolls
repeating other troll's words), not camera error.
>-Focus response and shutter response slow.
It would be interesting, but if the tests were done properly then you'll find
out that P&S cameras actually have less shutter-lag because they don't have to
move that slow noisy mirror out of the way or wait an extra 1/250th second or
longer delay for solenoid response trying to get that slow focal-plane shutter
to open.
Keep trying, DSLR-trolls. It's still not going to change facts and reality.
SMS
<snip>
> Dpreview could use a standard review for all P&S's:
> -Coloured fringing at the edge of the field.
> -Difficult achieving good focus on the long end.
> -Focus response and shutter response slow.
> -High noise at any ISO beyond 200 with noticeable, detail-killing
> noise reduction beyond 800.
And remember, they don't publish reviews of the really horrible cameras.
The worst rating you'll ever see is "above average" and that's reserved
for the worst of the worst that they review, such as the Sigma DP1, the
Olympus, SP-550 UZ, and the Sony DSC-H7.
RichA
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message
news:4926c2c2$0$88638$bb4e...@newscene.com...
Yes, like how thousands of P&S RETARDS fire off flashes in sports stadiums
because:
1. They are too F---- STUPID to realize they won't reach that far.
2. They are too F---- STUPID to know how to turn the flash off!
Stephen Bishop
We're still waiting for you to post sample pictures that display your
talent and expertise. So far all you've posed is a lame photo of a
piece of electronic equipment, complete with gross purple fringing.
BernieThompson
You have that bass-ackward, as usual. It's not the cameras that are bad, it's
the people that own the cameras that are stupid. How much do you want to bet
that most of them with the flash going off were using DSLRs. Some of the most
stupid people I have ever met in life buy DSLRs because they think only an
expensive camera will do everything for them correctly, automatically. People
just like you who can't even focus a camera manually.
The correct solution would be to ban all stupid people from those venues, all
venues. Then people like you would be kept from annoying the more knowledgeable
at all times no matter what you do. Win win all around.
RichA
"AndyEmers" <andy...@keepyourspam.net> wrote in message
news:vm3ei495r7k4pb6tv...@4ax.com...
Thanks Gomer, but I used two P&Ss for years before going to DSLRs, an
Olympus C-3040 and C-8080, one of the best made in terms of P&S image
quality and function. They simply cannot produce the quality of results of
a DSLR, for the reasons stated. You can't bend the laws of PHYSICS, small
pixels, contrast focus, and way overextended lens designs = mediocrity.
RichA
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:yuEVk.7622$x%.705@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Well, like magazines, they don't make money off the readers.
ShawnParks
Sorry, your DSLR-troll reply doesn't hold water, this proof says otherwise:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
If you take the sensor size into account then the optics on the dSLR are putting
out 6x's the amount of CA as the glass from the P&S camera. The P&S camera is
also resolving more than 6X's the amount of detail as the DSLR glass.
Facts are facts.
measekite
And why do you think that is?
ShawnParks
wrote:
I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
on that page, I count, on average:
4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
Sensor sizes:
SX10, 10mPx = 1/2.3 " = 16 x 4.62 mm = 35 MP/cm² pixel density
EOS 450D, 12.2mPx = 22.2 x 14.8 mm = 3.7 MP/cm² pixel density
In order to have a proper angular-distance score for linear resolution, we have
to divide the pixel-width of the CA by the square root of those pixel-density MP
counts: average CA pixel span / square-root of pixel density
(see *** explanation below if confused by this)
5/5.9 = average CA distance on the P&S lens
7/1.92 = average CA distance on the DSLR lens
An accurate proportional score of true angular CA between the two lenses then
becomes:
P&S score = 0.85 amount of lateral CA
DSLR score = 3.65 amount of lateral CA
The DSLR lens is creating 4.3X's more CA than the P&S lens. This even on a 20x
zoom lens compared to a DSLR's more easy to design and create 3x zoom. Okay, so
it's not as much as the first guessed at 6X's more, but over 4X's more CA from a
DSLR lens is still just as bad. On a pass/fail rating the DSLR would clearly get
a FAIL grade.
Anyone care to do a quantitative analysis of image detail resolved by those two
lenses? The P&S clearly wins there again too, but by how much? Use the above
info to calculate angular resolving power ratios between those two lenses. The
image detail in the sample evergreens or buildings images from that page should
be enough to accurately determine it. My rough guess, judging by the foliage
photo is that the P&S lens is resolving about 10x's more detail than the DSLR
lens (when you adjust for sensor sizes as was done for CA width, using the
sensors' pixel spacings as your rulers).
So much for everyone's urban-legend parroted myth that DSLR glass is always
better, and always has less CA and more resolution. :-)
***(For the math-challenged: The reason I'm taking the square root of the
pixel-density count per cm², is for the same reason that you take the
square-root of a megapixel count to determine true linear resolution increases
or decreases between sensors. A 6-megapixel sensor has to be 4 times that
amount, or 24 megapixels, to truly double the resolution in all possible
directions. (Square-root of 6 = 2.45, square-root of 24 = 4.9, so to double the
resolution it would be 2 x 2.45 = 4.9) Resolution on a 2D surface is a function
of area, not a linear pixel-count in just one direction. You have to take the
square-root of a total pixel count to have a useful number to work with in your
base calculations.)
-hh
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Historically SLR's have beaten point and shoot by a large margin
> > because: -
>
> > Reflex system mean you can see what you are shooting.
Including the elimination of parallax.
> > ...
> > The camera was large, because to get adequate resolution 35mm film was
> > required and the mirror gets in the way. You can get 8MP in phones now.
With technology on particle sizes driving the film emulsion's
performance potential and thus its size. FWIW, it would be perhaps
interesting to see what kind of grain film could have today with the
more recent advances in nanotechnology (eg, nano-scale silver based
particles).
> > Expect to see electronic exchangeable lens cameras make a large dent
> > in the true SLR market quite soon.
Is this referring to 'liquid lens' tech? Been hearing vendors making
promises of them becoming the cat's meow "any day now" ... since at
least 2003.
> The new RED cameras are supposed to be able to do 100 fps. Certainly a
> mirror will forever be incapable of that kind of frame rate.
There's always more than one way to skin a cat. For example, one
could use a Pellicle mirror, but only pull 10% off for the feed to a
higher-gain electronic viewfinder. Ancient (pre-1960's) high speed
camera technology was to use a flat mirror and spin it, which at
3000rpm gives you 50rps ... which times two sides of mirror = 100fps
equivalent. IIRC, you could even get away from a 2D sensor and go to
a far cheaper line sensor, which also simplifies processing.
-hh
Toby
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gg6k6...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Toby wrote:
>> "bernard_adams" <bad...@insertdomainchoicehere.net> wrote in message
>> news:ol3ci4lbn5e5orm85...@4ax.com...
>>> On 20 Nov 2008 19:01:01 -0600, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have a look at the results at ISO 400-1600
>>>>
>>>> Toby
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's wonderful. For some snapshot-hack that requires those ISOs
>>> because they
>>> lack the talent of a REAL photographer.
>>
>> Oh, I get it. Real photographers create their own light, so as not
>> to
>> have to depend on ambient conditions.
>
> Uh, what do you believe to be the purpose of such devices as flash
> bulbs, strobes, and M122 hundred pound photoflash bombs?
They work in their very limited way. Ever try shooting a landscape with a
flash? There is that silly thing called the inverse-square law which
determines light intensity at a given distance from the source.
Toby
R. Mark Clayton
"-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:0cff9d5e-bcae-4fba...@20g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
"Toby" <kymarto...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Historically SLR's have beaten point and shoot by a large margin
> > because: -
>
> > Reflex system mean you can see what you are shooting.
> Including the elimination of parallax.
As long as you are looking at the actual image as it will appear on the film
/ sensor.
> > ...
> > The camera was large, because to get adequate resolution 35mm film was
> > required and the mirror gets in the way. You can get 8MP in phones now.
> With technology on particle sizes driving the film emulsion's
performance potential and thus its size. FWIW, it would be perhaps
interesting to see what kind of grain film could have today with the
more recent advances in nanotechnology (eg, nano-scale silver based
particles).
It might, but the cost of film and the risk, cost and inconvenience of
procressing are the main reason that the public have abandoned film, for
enthusiats the actual image quality and technology is being overtaken (e.g.
you can shoot successive shots at different ASA in a digital camera, but
this requires rewind and reload with film.
> > Expect to see electronic exchangeable lens cameras make a large dent
> > in the true SLR market quite soon.
> Is this referring to 'liquid lens' tech? Been hearing vendors making
promises of them becoming the cat's meow "any day now" ... since at
least 2003.
No I am refering to 4/3 and other open exchangable mount camera systems.
Sooner or later someone will do a system with the same field of view as 35mm
SLR (only smaller)
> The new RED cameras are supposed to be able to do 100 fps. Certainly a
> mirror will forever be incapable of that kind of frame rate.
Lots of ways of doing that. Years ago technicolor cameras had video cams to
provide a viewfinder and sight of the rushes before the film was developed
(so the director could decide on another take or to keep what was in the
can.
Ray Fischer
>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
>
>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
>on that page, I count, on average:
>
>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
>
>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
LindermanGrant
Great!
How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.
So?
How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
missed-shots to beat that camera?
You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>ShawnParks <spa...@privatemailonly.com> wrote:
>>>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
>>>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
>>>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
>>>
>>>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
>>>on that page, I count, on average:
>>>
>>>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
>>>
>>>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
>>>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
>>
>>The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
>>zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
>
>Great!
>
>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
sensor? How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens? Or a 12mm lens? Or
a tilt-shift lens?
Yes, you believe that screwdrivers are better than hammers. Don't let
reality get in the way.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Herb Reed
>LindermanGrant <glind...@somewhereincyberland.org> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>ShawnParks <spa...@privatemailonly.com> wrote:
>
>>>>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
>>>>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
>>>>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
>>>>
>>>>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
>>>>on that page, I count, on average:
>>>>
>>>>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
>>>>
>>>>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
>>>>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
>>>
>>>The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
>>>zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
>>
>>Great!
>>
>>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
>
>How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
>sensor?
Not a requirement of a pro. High ISO's are only required by amateurs who don't
know how to use a camera properly. At ISO's of 200 or less images are every bit
as clean as from a larger sensor. And some P&S cameras can have the same clean
images (see: Fuji) at higher ISO's as do all dSLRs.
> How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens?
Not a requirement of a pro. Larger apertures are only required by amateurs who
don't know how to use a camera properly or don't know how to use their optics
creatively.
> Or a 12mm lens?
About $90. I found one that turns my P&S cameras's zoom lenses into a seamless
9mm to 38mm (35mm eq.) focal-length zoom range without any extra CA nor softness
of details.
> Or a tilt-shift lens?
Only needed during the pre-digital days. All perspective corrections can be done
with most any simple editor these days. Some of them, like Photoline, can even
do excellent perspective corrections on 64-bit depth CMYK images.
>
>Yes, you believe that screwdrivers are better than hammers. Don't let
>reality get in the way.
You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver, as well
as an excellent macro-scope, video-cam, CD-quality stereo sound recorder,
thermometer (CHDK cameras also tell you the temperature and time, yes, it's
true), etc. etc. etc. Just because one camera can do it all doesn't mean it does
them all with lesser quality. Your dSLR might do them with lesser quality if you
tried to hack it to do so, because it wasn't designed to do any of those things.
This is not true of a camera that was purposely designed handle those advantages
to begin with.
Check out the Canon SX10 which beat the crap out of a dSLR, if you doubt that a
P&S camera can not only equal but beat dSLR cameras.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
Okay, I answered your questions. How come you didn't answer the one about how
much it would cost to make a DSLR equivalent to, or beat, the SX10 P&S camera in
image quality? You know, this easy to answer question that all of you
dSLR-TROLLS keep evading:
>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
>How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
>extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
>resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.
>
>So?
>
>How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
>missed-shots to beat that camera?
>
>You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?
Afraid to answer it? Afraid that the answer will show you to be the dSLR-troll
and fool that you are?
Thought so.
Stephen Bishop
Stephen Bishop
<glind...@somewhereincyberland.org> wrote:
Let's look at the bottom line, shall we? Virtually NO professional
photographers trust their livlihoods on P&S cameras. Zip. Nada.
None. Virtually ALL professionals shooting digital shoot with a
dslr. (With the exception of the very high dollar pros who shoot MF
cameras with digital backs.)
Maybe they all know something you don't?
dj_nme
No all pros use a DSLR camera or MF digital, some use a Leica or Epson
(d)RF camera.
But that wasn't quite what you're attacking in P&S troll's post though,
is it? :-p
TopperJohansen
>one other pro that says otherwise
>http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844 There are
>hundreds if not thousands more than just him.
>
>Due to people like you who have such an amateurish contempt for P&S cameras, not
>many real pros admit to using them publicly, will even forge their EXIF data
>before submitting their photos to their publishers. There's one case of an
>architectural magazine photographer who had to do just that to keep his job. Yet
>his photos were featured on the front pages often. The editors none the wiser.
>They could never tell the difference between his earlier dSLR photo quality and
>the ones he submitted with his now-always-used P&S cameras, only that he was now
>obtaining much more interesting and hard-to-get images. Had they found out they
>would have ignorantly forced him to go back to using his dSLR gear which was
>cumbersome and couldn't be used in the locations and public settings that he
>needed to document. Quick examples: With an articulating LCD screen P&S camera
>you can put the camera right up against a wall or into a remote corner and still
>frame a shot without having to be behind a viewfinder with your body. Or hold it
>at arm's length from a precarious balcony, using the articulating P&S's screen
>to properly frame the designs that you need to capture.
>
>It's as if P&S professionals have to hide in a closet or something to keep their
>jobs due to idiots like you running around relentlessly spouting your inane dSLR
>nonsense.
>
>You and all just like you are nothing but a huge detriment to the field of
>professional photographers everywhere.
KentCromwell
>
Ray Fischer
>On 22 Nov 2008 23:41:27 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>LindermanGrant <glind...@somewhereincyberland.org> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>ShawnParks <spa...@privatemailonly.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
>>>>>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
>>>>>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
>>>>>
>>>>>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
>>>>>on that page, I count, on average:
>>>>>
>>>>>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
>>>>>
>>>>>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
>>>>>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
>>>>
>>>>The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
>>>>zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
>>>
>>>Great!
>>>
>>>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
>>
>>How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
>>sensor?
>
>Not a requirement of a pro.
Smirk. Nothing like moving the goalposts.
> High ISO's are only required by amateurs who don't
>know how to use a camera properly.
And since you're such a great photographer I'm sure you can show us
your photos taken in low-light condition at 200ISO with an f4 lens.
>> How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens?
>
>Not a requirement of a pro.
How would you know?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
patrick-connelly
Easily.
>>> How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens?
>>
>>Not a requirement of a pro.
>
>How would you know?
That fact that I did know that and that you didn't have a clue, makes me a pro
and you just another virtual-photographer newsgroup troll.
TenneseeWillilams
You're not allowed to reply to any of this until you answer this question that
has been asked about half a dozen times now, until you do all your replies will
be seen as sniveling net-troll's evasion:
>
>>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
Ray Fischer
Well?
Where are they?
>>>> How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens?
>>>
>>>Not a requirement of a pro.
>>
>>How would you know?
>
>That fact that I did know that and that you didn't have a clue,
The fact that you believe it despite the fact that it's obviously not
true merely confirms that you're a stupid troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 23 Nov 2008 01:57:51 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>You're not allowed to reply to any of this until you answer this question that
LOL!
Sit on it and spin.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
ray becker
>TenneseeWillilams <wten...@mainplace.org> wrote:
>>On 23 Nov 2008 01:57:51 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>
>>You're not allowed to reply to any of this until you answer this question that
>
>LOL!
>
Confirmed.
Ray Fischer = 100% virtual-photographer troll.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
<snippage>
>Okay, I answered your questions. How come you didn't answer the one about how
>much it would cost to make a DSLR equivalent to, or beat, the SX10 P&S camera in
>image quality? You know, this easy to answer question that all of you
>dSLR-TROLLS keep evading:
>
>>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
>>How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
>>extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
>>resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.
Well under $1000. A Nikon D40 with the Nikkor 18-200 will run
circles around the SX10 by any measure of image quality.
>>
>>So?
>>
>>How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
>>missed-shots to beat that camera?
>>
>>You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?
>
>Afraid to answer it? Afraid that the answer will show you to be the dSLR-troll
>and fool that you are?
>
>Thought so.
But the capability of the camera is a moot point. The only thing
that matters is what you do with it. So where are your pictures that
demonstrate that you are the true "pro" that you imagine yourself to
be?
Stephen Bishop
Then do it.
>
>
>>>> How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens?
>>>
>>>Not a requirement of a pro.
>>
>>How would you know?
>
>That fact that I did know that and that you didn't have a clue, makes me a pro
>and you just another virtual-photographer newsgroup troll.
Then prove it.
Cal-Littlefork
>On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:02:17 -0600, Herb Reed <hr...@somesuchisp.net>
>wrote:
>
>
><snippage>
>
>
>>Okay, I answered your questions. How come you didn't answer the one about how
>>much it would cost to make a DSLR equivalent to, or beat, the SX10 P&S camera in
>>image quality? You know, this easy to answer question that all of you
>>dSLR-TROLLS keep evading:
>>
>>>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
>>>How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
>>>extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
>>>resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.
>
>
>Well under $1000. A Nikon D40 with the Nikkor 18-200 will run
>circles around the SX10 by any measure of image quality.
>
<Contestant Wrong-Answer Buzzer Sounds>
I'm sorry. Go back to resident-troll-class, you left out quite a bit of the
focal length and aperture range requred to make a DSLR equivalent to that P&S
camera. Not to mention that you haven't provided proof of resolution and less
CA.
Thanks for playing, but you go home with a prize of zero dollars to go along
with your normal roll in life, as LOSER. (like all usenet trolls)
Stephen Bishop
Surely you realize that he is an exception. And if you actually read
that article you would have seen that he had to develop techniques to
overcome the camera's shortcomings.
For photojournalism, I can see where a p&s could be useful if you want
to be inconspicuous in dangerous settings. File quality for
editorial use is much less critical than it is for other professional
uses such as weddings or commercial work. And the speed limitations
of p&s cameras make them unuseable for sports.
>>
>>Due to people like you who have such an amateurish contempt for P&S cameras, not
>>many real pros admit to using them publicly, will even forge their EXIF data
>>before submitting their photos to their publishers. There's one case of an
>>architectural magazine photographer who had to do just that to keep his job. Yet
>>his photos were featured on the front pages often. The editors none the wiser.
>>They could never tell the difference between his earlier dSLR photo quality and
>>the ones he submitted with his now-always-used P&S cameras, only that he was now
>>obtaining much more interesting and hard-to-get images. Had they found out they
>>would have ignorantly forced him to go back to using his dSLR gear which was
>>cumbersome and couldn't be used in the locations and public settings that he
>>needed to document. Quick examples: With an articulating LCD screen P&S camera
>>you can put the camera right up against a wall or into a remote corner and still
>>frame a shot without having to be behind a viewfinder with your body. Or hold it
>>at arm's length from a precarious balcony, using the articulating P&S's screen
>>to properly frame the designs that you need to capture.
>>
>>It's as if P&S professionals have to hide in a closet or something to keep their
>>jobs due to idiots like you running around relentlessly spouting your inane dSLR
>>nonsense.
>>
>>You and all just like you are nothing but a huge detriment to the field of
>>professional photographers everywhere.
You miss the point entirely. Nobody here has contempt for P&S
cameras, and most will agree that they can be useful in some
situations.
Rather, everyone here has contempt for *you* because of your constant
ranting against dslrs and your continual stream of insults when it is
obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
You've been asked repeatedly to post examples to demonstrate your
"pro" status. Links to published work would be nice to see,
especially if you used a p&s. Instead, you just come across as a
whining little boy who wishes he could afford a dslr and finds every
excuse he can to trash those who can.
Kirk Potemkin
That would appear to be an exception only to a virtual-photographer usenet
troll.
> And if you actually read
>that article you would have seen that he had to develop techniques to
>overcome the camera's shortcomings.
>
>For photojournalism, I can see where a p&s could be useful if you want
>to be inconspicuous in dangerous settings.
I see. So because of your wholly limited exposure to REAL photography you can't
see how that would also apply to the pro wildlife photographer? Or someone that
needs to get photos where the DSLR is now banned from public spaces? You surely
are a net-living usenet troll to have such liimited experience with the REAL
world and REAL photography situations.
> File quality for
>editorial use is much less critical than it is for other professional
>uses such as weddings or commercial work. And the speed limitations
>of p&s cameras make them unuseable for sports.
Speed limitations? I'm sorry, you must be one of those typical usenet-troll
snapshooters that doesn't know how to use a camera properly.
>
>>>
>>>Due to people like you who have such an amateurish contempt for P&S cameras, not
>>>many real pros admit to using them publicly, will even forge their EXIF data
>>>before submitting their photos to their publishers. There's one case of an
>>>architectural magazine photographer who had to do just that to keep his job. Yet
>>>his photos were featured on the front pages often. The editors none the wiser.
>>>They could never tell the difference between his earlier dSLR photo quality and
>>>the ones he submitted with his now-always-used P&S cameras, only that he was now
>>>obtaining much more interesting and hard-to-get images. Had they found out they
>>>would have ignorantly forced him to go back to using his dSLR gear which was
>>>cumbersome and couldn't be used in the locations and public settings that he
>>>needed to document. Quick examples: With an articulating LCD screen P&S camera
>>>you can put the camera right up against a wall or into a remote corner and still
>>>frame a shot without having to be behind a viewfinder with your body. Or hold it
>>>at arm's length from a precarious balcony, using the articulating P&S's screen
>>>to properly frame the designs that you need to capture.
>>>
>>>It's as if P&S professionals have to hide in a closet or something to keep their
>>>jobs due to idiots like you running around relentlessly spouting your inane dSLR
>>>nonsense.
>>>
>>>You and all just like you are nothing but a huge detriment to the field of
>>>professional photographers everywhere.
>
>You miss the point entirely. Nobody here has contempt for P&S
>cameras, and most will agree that they can be useful in some
>situations.
No, not "some" situations. In the hands of a true pro they are useful in ALL
situations. But you're a useless virtual-photographer usenet troll, how would
you know this.
>
>Rather, everyone here has contempt for *you* because of your constant
>ranting against dslrs and your continual stream of insults when it is
>obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
LOL ... okay, if that makes you sleep better at night, keep believing it.
>
>You've been asked repeatedly to post examples to demonstrate your
>"pro" status. Links to published work would be nice to see,
>especially if you used a p&s. Instead, you just come across as a
>whining little boy who wishes he could afford a dslr and finds every
>excuse he can to trash those who can.
>
Oh yes, just what I want to do is enrich the life of a useless
virtual-photographer usenet troll, for free yet.
Keep begging. :-)
Stephen Bishop
<clitt...@littlefork.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 06:05:11 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:02:17 -0600, Herb Reed <hr...@somesuchisp.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>><snippage>
>>
>>
>>>Okay, I answered your questions. How come you didn't answer the one about how
>>>much it would cost to make a DSLR equivalent to, or beat, the SX10 P&S camera in
>>>image quality? You know, this easy to answer question that all of you
>>>dSLR-TROLLS keep evading:
>>>
>>>>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
>>>>How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
>>>>extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
>>>>resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.
>>
>>
>>Well under $1000. A Nikon D40 with the Nikkor 18-200 will run
>>circles around the SX10 by any measure of image quality.
>>
>
><Contestant Wrong-Answer Buzzer Sounds>
>
>I'm sorry. Go back to resident-troll-class, you left out quite a bit of the
>focal length and aperture range requred to make a DSLR equivalent to that P&S
>camera. Not to mention that you haven't provided proof of resolution and less
>CA.
Ever hear the phrase, "Jack of all trades, master of none?" A dslr
is a specialized tool that can be configured for whatever you need,
and it will do a much better job than any "do everything" portable
camera.
>
>Thanks for playing, but you go home with a prize of zero dollars to go along
>with your normal roll in life, as LOSER. (like all usenet trolls)
Life must be be really bad for you to have to constantly refer to
others as 'losers' when you don't really have a clue what you're
talking about. I really feel sorry for someone like you who takes so
seriously a totally meaningless subject like the "superiority" of a
particular camera you choose to buy.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>So?
>>>>
>>>>How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
>>>>missed-shots to beat that camera?
>>>>
>>>>You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?
>>>
>>>Afraid to answer it? Afraid that the answer will show you to be the dSLR-troll
>>>and fool that you are?
>>>
>>>Thought so.
>>
>>But the capability of the camera is a moot point. The only thing
>>that matters is what you do with it. So where are your pictures that
>>demonstrate that you are the true "pro" that you imagine yourself to
>>be?
You still haven't provided any evidence that this actually applies to
photography, or that you are qualified to even discuss it. Show us
what you can do with your P&S, then demonstrate why someone else
couldn't do the same thing with their tools of choice.
>>
>>
Stephen Bishop
<kpot...@youmustbejoking.com> wrote:
<clutter snipped away>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
>>>>>>> missed-shots to beat that camera?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's look at the bottom line, shall we? Virtually NO professional
>>>>>> photographers trust their livlihoods on P&S cameras. Zip. Nada.
>>>>>> None. Virtually ALL professionals shooting digital shoot with a
>>>>>> dslr. (With the exception of the very high dollar pros who shoot MF
>>>>>> cameras with digital backs.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe they all know something you don't?
>>>>>
>>>>>No all pros use a DSLR camera or MF digital, some use a Leica or Epson
>>>>>(d)RF camera.
>>>>>But that wasn't quite what you're attacking in P&S troll's post though,
>>>>>is it? :-p
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh ye who lives as a pretend-photographer resident-troll on usenet, here's just
>>>>one other pro that says otherwise
>>>>http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844 There are
>>>>hundreds if not thousands more than just him.
>>
>>
>>Surely you realize that he is an exception.
>
>That would appear to be an exception only to a virtual-photographer usenet
>troll.
No, it is fact. Prove otherwise.
>
>> And if you actually read
>>that article you would have seen that he had to develop techniques to
>>overcome the camera's shortcomings.
>>
>>For photojournalism, I can see where a p&s could be useful if you want
>>to be inconspicuous in dangerous settings.
>
>I see. So because of your wholly limited exposure to REAL photography you can't
>see how that would also apply to the pro wildlife photographer? Or someone that
>needs to get photos where the DSLR is now banned from public spaces? You surely
>are a net-living usenet troll to have such liimited experience with the REAL
>world and REAL photography situations.
And you have yet to prove you have any clue what you are talking
about. Let's see a list of the vast numbers of "pro" wildlife
photographers who have given up their dslrs for a p&s.
Real pros in the real world don't have to worry about dslrs being
prohibited in public spaces. They simply get permits where they are
needed. After all, they are pros.
>
>> File quality for
>>editorial use is much less critical than it is for other professional
>>uses such as weddings or commercial work. And the speed limitations
>>of p&s cameras make them unuseable for sports.
>
>Speed limitations? I'm sorry, you must be one of those typical usenet-troll
>snapshooters that doesn't know how to use a camera properly.
You have yet to provide proof that you have any idea how to operate
any kind of camera other than from what you have cut and pasted from
other sources.
But how would you know, since there isn't a shred of evidence that you
are a true pro, or even an amateur with any kind of ability at all.
You're just an anonymous troll with some sort of psychotic grudge
against a certain kind of camera.
>
>>
>>Rather, everyone here has contempt for *you* because of your constant
>>ranting against dslrs and your continual stream of insults when it is
>>obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
>
>LOL ... okay, if that makes you sleep better at night, keep believing it.
Doesn't affect my sleep one way or another. That's what everyone
thinks of you. Just ask them.
>
>>
>>You've been asked repeatedly to post examples to demonstrate your
>>"pro" status. Links to published work would be nice to see,
>>especially if you used a p&s. Instead, you just come across as a
>>whining little boy who wishes he could afford a dslr and finds every
>>excuse he can to trash those who can.
>>
>
>Oh yes, just what I want to do is enrich the life of a useless
>virtual-photographer usenet troll, for free yet.
It wouldn't enrich anyone's lives to see proof of your credentials.
It would enrich you, however, by giving you some credibility. But as
most of us suspect, it doesn't exist.
>
>Keep begging. :-)
Nobody has begged for anything. You're the one who is begging for
recognition with each lame insult-filled post.
ReplyingToFools
>Ever hear the phrase, "Jack of all trades, master of none?" A dslr
>is a specialized tool that can be configured for whatever you need,
>and it will do a much better job than any "do everything" portable
>camera.
Ever hear the phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and believing a
foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing" ?
You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver, as well
as an excellent macro-scope, video-cam, CD-quality stereo sound recorder,
thermometer (CHDK cameras also tell you the temperature and time, yes, it's
true), etc. etc. etc. Just because one camera can do it all doesn't mean it does
them all with lesser quality. Your dSLR might do them with lesser quality if you
tried to hack it to do so, because it wasn't designed to do any of those things.
This is not true of a camera that was purposely designed handle those advantages
to begin with.
Are you going to tell me that just because a camera can tell you the ambient
temperature because it was fitted with a sensor to do just that, that the
accuracy of that temperature is less than the dedicated 1-degree increment
thermometer on your wall? And this is because a highly accurate digital
temperature sensor, accurate to 1/1000 degree, was attached to a camera? Do
tell. How does attaching a camera to a thermometer degrade the temperature that
that thermometer relays? By your reasoning that thermometer is now doing things
less accurately because a silly camera is now attached to it. A jack of all
trades thermometer MUST be less accurate than the single-purpose one on your
wall. Right?
You really are a totally fucking fool and major idiot. You do know that, don't
you? Have fun trolling someone else. I've outted your stupidity and nonsense so
many times you're nothing but boring now. Let someone else reveal how everything
that you type is total and utter bullshit. It's clear to me now. I don't need to
prove it to myself anymore.
By the way,
Ray Fischer
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:22:10 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>Ever hear the phrase, "Jack of all trades, master of none?" A dslr
>>is a specialized tool that can be configured for whatever you need,
>>and it will do a much better job than any "do everything" portable
>>camera.
>
>Ever hear the phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and believing a
>foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing" ?
>
>You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver, as well
>as an excellent macro-scope, video-cam, CD-quality stereo sound recorder,
>thermometer (CHDK cameras also tell you the temperature and time, yes, it's
>true), etc. etc. etc. Just because one camera can do it all doesn't mean it does
>them all with lesser quality.
Yes, it does mean that.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
AlderWeathermore
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
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 (tel-extender) 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 tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. 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 is
only good for 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 resoloving 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 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in
order to get comparable performance in a DSLR 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 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit 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, from the obnoxious 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 strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass 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 allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, 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.
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!" 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. The irony is that, by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. 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.
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 everyone 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."
-hh
> Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
> >Ever hear the phrase, "Jack of all trades, master of none?"
>
> a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing" ?
And then there's: "Repeating a Lie doesn't make it true."
> You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver...
Versatility doesn't assure that it is the *best* hammer, or the *best*
screwdriver.
> Are you going to tell me that just because a camera can tell you the ambient
> temperature because it was fitted with a sensor to do just that, that the
> accuracy of that temperature is less than the dedicated 1-degree increment
> thermometer on your wall? And this is because a highly accurate digital
> temperature sensor, accurate to 1/1000 degree, was attached to a camera?
Ever hear the phrase: "False Precision."?
> How does attaching a camera to a thermometer degrade the temperature that
> that thermometer relays?
It increases thermal lag, as well as introduces an additional source
of heat and variations in power supply voltage, all of which induce
gage errors.
> By your reasoning that thermometer is now doing things
> less accurately because a silly camera is now attached to it.
See the Casio T-1000 & T-1200 wristwatches, which included a digital
thermometer, as case studies. Due to gage errors due to body heat,
they included a User-operated calibration adjustment setting based on
if the watch was being worn or not. This changed the indicated
temperature by generally 8 degrees (F). Plus it was found that
simple variations in solar radiation (sun vs shade) and clothing (long
vs short sleeved shirt) would also induce errors, generally of 5F-20F
magnitude beyond the one already mentioned. Realistically, the only
time that its thermocouple was reasonably accurate was if it was fully
immersed in water for 2-4 minutes, with the "not worn" setting being
used. Naturally, with this setting change, within roughly 10 minutes
of getting out of the water, the air temperature would then read ~8F
erroneously high.
Thus, a final phrase here of: "Those who ignore history are doomed
to repeat it".
-hh
ReplyingToIdiotsAgain
wrote:
Was anyone talking about wristwatch thermometers? No. Totally unrelated.
None of that matters. Because the 3 temperature sensors on the Powershot cameras
that use CHDK are internal for important operating system functions. It was
stated to prove a point. Not to be used as your daily weather thermometer
(though one of them can be used that way).
Just because a thermometer has a camera attached to it doesn't make it any less
accurate. If you want the most correct air temperature from a CHDK camera then
check the optics-sensor temperature when you first turn it on. It'll be more
accurate than the one on your wall.
WHEN USED PROPERLY A DEVICE CAN HAVE 1000 FUNCTIONS AND STILL PERFORM EACH AND
EVERY ONE OF THEM FLAWLESSLY. Do you own a computer? Do you run more than one
program on it? Run a scanner? A printer? A modem? A DVD player? Does the
function of any of those extra devices suffer because they are all attached? Get
a clue you brainless fuckwit.
FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED THE TEMPERATURE SENSOR ON A CAMERA IS
JUST AS ACCURATE AS ANY OTHER THERMOMETER. Just because it is attached to
another device does NOT hinder its accuracy and function in any way. Just as
every other function that is part of a P&S camera, it is ACCURATE FOR THE
PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED. Even more so than some DSLRs as recent tests
have proved, without a shadow of a doubt.
Are you people really this daft? You must be. You keep typing things that
continually prove it.
You useless fucking idiot trolls, you all need to die slow miserable deaths. You
need to suffer for how much misery you have brought to the lives of those more
intelligent than you. This world needs to be purged of your genetic stupidity,
at least 10 generations ago.
Stephen Bishop
<bo...@someplace.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:22:10 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>Ever hear the phrase, "Jack of all trades, master of none?" A dslr
>>is a specialized tool that can be configured for whatever you need,
>>and it will do a much better job than any "do everything" portable
>>camera.
>
>Ever hear the phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and believing a
>foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing" ?
And you think that because you are the one person in five billion that
believes something different, you must be right and they must be
wrong?
>
>You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver, as well
>as an excellent macro-scope, video-cam, CD-quality stereo sound recorder,
>thermometer (CHDK cameras also tell you the temperature and time, yes, it's
>true), etc. etc. etc. Just because one camera can do it all doesn't mean it does
>them all with lesser quality. Your dSLR might do them with lesser quality if you
>tried to hack it to do so, because it wasn't designed to do any of those things.
>This is not true of a camera that was purposely designed handle those advantages
>to begin with.
If I want a thermometer, I'll buy a thermometer. If I want a
videocam, I'll buy a videocam. If I want the best possible image
quality to capture digital still images, I'll buy a dslr and a good
lens.
>
>Are you going to tell me that just because a camera can tell you the ambient
>temperature because it was fitted with a sensor to do just that, that the
>accuracy of that temperature is less than the dedicated 1-degree increment
>thermometer on your wall? And this is because a highly accurate digital
>temperature sensor, accurate to 1/1000 degree, was attached to a camera? Do
>tell.
If you had any background in science and engineering you'd understand
that accuracy and precision are two entirely different things.
But to your point, stick a thermometer on a D90 or a D300 and the
camera will still take excellent quality pictures. Stick the same
thermometer on a p&s camera and the camera will still have the same
limitations it had to begin with: poor noise at more than moderate
ISOs, high shutter and focus lag, reduced dynamic range.
It's all about the sensor, Vern. That's the one of the few things in
life where bigger actually is always better.
Forgoshsakes, the D90 will even take HD video. Try that on your tiny
SX10.
>How does attaching a camera to a thermometer degrade the temperature that
>that thermometer relays? By your reasoning that thermometer is now doing things
>less accurately because a silly camera is now attached to it. A jack of all
>trades thermometer MUST be less accurate than the single-purpose one on your
>wall. Right?
Nice thermometer. Oh, it takes pictures, too? How handy! Will it
also make phone calls and scramble my eggs for me?
>
>I really am a totally fucking fool and major idiot.
Finally, you admit the truth.
>you do know that, don't
>you? Have fun trolling someone else. I've outted your stupidity and nonsense so
>many times you're nothing but boring now. Let someone else reveal how everything
>that you type is total and utter bullshit. It's clear to me now. I don't need to
>prove it to myself anymore.
You don't even know what a troll is, do you? Definition: Look in a
mirror.
>
>By the way,
>
>Check out the Canon SX10 which beat the crap out of a dSLR, if you doubt that a
>P&S camera can not only equal but beat dSLR cameras.
>
>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
Many have tried to point out to you that one review comparing a high
end superzoom camera with two crappy dslrs and crappy kit lenses under
specific conditions doesn't prove a thing.
So, instead of just copying and pasting websites and debunked
information, why not post actual results that you have achieved that
prove your points?
John McWilliams
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:34:09 -0600, ReplyingToFools
>
>> you? Have fun trolling someone else. I've outted your stupidity and nonsense so
>> many times you're nothing but boring now. Let someone else reveal how everything
>> that you type is total and utter bullshit. It's clear to me now. I don't need to
>> prove it to myself anymore.
>
> You don't even know what a troll is, do you? Definition: Look in a mirror.
What irony! A guy who creates a new identity (within the last 10 days or
so) and posts ad nauseum only to photo groups ostensibly to put down
'the troll' is himself a pest.
Just who were you, "Stephen" before you became such?
--
lsmft
-hh
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >The P&S Troll wrote:
> >> Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
> >> >Ever hear the phrase, "Jack of all trades, master of none?"
>
> >> Ever hear the phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and believing
> >> a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing" ?
>
> >And then there's: "Repeating a Lie doesn't make it true."
Lack of reply...noted.
> >> You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver...
>
> >Versatility doesn't assure that it is the *best* hammer, or the *best*
> >screwdriver.
Lack of reply...noted.
> >> Are you going to tell me that just because a camera can tell you the ambient
> >> temperature because it was fitted with a sensor to do just that, that the
> >> accuracy of that temperature is less than the dedicated 1-degree increment
> >> thermometer on your wall? And this is because a highly accurate digital
> >> temperature sensor, accurate to 1/1000 degree, was attached to a camera?
>
> >Ever hear the phrase: "False Precision."?
Lack of reply...noted.
> >> How does attaching a camera to a thermometer degrade the temperature that
> >> that thermometer relays?
>
> >It increases thermal lag, as well as introduces an additional source
> >of heat and variations in power supply voltage, all of which induce
> >gage errors.
Lack of reply...noted.
> >> By your reasoning that thermometer is now doing things
> >> less accurately because a silly camera is now attached to it.
>
> >See the Casio T-1000 & T-1200 wristwatches, which included a digital
> >thermometer, as case studies. Due to gage errors due to body heat,
> >they included a User-operated calibration adjustment setting based on
> >if the watch was being worn or not. This changed the indicated
> >temperature by generally 8 degrees (F). Plus it was found that
> >simple variations in solar radiation (sun vs shade) and clothing (long
> >vs short sleeved shirt) would also induce errors, generally of 5F-20F
> >magnitude beyond the one already mentioned. Realistically, the only
> >time that its thermocouple was reasonably accurate was if it was fully
> >immersed in water for 2-4 minutes, with the "not worn" setting being
> >used. Naturally, with this setting change, within roughly 10 minutes
> >of getting out of the water, the air temperature would then read ~8F
> >erroneously high.
>
> >Thus, a final phrase here of: "Those who ignore history are doomed
> >to repeat it".
>
> >-hh
>
> Was anyone talking about wristwatch thermometers? No. Totally unrelated.
Its simply YA example of a "Jack of All Trades" device and thus, is
actually directly related to your claims.
> WHEN USED PROPERLY ...
A lame backpedalling phrase
> ... A DEVICE CAN ...
"CAN", not "SHALL"? Just more lame CYA backpedalling by the P&S
Troll.
> ...HAVE 1000 FUNCTIONS AND STILL PERFORM EACH
> AND EVERY ONE OF THEM FLAWLESSLY.
And still be cheaper than a device that simply does just one thing
well? Not likely...
and lest we forget, it was lower cost was what the P&S Troll was
hanging his hat on. Now, he's in feature creep with his 1000-function
self-propelled bottle opener and simply hanging himself, instead of
recognizing the simple 99 cent church key.
> Do you own a computer?
Computer? Why bother when telepathy is far superior...and
cheaper :-)
> FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED THE TEMPERATURE SENSOR
> ON A CAMERA IS JUST AS ACCURATE AS ANY OTHER THERMOMETER.
And the backpedalling here is the "for the purpose" caveat. Quite
predictably lame.
"Dance Puppet Dance!" ;-)
-hh
HectorSamuels
wrote:
(I had to get you to type just the right things before it was completely
appropriate to post this again. Thanks!)
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
rwalker
<what...@antispam.org> wrote:
snip
>
>You useless fucking idiot trolls, you all need to die slow miserable deaths. You
>need to suffer for how much misery you have brought to the lives of those more
>intelligent than you. This world needs to be purged of your genetic stupidity,
>at least 10 generations ago.
Christ all mighty. It's just a damned news group about photography.
Get a grip.
BorisBaddenoff
How does that make it any less true of what stupid people really deserve to have
happen to them? They're just as bad off the net as they are on the net, worse
even.
:-)