ATTN: Resident-Troll ASSAR, a.k.a. Stephen Bishop, here's your picture...
TrollKiller
See if you are smart enough to make it out.
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 resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done, you will spend 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."
Steve
>Get the picture?
>
>See if you are smart enough to make it out.
>
>
>
>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.
[...]
>
>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.
I'm being totally serious, I'd really like to know which P&S camera
you're talking about that is better all around than any DSLR and
satisfies all of the points you keep outlining. I would definitly,
absolutely, without a doubt buy it if you would only identify which
one you're talking about.
Steve
DougieHarris
Most any P&S camera will do much of what is on that P&S partial FAQs list. A few
will do more. The better super-zoom models will do all on that list.
Both of my favorites are currently out of production. To reveal which ones they
are would make the few remaining in circulation difficult to obtain should one
of mine become demolished during one of my more adventurous treks. I've often
thought of buying backups for "just in case", but there's no reason for me to
hoard one of each when someone else can be making good use of it out there
somewhere. I'll find one when and if I ever need to, I just don't want to lesson
my odds of getting either one by telling everyone which ones they should hang
onto or obtain. The Zeiss-crafted telextender is likewise out of production. It
was difficult to find one available anywhere when I got it 2 years ago. (In the
world of digital cameras, newer is not always better. I'm quite happy with what
I researched and bought quite awhile ago. I've seen little that has come close
in quality and capabilities recently. Close, but just not good enough to suit
me.)
I'm sure with enough research you can find any number of P&S cameras that excel
above the image qualities and capabilities of most DSLRs. Some of this year's
cameras are excellent. Some are reported (by more than one camera review site)
to pass the image quality of the Canon 50D. The link showing how the new
Powershot SX10 already surpassed the images from a 450D / XSi has already been
posted many times (that link also now appearing in the 25-points list). Better
glass on that DSLR would help, but I doubt it will make it any better than the
SX10 P&S. The DSLR kit-lens was so abysmal that any other glass would have to be
4x's better in resolution to win over the P&S's lens. I don't think you're going
to find a 4x leap in resolution over a kit-lens and still cover a 20x zoom range
no matter how much money that you want to throw away on DSLR glass. Most
certainly you won't do it seamlessly with just one lens. That convenience alone
(of not missing any shots while changing lenses) is worth all the DSLR glass in
that whole range. What good is L-Glass if you have to change the lens and miss
the shot? You might as well not have any camera at all, same results.
My two most favorite P&Ss are by no means the only ones (and would be difficult
to find if you did want them). Nor are some of the best all from Canon. A few
are, but not all. Panasonic and others have some excellent new contenders in the
race. A few of them outdoing the new Canon P&Ss.
Do some research, buy a few cameras, you just might end up realizing what I've
come to know--the blind-leading-blind DSLR-fanboys have been wrong all along.
CarltonCostner
p.s. Good job on posting another blatant advantage to Sinc/Lanczos.
It's tedious being the only one trying to get the herd of frightened brainless
bunnies to run across an open field in the right direction.
Try some software with Lanczos-8 in it, it's so much better than previous
incarnations. It might have even saved that ribbed texture in that plane and
still do it without any moire'. Lanczos, Lanczos-3, ... (are there more? I don't
know), use fewer iterations and are handy when processing speed on large
projects is more important than detail retention. You probably only had plain
Lanczos to use for those examples. That's what most other software incorporates
for simplicity and speed sake. I think even QImage (excellent software) still
only includes the simple Lanczos version (but has some other excellent algorithm
choices that many other programs do not). If it was anything other than plain
Lanczos it would be labeled with the Lanczos-X suffix in the options if it was
the higher resolution algorithms.
ransley
>
> read more »
The only thing I know is he is no troll, YOU are....
Roy G
"TrollKiller" <name...@trollkillers.org> wrote in message
news:1upni4dkd1jt6jm2a...@4ax.com...
> Get the picture?
NO.
We never get any from you.
Your own Paragraph 23 refers to showing how clever you and your cameras
are.
So how about it ????
Roy G
Steve
The X in lanczos-X is just specifying the window size, number of taps
in the filter, number of weights required, etc. It's not a different
algorithm. If it just says lanczos, it could be any of them since
it's not specifying the window size. But there is a window size
implied, just not specified.
A Lanczos-2 interpolator is using a 4 tap filter. Lanczos-3, a 6 tap
filter, Lanczos-4 an 8 tap filter, etc.
XnView just says Lanczos so you don't know what the window size is.
Gimp says Lanczos-3.
You can make a Lanczos-anything and for the small numbers, there's a
big difference going from one to the next. I.e., from -2 to -3, big
difference. -3 to -4, small difference. -4 to -5, not really
noticeable in most circumstances. Higher than that is overkill for no
real reason except to say you have a higher number, kind of like the
megapixel wars. I.e., going from 1MP to 2MP, big difference. 2MP to
3MP, pretty big difference. 3MP to 4MP, not so much but some. Going
from 7MP to 8MP, very little real difference.
Also, lanczos is not the best interpolator for everything. If you
want the noise character to stay the same when you resample, you need
to use very simply a nearest interpolator. I.e., pick the value of
the pixel from the old location closest to the new location for the
new pixel. Using sinc/lanczos will cause repeated patterns to appear
in random noise. If you want to avoid ringing artifacts at high
contrast edges (Gibb's phenomenon), you can't use a sinc/lanczos
interpolator. In that case, you want to use something like bilinear.
If your final image is important, you'll test the various options
available and pick the one that gives the best results. For most
general photography, sinc/lanczos will end up being the best one.
Steve
Steve
In one breath you say there's no reason for you to hoard when someone
else can be making good use if it out there somewhere. And in the
next breath you say you don't want to reveal what cameras meet your
requirements because that would make the few remaining in circulation
difficult to obtain. Conflict.
>I'm sure with enough research you can find any number of P&S cameras that excel
>above the image qualities and capabilities of most DSLRs. Some of this year's
>cameras are excellent. Some are reported (by more than one camera review site)
>to pass the image quality of the Canon 50D. The link showing how the new
>Powershot SX10 already surpassed the images from a 450D / XSi has already been
>posted many times (that link also now appearing in the 25-points list). Better
>glass on that DSLR would help, but I doubt it will make it any better than the
>SX10 P&S. The DSLR kit-lens was so abysmal that any other glass would have to be
You can doubt it all you want, but it's not true. Better glass would
blow away the SX10 P&S as you can see from thousands of examples taken
with Canon DSLR's and high quality glass. The improvement in image
quality won't be as noticeable for some images where there's no
dynamics. But in other, more demanding situations, the quality
increase of a good DSLR with high quaility glass over any P&S in
existance is astounding.
>4x's better in resolution to win over the P&S's lens. I don't think you're going
>to find a 4x leap in resolution over a kit-lens and still cover a 20x zoom range
>no matter how much money that you want to throw away on DSLR glass. Most
>certainly you won't do it seamlessly with just one lens. That convenience alone
>(of not missing any shots while changing lenses) is worth all the DSLR glass in
>that whole range. What good is L-Glass if you have to change the lens and miss
>the shot? You might as well not have any camera at all, same results.
You don't even need L-Glass to beat any P&S. Something like the Nikon
18-200 gives you a good enough zoom range to avoid "missing the shot"
while giving much higher quality images than P&S superzooms.
>
>My two most favorite P&Ss are by no means the only ones (and would be difficult
>to find if you did want them). Nor are some of the best all from Canon. A few
>are, but not all. Panasonic and others have some excellent new contenders in the
>race. A few of them outdoing the new Canon P&Ss.
But any not from Canon would not run CHDK, which eliminates many of
the points you keep posting. So we already know your P&S is from
Canon.
>Do some research, buy a few cameras, you just might end up realizing what I've
>come to know--the blind-leading-blind DSLR-fanboys have been wrong all along.
I have done a lot of research. I have yet to find a single P&S that
can match the image quality of a good DSLR with good glass. That's
why I'm asking for your help. I'd love to find one.
Steve
Ray Fischer
>Get the picture?
_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Nelson-B
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:00:48 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:58:27 -0600, CarltonCostner
><spam...@antispam.org> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:03:38 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Steve
>>
>>p.s. Good job on posting another blatant advantage to Sinc/Lanczos.
>>
>>It's tedious being the only one trying to get the herd of frightened brainless
>>bunnies to run across an open field in the right direction.
>>
>>Try some software with Lanczos-8 in it, it's so much better than previous
>>incarnations. It might have even saved that ribbed texture in that plane and
>>still do it without any moire'. Lanczos, Lanczos-3, ... (are there more? I don't
>>know), use fewer iterations and are handy when processing speed on large
>>projects is more important than detail retention. You probably only had plain
>>Lanczos to use for those examples. That's what most other software incorporates
>>for simplicity and speed sake. I think even QImage (excellent software) still
>>only includes the simple Lanczos version (but has some other excellent algorithm
>>choices that many other programs do not). If it was anything other than plain
>>Lanczos it would be labeled with the Lanczos-X suffix in the options if it was
>>the higher resolution algorithms.
>
>The X in lanczos-X is just specifying the window size, number of taps
>in the filter, number of weights required, etc. It's not a different
>algorithm. If it just says lanczos, it could be any of them since
>it's not specifying the window size. But there is a window size
>implied, just not specified.
Yes, I was going to send the correction, but I thought, eh, you'll know what I
meant. I was accidentally thinking "iterations" in how many pixels were being
included in the calculation.
>
>A Lanczos-2 interpolator is using a 4 tap filter. Lanczos-3, a 6 tap
>filter, Lanczos-4 an 8 tap filter, etc.
>
>XnView just says Lanczos so you don't know what the window size is.
>Gimp says Lanczos-3.
>
>You can make a Lanczos-anything and for the small numbers, there's a
>big difference going from one to the next. I.e., from -2 to -3, big
>difference. -3 to -4, small difference. -4 to -5, not really
>noticeable in most circumstances. Higher than that is overkill for no
>real reason except to say you have a higher number, kind of like the
>megapixel wars. I.e., going from 1MP to 2MP, big difference. 2MP to
>3MP, pretty big difference. 3MP to 4MP, not so much but some. Going
>from 7MP to 8MP, very little real difference.
Well, I have noticed a large difference between -3 and -8, so unless I am
working on a very large panorama that's already been created, I usually leave it
at default -8. My favorite editor only includes -3 and -8. -3 for speed.
>
>Also, lanczos is not the best interpolator for everything. If you
>want the noise character to stay the same when you resample, you need
>to use very simply a nearest interpolator. I.e., pick the value of
>the pixel from the old location closest to the new location for the
>new pixel. Using sinc/lanczos will cause repeated patterns to appear
>in random noise. If you want to avoid ringing artifacts at high
>contrast edges (Gibb's phenomenon), you can't use a sinc/lanczos
>interpolator. In that case, you want to use something like bilinear.
Yes, this is why I mentioned QImage, some of the Bell and Spline interpolators
are best depending on the subject.
Interesting about the random noise, I'll have to test that. And I rarely have
much sharpening applied to the image before editing. What you call Gibb's
phenomenon I haven't noticed yet from Lanczos. The initial edge-softness may
have saved me from that. I really hate unsharp-mask methods and don't want my
camera forcing that on me. I usually apply a Fourier transform as my very last
step, lightly in small steps so as not to create ringing. The order of editing
operations is just as important as the tools that you use to do the editing.
>
>If your final image is important, you'll test the various options
>available and pick the one that gives the best results. For most
>general photography, sinc/lanczos will end up being the best one.
>
>Steve
That's why QImage has so many. It's primary purpose is a printing interface so
you can choose from many as to which is best at the time. I grab that when I
commit something to paper and it resizes it for the printer yet again. In
general though for all pre-print edits I still default to Lanczos. Could be that
it's my photography style where I've not run into many drawbacks with it. I'm
not one for photographing man-made structures with strong geometrics and
repeating patterns in them. The closest I might come to that might be the fine
ribbed pattern in the elytra of a beetle.
It still would be interesting to see what happens to that plane's ribbing if you
used Lanczos-8 instead.
Leon Frost
wrote:
>The only thing I know is he is no troll, YOU are....
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:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
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
CarltonFlint
>
>In one breath you say there's no reason for you to hoard when someone
>else can be making good use if it out there somewhere. And in the
>next breath you say you don't want to reveal what cameras meet your
>requirements because that would make the few remaining in circulation
>difficult to obtain. Conflict.
Not true. They just don't realize that they are hoarding it for me, because they
may not realize what kind of camera they have. In the hands of a professional
they excel. In the hands of an amateur, they'll be putting it aside and buying a
better camera next year to see again if there's any talent-button on the newer
one. And so on and so on. My favorite cameras safely stashed away in some fool's
safe possession.
>
>You can doubt it all you want, but it's not true. Better glass would
>blow away the SX10 P&S as you can see from thousands of examples taken
>with Canon DSLR's and high quality glass. The improvement in image
>quality won't be as noticeable for some images where there's no
>dynamics. But in other, more demanding situations, the quality
>increase of a good DSLR with high quaility glass over any P&S in
>existance is astounding.
I've yet to see any "astounding" in any DSLR photography that can't be similarly
accomplished with an excellent P&S, in the hands of a pro.
>
>You don't even need L-Glass to beat any P&S. Something like the Nikon
>18-200 gives you a good enough zoom range to avoid "missing the shot"
>while giving much higher quality images than P&S superzooms.
>
Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
about if I do it....
Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x, that extra expense of ~$600 for
the 18-200mm gives you 28mm-320mm, we're still missing the 320mm-560mm range.
We're in for $675+$600=$1275 (camera + upgrade lens) so far. Is it still worth
the expense for lenses that may not beat the detail recorded by the $340 P&S?
How much more for the 320mm-560mm reach of similar or better quality?
We'll need a 200mm-350mm. Hmm... best I can come up with in a search is the
200-400, with an average price of $5,250.
So now we're at $6,525 to possibly match or slightly beat the performance of a
$340 P&S camera. Let's not forget that we might miss some very very important
shots with having to change lenses in time.
We've also added 115.5 oz. for the 200-400mm one, that's an extra 7.22 lbs. Add
in another 19.8 oz. for the 18-200mm one, that's an extra 1.24 lbs. Add in the
weight of the camera, 18.5 oz. (1.16 lbs.) and we're hauling 9.62 lbs. around,
for many miles a day (when you're a pro).
The $340 SX10 is 1.32 lbs. with lens.
Nope, sorry, can't see it. I can't see how a POSSIBLE slight increase in image
detail for $6,525 and 10lbs of gear in any way competes with $340 and 1.3 lbs.
of gear. Plus the missed shots from changing lenses, cleaning sensors, poor
low-temperature performance, etc. etc. etc.
The DSLR kit-glass already lost greatly to the P&S glass, I doubt the more
expensive glass will resolve more than 4x's the amount of detail needed to win.
Even if it did, the weight and cost already threw the DSLR out the window and
onto the concrete below. (Let us not forget the 25point list too, I couldn't
live with that obnoxious shutter noise and all those focal-plane shutter
limitations, to name but 2 of the 100's of reasons.)
If this doesn't prove that "A fool and his money are soon parted," I don't know
what else would.
It was interesting to do that. I knew it was going to make any comparable DSLR
look bad, but not THAT bad! No wonder none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys
wanted to answer, remaining so silent or continually red-herring evasive. All
that crates-of-eggs omelet on their face was preventing them from answering.
>>
>>My two most favorite P&Ss are by no means the only ones (and would be difficult
>>to find if you did want them). Nor are some of the best all from Canon. A few
>>are, but not all. Panasonic and others have some excellent new contenders in the
>>race. A few of them outdoing the new Canon P&Ss.
>
>But any not from Canon would not run CHDK, which eliminates many of
>the points you keep posting. So we already know your P&S is from
>Canon.
It only eliminates 3 points. That leaves 22 others to which most all other P&S
cameras qualify, a few points only applying to super-zoom models. I could have
listed 100 advantage points but I thought 25 would be enough. Want me to
increase that list that's used to reply to trolls? Let me know.
One of them is from Canon (I own quite a few, have two favorites that go on
treks). Who could pass up the ability to run CHDK? That opens up so many new
doors in photography, you can't even begin to imagine. If you've used CHDK since
the very first raw-only hack the new creative photography possibilities that
come to you are astounding, after you've climbed the (somewhat) steep learning
curve. Although, it didn't seem steep to me, but seems to be for others. I guess
because I used it as it grew from its primordial bytes.
>
>>Do some research, buy a few cameras, you just might end up realizing what I've
>>come to know--the blind-leading-blind DSLR-fanboys have been wrong all along.
>
>I have done a lot of research. I have yet to find a single P&S that
>can match the image quality of a good DSLR with good glass. That's
>why I'm asking for your help. I'd love to find one.
>
>Steve
Sorry, I'm all out of time. I would have answered but as you saw above, I spent
quite a bit of time doing my own research. :)
Gabe Larsen
______________________
| |
| Please ignore all |
| the morons who call |
/| /| | smarter people |
||__|| |"trolls", due to their|
/ O O\__ | own insecurities. |
/ \ | Thank-you. |
/ \ \|______________________|
Steve
>On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:10:09 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>In one breath you say there's no reason for you to hoard when someone
>>else can be making good use if it out there somewhere. And in the
>>next breath you say you don't want to reveal what cameras meet your
>>requirements because that would make the few remaining in circulation
>>difficult to obtain. Conflict.
>
>Not true. They just don't realize that they are hoarding it for me, because they
>may not realize what kind of camera they have. In the hands of a professional
>they excel. In the hands of an amateur, they'll be putting it aside and buying a
>better camera next year to see again if there's any talent-button on the newer
>one. And so on and so on. My favorite cameras safely stashed away in some fool's
>safe possession.
I'm sure there will be plenty of this type of Canon P&S available for
you if you need one no matter what you say here. They're the most
prolific P&S manufacturer out there. So go ahead and educate me, as
you so often say you like to do, and tell me what P&S I should get
that meets all of your points.
>
>>
>>You can doubt it all you want, but it's not true. Better glass would
>>blow away the SX10 P&S as you can see from thousands of examples taken
>>with Canon DSLR's and high quality glass. The improvement in image
>>quality won't be as noticeable for some images where there's no
>>dynamics. But in other, more demanding situations, the quality
>>increase of a good DSLR with high quaility glass over any P&S in
>>existance is astounding.
>
>I've yet to see any "astounding" in any DSLR photography that can't be similarly
>accomplished with an excellent P&S, in the hands of a pro.
That's because you're so blind that you wouldn't see it if you found
it and so delusional in your regard for P&S cameras that you're not
looking for it.
>>You don't even need L-Glass to beat any P&S. Something like the Nikon
>>18-200 gives you a good enough zoom range to avoid "missing the shot"
>>while giving much higher quality images than P&S superzooms.
>>
>
>Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
>about if I do it....
>
>Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x, that extra expense of ~$600 for
>the 18-200mm gives you 28mm-320mm, we're still missing the 320mm-560mm range.
>We're in for $675+$600=$1275 (camera + upgrade lens) so far. Is it still worth
>the expense for lenses that may not beat the detail recorded by the $340 P&S?
>How much more for the 320mm-560mm reach of similar or better quality?
The cameras that use the Nikon 18-200 have a 1.5x crop factor. But
nevertheless, no one has ever said that getting the increase in
quality of DSLR cameras over a P&S isn't going to cost more. It most
likely will cost more, maybe even several times more. But it will
also buy you better images in the hands of a talented pro. And the
extra cost will more than pay for itself when that pro tries to sell
his crappy P&S images and is competing with the other pro standing
next to him at the football game, concert, whatever, who paid the
money you're not willing to spend.
[...]
>>>My two most favorite P&Ss are by no means the only ones (and would be difficult
>>>to find if you did want them). Nor are some of the best all from Canon. A few
>>>are, but not all. Panasonic and others have some excellent new contenders in the
>>>race. A few of them outdoing the new Canon P&Ss.
>>
>>But any not from Canon would not run CHDK, which eliminates many of
>>the points you keep posting. So we already know your P&S is from
>>Canon.
>
>It only eliminates 3 points. That leaves 22 others to which most all other P&S
>cameras qualify, a few points only applying to super-zoom models. I could have
>listed 100 advantage points but I thought 25 would be enough. Want me to
>increase that list that's used to reply to trolls? Let me know.
No. I want you to tell me what camera covers even just the 25 points
you've been posting. Not expand the list to cover an even more
fictional camera.
Steve
Steve
You may notice some difference between -3 and -8. But the difference
between -3 and -4 will be much more than between -7 and -8. So what
that means is you might want to try -4. And if you still see a
difference between -3 and -4, try -5. You'll get to a point where you
won't see any difference and it will very likely be much lower than
-8.
Then again, since you're only working with single images,
computational efficiency isn't nearly as important as if you were
working with, say, video. There, the difference in computational
efficiency is much more important since you're talking about
differences in hours, or even days, to render a movie using different
window sizes for not much noticable difference in quality.
[...]
>>If your final image is important, you'll test the various options
>>available and pick the one that gives the best results. For most
>>general photography, sinc/lanczos will end up being the best one.
>>
>>Steve
>
>That's why QImage has so many. It's primary purpose is a printing interface so
>you can choose from many as to which is best at the time. I grab that when I
>commit something to paper and it resizes it for the printer yet again. In
>general though for all pre-print edits I still default to Lanczos. Could be that
>it's my photography style where I've not run into many drawbacks with it. I'm
>not one for photographing man-made structures with strong geometrics and
>repeating patterns in them. The closest I might come to that might be the fine
>ribbed pattern in the elytra of a beetle.
>
>It still would be interesting to see what happens to that plane's ribbing if you
>used Lanczos-8 instead.
You can always try it. Take the 100% crop at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3055500937/sizes/o/
and reduce it from 640x480 down to 106x79, which will give you about
the same percent reduction as the other two reduced images. Then
compare the image to the same section (the Eastern Air Transport sign)
as on this image:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3055500557/sizes/o/
which was done with XnView and an unspecified filter size.
Here is the same image again using Gimp and Lanczos-3:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3059712452/sizes/o/
You can see a lot more of the corrugation than with XnView at the
expense of a slight amount of morrie. But there's not nearly as much
morrie as when using PictureProject, shown here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3056337614/sizes/o/
Steve
Mark Thomas
> I have done a lot of research. I have yet to find a single P&S that
> can match the image quality of a good DSLR with good glass. That's
> why I'm asking for your help. I'd love to find one.
Perhaps I can help..? 'Vern'(/anti-dslr-troll/etc..) has claimed to own
just two cameras in his 'career'. They are the Sony DSC-F717, and the
Canon S3IS. If you are bored enough to wander through his list, you
will see that the attributes he glibly ascribes to these (and all the
best p&s cameras) are:
- at times very questionable and often wrong, eg his 'seamless' zoom
range' and claims of 'pro' quality from front-mounted converters (he
keeps referring to Zeiss converters, and yet the only one he admits to
owning is a cheap and nasty ebay special).
- only applicable to certain cameras, certainly not in a complete
combination, and not for the two cameras mentioned
So he has cherry-picked various attributes from several different
cameras, embellished them, and over and above all that, the samples he
has posted have merely shown he has little skill (with one exception,
but then we all fluke at least one good shot in our lives..), and they
are posted at sizes that cannot be used for serious comparison. He uses
the standard Rita/D-Mac/troll excuse of not wanting to have his work
stolen and that we are not worthy. Like those other trolls, he can
never explain why he won't post 100% crops.. (grin)
Of course he will now reply "You aren't smart enough to find the cameras
I mean", and will refuse to name anything because, of course, by doing
so the price of these cameras will skyrocket. Hoho.
Anyway, don't get me wrong - I like p&s cameras and bridge cameras too -
there are some good'uns and they are very handy to have nearby. But
when it comes to high-iso operation, large quality images, lens
flexibility/quality and decent AF speed... no. There are some cameras
with very good spec's in *some* areas, but to date, no-one has really
nailed the legendary 'great' bridge camera (if only Panasonic had a
really good sensor, if only Canon had a slightly better sensor and
better lenses.. if only...). Interesting strides are being made - eg
the new µ4/3 cameras - but larger sensors will always win out, and each
camera format has its place. And the DSLR may well slowly die as EVF's
develop, but there's a way to go yet...
Our troll is a lonely, sad, deluded, sick man desperately seeking
attention (a search on 'Keoeeit's history will reveal why - I won't
embarrass him further with references.. just now).
It's probably best to just stop responding, and if you become a little
peeved, refer his duplicate/disruptive/abusive postings (inc. headers)
to his local Minnesota based provider, CPINTERNET
(ab...@cpinternet.com), run by Chad Braafladt and Mary McClernon.
Perhaps Chad and Mary might be reading this... That's CPINTERNET - the
provider that allows his type of posting... (O:
george-brown
>
>I'm sure there will be plenty of this type of Canon P&S available for
>you if you need one no matter what you say here. They're the most
>prolific P&S manufacturer out there. So go ahead and educate me, as
>you so often say you like to do, and tell me what P&S I should get
>that meets all of your points.
>
Ah, Grasshopper, ye of so little experience. Are you not aware that no two
cameras are created equal? Take for example my favorite Canon P&S. I wondered
why a few others complained of a little too much noise on the sensor. Or
spurious reports of the CD-quality sound being slightly ruined by some very
quiet background noise. When I obtained mine I did by testing quite a few of
them. No different than any other pro that tests several lenses to invest in
before deciding on which one (or ones) is best. That P&S camera is noise-free at
ISO200, completely usable at ISO400, and still quite acceptable at ISO800. Not
much difference still when using ISO1000 enabled by CHDK. Better image quality
than anything I could have hoped for if I based my purchase decision on what
everyone else told me to buy. Some sensors are noisier than others, right from
the same assembly line the same day, even one cut only one-away on that wafer.
Did you not know this? Similarly, when I finally got around to testing the
audio-recording capabilities (important to my line of nature documentation), it
also suffered from no problems at all. In assembly-line terms this one might be
considered the anti-lemon. (It works both ways you know.) The PRO takes the time
to only buy anti-lemons.
See, the point here is that a REAL pro will shop carefully. Not like some
snapshooter that buys sight-unseen, basing their decision on all others that
tell them what to buy, where to buy, how to wipe your nose.
Aren't you at least this much of a "pro"?
Do you want me to base all DSLR performance on that 450D and kit lens? I might
as well, that's what you are doing to all P&S cameras. Taking the worst horror
stories about P&S cameras from 8 years ago and applying them to all P&S cameras
made today. I'm at least being kind comparing a DSLR disaster made today to an
excellent P&S camera made today.
>>
>>I've yet to see any "astounding" in any DSLR photography that can't be similarly
>>accomplished with an excellent P&S, in the hands of a pro.
>
>That's because you're so blind that you wouldn't see it if you found
>it and so delusional in your regard for P&S cameras that you're not
>looking for it.
See above. I'm much more observant than you'll ever be or ever hope to be.
>The cameras that use the Nikon 18-200 have a 1.5x crop factor. But
>nevertheless, no one has ever said that getting the increase in
>quality of DSLR cameras over a P&S isn't going to cost more. It most
>likely will cost more, maybe even several times more.
MAYBE "several" times more? I see that you can't even do simple math in your
head.
Your "several times more" equates to 19.191176 (to be more precise) CONFIRMED
times more. There's no "maybe" about it. Nearly 20 times more is not "several".
Several refers to 3 or so. You've blinded yourself by your own delusions and
false-worship of a camera design to where you think a confirmed 20 is a "maybe
several". (Adding in the extra full point just because of all the extra crap
you'll need to carry to make that DSLR useful, heavy tripod, sturdy backpack,
etc.)
> But it will
>also buy you better images in the hands of a talented pro.
I've already proved to myself that it does not. You're not going to change the
mind of someone that has already proved it to themself, using every which way
they could try to disprove it first. All that was left is that the P&S paradigm
wins, no contest anymore.
> And the
>extra cost will more than pay for itself when that pro tries to sell
>his crappy P&S images and is competing with the other pro standing
>next to him at the football game, concert, whatever, who paid the
>money you're not willing to spend.
Oh trust me, I have more than enough money to spend. You don't get wealthy by
being a foolish spendthrift.
This is how more intelligent people get more wealthy. They know where to put
their money where it will do the most good. In the present world of photography
that is in the high-end P&S camera. Best investment to photography I have ever
made, when I finally realized I didn't have to be held back by a DSLR's
last-century limitations and faults.
>
>No. I want you to tell me what camera covers even just the 25 points
>you've been posting. Not expand the list to cover an even more
>fictional camera.
>
>Steve
But for me it would be more fun to add in the other 75+ missing points on why a
P&S camera beats the crap out of any DSLR in existence.
Harv_Barst
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.
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
Steve
Ah, so you have the only camera in existance that can meet all of your
25 points and even other copies of the same model can't come close.
Now things are beginning to make sense. Can you say delusional?
>Do you want me to base all DSLR performance on that 450D and kit lens? I might
>as well, that's what you are doing to all P&S cameras. Taking the worst horror
>stories about P&S cameras from 8 years ago and applying them to all P&S cameras
>made today. I'm at least being kind comparing a DSLR disaster made today to an
>excellent P&S camera made today.
Well hell, at least you admit you're comparing the worst that a DSLR
can do to the best an excellent P&S camera can do and they're still
close. That's a start in your rehab.
>>The cameras that use the Nikon 18-200 have a 1.5x crop factor. But
>>nevertheless, no one has ever said that getting the increase in
>>quality of DSLR cameras over a P&S isn't going to cost more. It most
>>likely will cost more, maybe even several times more.
>
>MAYBE "several" times more? I see that you can't even do simple math in your
>head.
>
>Your "several times more" equates to 19.191176 (to be more precise) CONFIRMED
>times more. There's no "maybe" about it. Nearly 20 times more is not "several".
>Several refers to 3 or so. You've blinded yourself by your own delusions and
>false-worship of a camera design to where you think a confirmed 20 is a "maybe
>several". (Adding in the extra full point just because of all the extra crap
>you'll need to carry to make that DSLR useful, heavy tripod, sturdy backpack,
>etc.)
Yes, only several. A D200 with the the 18-200 VR will beat the pants
off any P&S in image quality, performance under demanding situations,
ability to "get the shot" that you'd miss with a slow focusing,
unresponsive P&S, and has a very useful zoom range that goes from 27mm
to 300mm in 35mm equivalent. Sure, it's not as much on the long end
as a P&S superzoom. But when you see the quality of a P&S superzoom
when pushed past the 300mm 35mm equivalent zoom range, it's pretty
useless anyway. Having a high quality useful zoom range is much more
important than having a low quality extended zoom range.
And I never thought I'd be talking about an 18-200 zoom as giving high
quality images because there are so many lenses available for DSLRs
that do much better. But compared to a superzoom P&S, the 18-200 VR
is gold.
And yes, only several times the cost is correct. A D200 + 18-200mm VR
outfit is not 20 times the cost of a superzoom P&S. It's only 3 or 4
times the cost and gives much better image quality in a wider range of
circumstances.
Also, being able to extend the low end of the focal length range with
something like a 12-24mm lens that gives much better image quality
than a wide angle adapter for a P&S is important. I do so much more
shooting at wider angles than telephoto even though I have a 70-300mm
(450mm in 35mm equivalent) that gives much better images than any P&S
at the same equivalent focal lengths.
>> But it will
>>also buy you better images in the hands of a talented pro.
>
>I've already proved to myself that it does not. You're not going to change the
>mind of someone that has already proved it to themself, using every which way
>they could try to disprove it first. All that was left is that the P&S paradigm
>wins, no contest anymore.
I realize you've already proved it to yourself, and I believe you.
It's obviously possible that you've done that, considering you've
already admitted you can't tell the difference between a 20" 640x480
monitor and a 20" 1920x1080 monitor from 20" away. The problem is
that you're a zealot, just like a religious zealot, trying to convince
everyone else that a P&S in the hands of a talented pro will give
better images than a high quality DSLR in the hands of a talented pro.
Someone who's completely ignorant about photography may actually
believe you, but only until they waste their money on a P&S and wonder
why they can't get images anything like they see in Sports
Illustrated, where just about everything those pros use is high
quality DSLRs.
Steve
Nelson-B
>
>You can always try it. Take the 100% crop at:
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3055500937/sizes/o/
>
>and reduce it from 640x480 down to 106x79, which will give you about
>the same percent reduction as the other two reduced images. Then
>compare the image to the same section (the Eastern Air Transport sign)
>as on this image:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3055500557/sizes/o/
>
>which was done with XnView and an unspecified filter size.
>
>Here is the same image again using Gimp and Lanczos-3:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3059712452/sizes/o/
>
>You can see a lot more of the corrugation than with XnView at the
>expense of a slight amount of morrie. But there's not nearly as much
>morrie as when using PictureProject, shown here:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3056337614/sizes/o/
In order to match the pixels, I had to resize that original 100% crop to 113x85.
I cropped your Lanczos samples for side-by-side pixel compares. (for
blink-comparator method)
worst to best
Lanczos-3 Gimp
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/3059509901_27d09704b2_m.jpg
Lanczos XnView
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/3059509911_e092a701fc_m.jpg
Lanczos-8 (no jpg compression)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3175/3059509917_bf4faecf93_o.jpg
As suspected, L-8 retained some more of that ribbing. Not sure if it is enough
to warrant it or if it was originally lost in the XnView's image by JPG
compressions (likely suspect, I see hints of ribbing in a few jpg blocks), but
.... Interesting test nonetheless. XnView might very well be using L-8.
Steve
I'm not sure I see all that much ribbing in the L-8, but there's
definitly less morrie than L-3. The L-8 looks just as smooth a skin as
XnView.
Here is XnView Lanczos saved with 100% jpeg quality:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3059605269/sizes/o/
Comparing that with your L-8 image I think confirms that XnView is
using L-8 since that section looks so similar.
Steve
Steve
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:35:52 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>Comparing that with your L-8 image I think confirms that XnView is
>using L-8 since that section looks so similar.
Or if not L-8, at least L-4 or higher since it's so much smoother than
the L-3 of Gimp.
Steve
Calvin Dondel
Plain and simple, all that you are proving to me is that you are an idiot troll
who doesn't even know how to use a camera properly. (nor even do simple math)
I've already wasted far too much time being kind to you.
Case closed.
Dave Cohen
Steve we've got it all wrong. I have come to the conclusion all you
people have figured this guy wrong. His problem isn't psychological at
all. The poor guy is blind, or close to blind. He refers to a comparison
of images taken at high ISO and is unable to distinguish a blurry image
from a sharper one.
If his problem is cataracts, I have some good news for him, surgery does
wonders for this condition. Obviously, we cannot diagnose his problem
here, but if he is able to read this post (or hear it if he uses text to
speech), he should have someone drive him to a good optical guy. He
shouldn't drive himself, driving can be dangerous for the sight
impaired, not to mention others on the road, although if he cares as
much about them as he does about annoying us that wouldn't be an issue
for him.
Dave Cohen
Bill Thompkins
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:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths
allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography using normal
macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR
owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to
obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When
you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your
highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user
is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image;
turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
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
Paul Furman
> Steve wrote:
>> I have done a lot of research. I have yet to find a single P&S that
>> can match the image quality of a good DSLR with good glass. That's
>> why I'm asking for your help. I'd love to find one.
>
> Perhaps I can help..? 'Vern'(/anti-dslr-troll/etc..) has claimed to own
> just two cameras in his 'career'.
'Dozens'...
> They are the Sony DSC-F717, and the Canon S3IS.
> If you are bored enough to wander through his list, you
> will see that the attributes he glibly ascribes to these (and all the
> best p&s cameras) are:
> - at times very questionable and often wrong, eg his 'seamless' zoom
> range' and claims of 'pro' quality from front-mounted converters (he
> keeps referring to Zeiss converters, and yet the only one he admits to
> owning is a cheap and nasty ebay special).
> - only applicable to certain cameras, certainly not in a complete
> combination, and not for the two cameras mentioned
The oly 1.7, about 3/4 down on this site fitted to a similar s2:
http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/S2tele.html
Pretty usable in the center, a mess at the corners and that's not
doubled up as he claims to 3x and 1200mm which would surely be a mess.
He also mentioned using digital zoom (which goes to 4x). I've used
similar teleconverter mush on my DSLRs and it is useful as it provides
more detail in a cropped center. My Sigma 12-24 on full frame often
looks at least that mushy in the corners but that's a whole heck of a
lot wider than the s3's 36mm. Wider than that, you get fisheye mush
attachment.
Stephen Bishop
In other words, that mythical camera does not exist. Let's see the
amazing pictures that you get with yours on your adventurous treks.
The SX-10 suffers from a bad case of purple fringing, as demonstrated
by the sample pictures in that Camera Labs article you love to quote
over and over again.
"Real pros" don't miss shots because they have to stop and change
lenses. They are aware of their surroundings and use the lens that
gives them what they want in a given situation. A 20x zoom range is
merely an amateur's crutch that makes one think they are a "pro." Add
IS to the mix and they really think they are something special...
until they actually look at the pictures they get because they think
it's the camera that is the most important thing.
Am I wrong? Prove it by posting your pictures.
Oh, and will the real ASSAR please stand up? It sure as heck isn't me.
Stephen Bishop
And the camera need not be top of the line, either. The very
inexpensive Nikon D40 paired with the 18-200 gives quality that is
**FAR** better than any p&s. And as you note, the zoom range is more
than adequate to get any shot that presents itself.
TrollBuster
>
>And the camera need not be top of the line, either. The very
>inexpensive Nikon D40 paired with the 18-200 gives quality that is
>**FAR** better than any p&s. And as you note, the zoom range is more
>than adequate to get any shot that presents itself.
You've personally tested this, how? You've personally owned "any P&S" camera?
Oh wait, that's right, you've never owned any cameras. You're nothing but a
virtual photographer troll who supports whatever trend that gives you the most
attention from other fellow net-trolls.
Stephen Bishop
<carlto...@flintsplace.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:10:09 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>In one breath you say there's no reason for you to hoard when someone
>>else can be making good use if it out there somewhere. And in the
>>next breath you say you don't want to reveal what cameras meet your
>>requirements because that would make the few remaining in circulation
>>difficult to obtain. Conflict.
>
>Not true. They just don't realize that they are hoarding it for me, because they
>may not realize what kind of camera they have. In the hands of a professional
>they excel. In the hands of an amateur, they'll be putting it aside and buying a
>better camera next year to see again if there's any talent-button on the newer
>one. And so on and so on. My favorite cameras safely stashed away in some fool's
>safe possession.
Ok, let's see the pictures that demonstrate that you are a
professional who can make that p&s sing like a bird.
>
>>
>>You can doubt it all you want, but it's not true. Better glass would
>>blow away the SX10 P&S as you can see from thousands of examples taken
>>with Canon DSLR's and high quality glass. The improvement in image
>>quality won't be as noticeable for some images where there's no
>>dynamics. But in other, more demanding situations, the quality
>>increase of a good DSLR with high quaility glass over any P&S in
>>existance is astounding.
>
>I've yet to see any "astounding" in any DSLR photography that can't be similarly
>accomplished with an excellent P&S, in the hands of a pro.
Ok, let's see the evidence that shows you know what you're talking
about.
>
>>
>>You don't even need L-Glass to beat any P&S. Something like the Nikon
>>18-200 gives you a good enough zoom range to avoid "missing the shot"
>>while giving much higher quality images than P&S superzooms.
>>
>
>Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
>about if I do it....
Math has absolutely nothing to do with good photography. Let's see
the evidence that your math is correct.
Ok, let's see the evidence that you aren't just a fool with his head
stuck in camera magazines and technical websites.
Fine, then let's see the evidence that shows your research isn't just
an exercise in mental masturbation. Where are the goods? Surely a
"real pro" like yourself would jump at the chance to display to the
world their talents.
UnicorTalbert
>Ok, let's see the pictures that demonstrate that you are a
>professional who can make that p&s sing like a bird.
>
Any real pro prides their self in never enriching the life of a
mommy's-basement-living pretend-life net-troll.
Stephen Bishop
<gbr...@keepemguessing.net> wrote:
OK, REAL pro, let's see your real pro nature documentation shots taken
with your anti-lemon camera. You know, those noise-free pictures you
took by moonlight at ISO 100 with no tripod. Surely your work has
been published since it is so good.
>
>See, the point here is that a REAL pro will shop carefully. Not like some
>snapshooter that buys sight-unseen, basing their decision on all others that
>tell them what to buy, where to buy, how to wipe your nose.
>
>Aren't you at least this much of a "pro"?
>
>Do you want me to base all DSLR performance on that 450D and kit lens? I might
>as well, that's what you are doing to all P&S cameras. Taking the worst horror
>stories about P&S cameras from 8 years ago and applying them to all P&S cameras
>made today. I'm at least being kind comparing a DSLR disaster made today to an
>excellent P&S camera made today.
You still haven't told us which cameras you are talking about.
>
>>>
>>>I've yet to see any "astounding" in any DSLR photography that can't be similarly
>>>accomplished with an excellent P&S, in the hands of a pro.
>>
>>That's because you're so blind that you wouldn't see it if you found
>>it and so delusional in your regard for P&S cameras that you're not
>>looking for it.
>
>See above. I'm much more observant than you'll ever be or ever hope to be.
All we ask is for you to prove it.
>
>
>>The cameras that use the Nikon 18-200 have a 1.5x crop factor. But
>>nevertheless, no one has ever said that getting the increase in
>>quality of DSLR cameras over a P&S isn't going to cost more. It most
>>likely will cost more, maybe even several times more.
>
>MAYBE "several" times more? I see that you can't even do simple math in your
>head.
>
>Your "several times more" equates to 19.191176 (to be more precise) CONFIRMED
>times more. There's no "maybe" about it. Nearly 20 times more is not "several".
>Several refers to 3 or so. You've blinded yourself by your own delusions and
>false-worship of a camera design to where you think a confirmed 20 is a "maybe
>several". (Adding in the extra full point just because of all the extra crap
>you'll need to carry to make that DSLR useful, heavy tripod, sturdy backpack,
>etc.)
Nobody is worshipping a particular camera design except you. The
only thing that matters is the end result. Let's see YOUR results.
>
>> But it will
>>also buy you better images in the hands of a talented pro.
>
>I've already proved to myself that it does not. You're not going to change the
>mind of someone that has already proved it to themself, using every which way
>they could try to disprove it first. All that was left is that the P&S paradigm
>wins, no contest anymore.
Proving it to yourself but unwilling to show the evidence of that
proof to others... that's the classic textbook definition of
self-delusional.
>
>> And the
>>extra cost will more than pay for itself when that pro tries to sell
>>his crappy P&S images and is competing with the other pro standing
>>next to him at the football game, concert, whatever, who paid the
>>money you're not willing to spend.
>
>Oh trust me, I have more than enough money to spend. You don't get wealthy by
>being a foolish spendthrift.
>
>This is how more intelligent people get more wealthy. They know where to put
>their money where it will do the most good. In the present world of photography
>that is in the high-end P&S camera. Best investment to photography I have ever
>made, when I finally realized I didn't have to be held back by a DSLR's
>last-century limitations and faults.
Ok, you're smarter and more wealthy than anyone else on the planet.
Good for you. Let's see the evidence of what you've actually done
with those gifts. It's your responsibility as the guardian of
photography godhood.
>
>>
>>No. I want you to tell me what camera covers even just the 25 points
>>you've been posting. Not expand the list to cover an even more
>>fictional camera.
>>
>>Steve
>
>But for me it would be more fun to add in the other 75+ missing points on why a
>P&S camera beats the crap out of any DSLR in existence.
No doubt those would be just as moot and misleading as your other
points have been.
>
>
Stephen Bishop
<spam...@anydomain.org> wrote:
>>Someone who's completely ignorant about photography may actually
>>believe you, but only until they waste their money on a P&S and wonder
>>why they can't get images anything like they see in Sports
>>Illustrated, where just about everything those pros use is high
>>quality DSLRs.
>>
>>Steve
>
>Plain and simple, all that you are proving to me is that you are an idiot troll
>who doesn't even know how to use a camera properly. (nor even do simple math)
>
>I've already wasted far too much time being kind to you.
>
>Case closed.
Oh, up to this point you've been kind?
Let's see the evidence that you know how to use a camera properly and
that your simple math has any meaning in the real world.
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I'd say by that
simple math, you owe us a few hundred pictures to prove that you
aren't just full of hot air.
Stephen Bishop
To the contrary, a real pro takes pride in his work and isn't ashamed
to show it.
Somehow I don't think it would enrich anyone. At best, it would give
you some credibility.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:21:51 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>And the camera need not be top of the line, either. The very
>>inexpensive Nikon D40 paired with the 18-200 gives quality that is
>>**FAR** better than any p&s. And as you note, the zoom range is more
>>than adequate to get any shot that presents itself.
>
>You've personally tested this, how? You've personally owned "any P&S" camera?
Actually, I've owned and used several.
"Personal testing" is for pixel-peeping pretend photographers like
yourself who think photography is all about who has the best camera.
Real photographers go out and make photographs. Have you ever done
that?
>
>Oh wait, that's right, you've never owned any cameras. You're nothing but a
>virtual photographer troll who supports whatever trend that gives you the most
>attention from other fellow net-trolls.
Whatever your fantasy of the day is.