Megapixel War Over for Point and Shoots?
measekite
over.
It seems that as the sensor size remains (for the time being) fixed on
most of the point and shoot cameras the mfg has reached the limit on
increasing the MP while still improving image quality.
At any ISO over the minimum (80/100) and in any light other than bright
high contrast light the image quality is becoming less and less. More and
more processing is being used to rid the image of noise translating to an
increase in artifacts and a reduction in sharpness. So while you have
more pixels for cropping and greater print sizes the real image quality
has not improved and much of the time is less.
Now for those snapshooters who print 4x6 with very little cropping the
image quality is quite good but still will not look better than the
previous batch of camera a couple of years back even though the cameras
itself have more features and may be better.
So what is the answer to getting better results. A 4/3 PS will be too
heavy and bulky but a larger sensor is needed. Maybe a sensor size
between the current PS and a 4/3 might be considered for cameras the size
of a Canon A series but for the smaller elph size cameras the MP count may
have reach its limit.
So an A size series with a larger sensor and with an EVF might be the best
choice for a new generation of PS cameras. Also add an articulating LCD.
Now this needs to be smaller than the current long zoom EVF cameras like
the Canon S5 or SX10. Maybe the size of near a G10 but way less
expensive. Having RAW may be a benefit to some and not expensive to have
as standard on all cameras.
So what you do think?
Steve
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:05:55 GMT, measekite <inkys...@oem.com>
wrote:
>Using the G10 as an example do the majority of readers feel the MP war is
>over.
>
>It seems that as the sensor size remains (for the time being) fixed on
>most of the point and shoot cameras the mfg has reached the limit on
>increasing the MP while still improving image quality.
Sensor noise notwithstanding, if you've been paying attention to the
whole diffraction limited discussion (which I don't blame you if you
haven't) you'd realize that the MP war is over for that sensor size
from an actual useable resolution. Maybe not from a marketing
standpoint though.
The reason it's over is that with all those 14MP on that little 1/1.7"
sensor, there's already more than enough spatial resolution at the
sensor to over resolve an airy disk. So even with a perfect lens
(which it does not have) in most circumstances you won't get any
better resolution in your images by going to higher MP counts.
Now if you only consider noise and aren't concerned about the fact
that increasing MP count doesn't get you any better real resolution,
adding more pixels can give you more to average out noise in your
final, properly rescaled image. But, increasing the pixel density
increases the noise per pixel. So at best, it's a zero sum game and
in reality, it seems to be a losing proposition.
Steve
Alan Browne
> The reason it's over is that with all those 14MP on that little 1/1.7"
What do you mean "little"?
It's f-ing TINY!!!
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
BÔwser
"measekite" <inkys...@oem.com> wrote in message
news:nogYk.8523$Ei5....@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
I think the MP war just claimed another victim: me. I bought a G10 with high
hopes, but image quality just isn't there. I'm dumping it and taking a long
look at micro 4/3 for a smaller camera. I had hoped that even with higher
noise the increase in resolution (pixel count) might produce better prints,
but it does not. I compared an 8x10 of the same subject shot with a Sony 828
and the G10, and the Sony produced better prints. I would have loved to see
a G10 with a 2/3 8MP sensor, but it'll never happen. Damned shame, too. No
more small sensor cameras for me.
Alan Browne
> I think the MP war just claimed another victim: me. I bought a G10 with
> high hopes, but image quality just isn't there. I'm dumping it and
> taking a long look at micro 4/3 for a smaller camera. I had hoped that
At roughly the same sensor size as a cropped DSLR and quality lenses, it
should do little worse than cropped DSLR's.
Oly's lenses for the original 4/3 system were somewhat large for their
FL and max aperture lending them superlative performance for the format;
I don't know what their approach will be on micro 4/3.
There are many advantages to getting the lens mount closer to the
film/sensor (ie: rangefinders), so you may be more than pleasantly
surprised.
My only beef with 4/3 is that it is bounded in size at 4/3. My
intuition to avoid cropped lenses has paid off in the a900...
> never happen. Damned shame, too. No more small sensor cameras for me.
Well, despite all of the above, I consider the 4/3 to be a "small
sensor" camera. Though v. the tiny sensor in the G10 it is quite big.
Andrew Koenig
news:68-dnZ17XIiBNazU...@giganews.com...
>> I think the MP war just claimed another victim: me. I bought a G10 with
>> high hopes, but image quality just isn't there. I'm dumping it and taking
>> a long look at micro 4/3 for a smaller camera. I had hoped that
> At roughly the same sensor size as a cropped DSLR and quality lenses, it
> should do little worse than cropped DSLR's.
I think the G10 sensor is much smaller than a cropped DSLR. Canon's website
says it's a 1/1.7-inch sensor, but I can never remember how to translate
that into actual dimensions. Instead, I will note that the lens has a range
of 6.1-30.5mm, which Canon claims is equivalent to 28-140mm on 35mm film.
That's a compensation factor of 4.6. As a 4/3 sensor has a compensation
factor of about 2, I conclude that the G10 sensor is slightly less than half
the linear dimensions of a 4/3 sensor, or slightly less than 1/4 the area.
Putting it differently, a full-frame DSLR has a sensor with about 20 times
the area of a Canon G10. That's quite a difference.
Mark Thomas
Coincidentally, the op made me think back over all the p&s cameras I've
used, and there were two that had the most dslr-like performance *in
good light*. They were the Sony F828 and the Olympus C8080. Those
cameras both gave the best pixel-to-pixel sharpness I've seen from any
p&s (great lenses). They both started to get noisy above base ISO, and
there were the other problems associated with small sensors, slow
electronics and contrast AF, but the lenses on those two cameras were
superb (ok, there was the occasional purple-fringing of the Sony, but
that Zeiss lens was wonderful), and the sensors were excellent at their
base iso rating..
I find it very depressing, especially when you look at the performance
of cameras like some of the early Fuji series (F10-F30), that
manufacturers haven't been able to develop the true potential of
2/3"-ish sized sensors. If they kept them at around the 8Mp level -
which is AMPLE for the majority of p&s users - I think they could have.
If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like
that Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct
now with today's in-camera processing!), or the Leica-designed ones on
the Panasonics, it would sell in the millions. But no.
Perhaps it just reflects on the typical 'discerning' p&s
user-without-a-clue (you only have to look around for an example..) and
their reaction to advertising where only megapixels matter. I'm not
knocking p&s cameras - I use and like them and there are several good
ones - but it's sad that they fell into this hole, when I believe they
could be much, much better.
I do think the m4/3 format is good idea, and will be interested to see
where that goes, but there is still a *huge* market for small superzooms
with good high-iso performance. Some of the manufacturers have got the
*lenses* up to scratch, now, how about fixing the bloody sensors by
reversing this stupid MP race!!
As an analogy, how do you think a new *film* would succeed, if it was
marketed as "the highest resolution colour film ever produced - better
than Kodachrome 25 or Velvia", but they *neglected* to admit it had the
grain of Konica 3200... Would it last?
Paul Furman
>
> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like
> that Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct
> now with today's in-camera processing!)
Purple fringing CA can't be removed like red/green CA in software. PF
occurs all around bright contrasty areas & you have to do some tricky
desaturating to minimise it.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Alfred Molon
count will increase much beyond 15MP.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
BÔwser
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:68-dnZ17XIiBNazU...@giganews.com...
> I think the MP war just claimed another victim: me. I bought a G10 with
> high hopes, but image quality just isn't there. I'm dumping it and taking
> a long look at micro 4/3 for a smaller camera. I had hoped that
>At roughly the same sensor size as a cropped DSLR and quality lenses, it
>should do little worse than cropped DSLR's.
Looking at a Rebel XSi, as well, which can use all my current Canon gear.
Nice unit, too.
>Oly's lenses for the original 4/3 system were somewhat large for their FL
>and max aperture lending them superlative performance for the format; I
>don't know what their approach will be on micro 4/3.
<There are many advantages to getting the lens mount closer to the
>film/sensor (ie: rangefinders), so you may be more than pleasantly
>surprised.
>My only beef with 4/3 is that it is bounded in size at 4/3. My intuition
>to avoid cropped lenses has paid off in the a900...
But a 4/3 isn't really cropped. Just a totally unique format, but it does
involve buying into a new system, something I don't really want to do. Hate
spending money on duplicate (in terms of angle of view) lenses and other
stuff.
> never happen. Damned shame, too. No more small sensor cameras for me.
>Well, despite all of the above, I consider the 4/3 to be a "small sensor"
>camera. Though v. the tiny sensor in the G10 it is quite big.
Well, nothing below 4/3 for me. They're just getting worse by the month, and
I can no longer tolerate the reduction in image quality. They're really
horrid now. Only one that comes close to being "OK" is the new Panny LX3,
but I don't want a camera without a tele, so that's out.
BÔwser
"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
news:ggsekl$kcn$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
> BÔwser wrote:
>> I think the MP war just claimed another victim: me. I bought a G10 with
>> high hopes, but image quality just isn't there. I'm dumping it and taking
>> a long look at micro 4/3 for a smaller camera. I had hoped that even with
>> higher noise the increase in resolution (pixel count) might produce
>> better prints, but it does not. I compared an 8x10 of the same subject
>> shot with a Sony 828 and the G10, and the Sony produced better prints. I
>> would have loved to see a G10 with a 2/3 8MP sensor, but it'll never
>> happen. Damned shame, too. No more small sensor cameras for me.
>
> Coincidentally, the op made me think back over all the p&s cameras I've
> used, and there were two that had the most dslr-like performance *in good
> light*. They were the Sony F828 and the Olympus C8080. Those cameras
> both gave the best pixel-to-pixel sharpness I've seen from any p&s (great
> lenses). They both started to get noisy above base ISO, and there were
> the other problems associated with small sensors, slow electronics and
> contrast AF, but the lenses on those two cameras were superb (ok, there
> was the occasional purple-fringing of the Sony, but that Zeiss lens was
> wonderful), and the sensors were excellent at their base iso rating..
Loved my Sony 828, and hate the fact that Sony abandoned that form factor.
Tilt body was great, wonderful lens, real sharp. That camera, with a less
noisy sensor would make my day. 8MP is plenty of resolution, and 28-200 is
an ideal zoom range. Plus, I loved the night shot/night frame feature, the
laser-assist focusing, and IR capability, and the other features. Sony
really, really blew it by not upadting that one.
>
> I find it very depressing, especially when you look at the performance of
> cameras like some of the early Fuji series (F10-F30), that manufacturers
> haven't been able to develop the true potential of 2/3"-ish sized sensors.
> If they kept them at around the 8Mp level - which is AMPLE for the
> majority of p&s users - I think they could have.
>
> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like that
> Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct now
> with today's in-camera processing!), or the Leica-designed ones on the
> Panasonics, it would sell in the millions. But no.
GD marketeers...
>
> Perhaps it just reflects on the typical 'discerning' p&s
> user-without-a-clue (you only have to look around for an example..) and
> their reaction to advertising where only megapixels matter. I'm not
> knocking p&s cameras - I use and like them and there are several good
> ones - but it's sad that they fell into this hole, when I believe they
> could be much, much better.
>
>
> I do think the m4/3 format is good idea, and will be interested to see
> where that goes, but there is still a *huge* market for small superzooms
> with good high-iso performance. Some of the manufacturers have got the
> *lenses* up to scratch, now, how about fixing the bloody sensors by
> reversing this stupid MP race!!
4/3 is nice, but the more I think about it, the more an XSi is better for me
since I already have a few Canon lenses and accessories. No sense in getting
into a second system.
>
> As an analogy, how do you think a new *film* would succeed, if it was
> marketed as "the highest resolution colour film ever produced - better
> than Kodachrome 25 or Velvia", but they *neglected* to admit it had the
> grain of Konica 3200... Would it last?
I wouldn't use it...
Eric Stevens
I've still got my 707. Within it's limits, its a great camera. I still
use it.
Eric Stevens
Mark Thomas
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:39:43 -0500, BÔwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>
>> Loved my Sony 828, and hate the fact that Sony abandoned that form factor.
>
> use it.
The 707/717/828 series were brilliant. It was sad that the 828 got such
a bad rap over the purple-fringing because it was a non-issue in most
scenes and compared to other cameras of its day, it absolutely ran rings
around them. Had very good af speeds, and yep, the IR ability was a
bonus. I'll be buying a s-h one when the opportunity arises.
>> 4/3 is nice, but the more I think about it, the more an XSi is better for me
>> since I already have a few Canon lenses and accessories. No sense in getting
>> into a second system.
Fair enough. Again, I think 4/3 gets a bad rap in some respects - the
newer ones have good high-iso performance (far better than any p&s and
comparable to the bottom end dslrs), and Olympus glass is very nice.
The E520 twin lens kit is a stand out bargain for what you get.
But I shall procrastinate further until the first few m4/3s appear, and
then finally make a decision. I'm just not a Canon/Nikon sort of person,
so it will be between those and Sony or Pentax, I think.
RichA
"Steve" <st...@example.com> wrote in message
news:pr53j41tviotaaid4...@4ax.com...
People marketing to pixel-happy P&S retards will stop at 40, I'm sure of it.
RichA
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:c9kYk.9904$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like that
>> Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct now
>> with today's in-camera processing!)
>
> Purple fringing CA can't be removed like red/green CA in software. PF
> occurs all around bright contrasty areas & you have to do some tricky
> desaturating to minimise it.
What people don't seem to realize is that purple fringing is actually
diffused across the entire image, reducing contrast and effecting colour
fidelity. You can't just cut it off the edges, and when it is severe, it
bleeds into the subjects forming the edge. By the time you do enough to
reduce it at an edge, you've compromised the whole image. Better to get a
lens good enough to control it.
Shane Elon
Dear Resident-Troll,
Many (new & improved) 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 (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one
bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens
increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality
teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also
added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's
slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG
output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those
finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's
processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the
net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera
(downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any
in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more
powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture
achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs
suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters
work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular
fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for
far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera
which do not impart any chromatic aberration nor edge softness. When used with a
super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or
even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the
camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests
prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See
this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera
that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR
camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with
DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over
$6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the
extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those
longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR
investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a
DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc.
The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds
of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only
1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality
comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the
massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit +
accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit
would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large
tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger
DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some
of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent
results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, 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 pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to
pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is
that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any
shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off
some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity
of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the
case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster
than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's
duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to
1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S
cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any
of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive
slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions.
Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths
allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using
normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any
image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on
the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that
can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for
DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order
to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly.
When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your
highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user
is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image;
turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just
throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day,
after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with
something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love
these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with.
They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come
included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll
never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along.
They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that
all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's
difficult for them to face the truth.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
Walter Fess
What you and others might fail to realize is that you're a total idiot.
It is NOT "diffused across the entire image". Where'd you invent this nonsense?
And is NOT the lens that causes it, it's the sensor design. While you can
minimize it by using smaller apertures or longer zoom settings (making the
light-paths more perpendicular to the sensor's micro-lenses), it's not the lens
that is the culprit. The lens can exacerbate it but it is not the cause of it..
When you know your camera well enough and expose your scene properly you can
eliminate it entirely during all of your photography. But then, that's for
experts, not snapshooting amateurs that have it appear as a "diffused across the
entire image" effect. (I can't believe someone would even be stupid enough type
that nonsense.)
What digital-photography rock did you crawl out from under?
Paul Furman
No it's not the lens, it's the small sensor the poor lens is trying to
keep up with. You see the same purple fringing on 35mm cameras when
there's a super-fast lens trying to push the limits.
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> No it's not the lens, it's the small sensor the poor lens is trying to
>> keep up with. You see the same purple fringing on 35mm cameras when
>> there's a super-fast lens trying to push the limits.
>
> ...
> Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual
I'll take that as confirmation of my point.
Allen Smithee
news:c9kYk.9904$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like that
>> Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct now
>> with today's in-camera processing!)
> Purple fringing CA can't be removed like red/green CA in software. PF
> occurs all around bright contrasty areas & you have to do some tricky
> desaturating to minimise it.
I haven't experienced purple fringing myself only normal CA, so am only
talking theory here, but isn't that what 'defringe' does in ACR? I was
under the impression that this was for removing purple, red and magenta
fringing, for example around secular highlights?
Paul Heslop
I have a superzoom which has very bad fringing if contrast is high. I
used to use one of the defringe options in photoshop or paintshop on
my older camera but sometimes the fringing is so bad on this one that
using these methods actually leaves an obvious colourised or even grey
tone strip in the place of the fringe.
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Paul Furman
I have CS1 so maybe different but on the lens correction tab it has
red/cyan and blue/yellow CA adjustments which scale those channels till
they match up better. PF is a matter of the blue-violet color (and
sometimes green) being out of focus, not just misaligned in the XY
direction. When I shoot wide open with high contrast edges on some
super-fast or long/fast lenses I see PF and it's awfully hard to fix.
One solution is to just desaturate the blue channel, or that specific
color. PF on P&S is the same effect because they are pushing the limits
of those tiny optics. I assume stopping down helps but that'll give a
softer image due to diffraction. Newer better lenses are indeed better
though. Cheap cell phone camera images have a huge purple haze all over
them.
Allen Smithee
>>>> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like
>>>> that Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct
>>>> now with today's in-camera processing!)
>>> Purple fringing CA can't be removed like red/green CA in software. PF
>>> occurs all around bright contrasty areas & you have to do some tricky
>>> desaturating to minimise it.
>> I haven't experienced purple fringing myself only normal CA, so am only
>> talking theory here, but isn't that what 'defringe' does in ACR? I was
>> under the impression that this was for removing purple, red and magenta
>> fringing, for example around specular highlights?
> I have CS1 so maybe different but on the lens correction tab it has
> red/cyan and blue/yellow CA adjustments which scale those channels till
> they match up better. PF is a matter of the blue-violet color (and
> sometimes green) being out of focus, not just misaligned in the XY
> direction. When I shoot wide open with high contrast edges on some
> super-fast or long/fast lenses I see PF and it's awfully hard to fix. One
> solution is to just desaturate the blue channel, or that specific color.
> PF on P&S is the same effect because they are pushing the limits of those
> tiny optics. I assume stopping down helps but that'll give a softer image
> due to diffraction. Newer better lenses are indeed better though. Cheap
> cell phone camera images have a huge purple haze all over them.
With later versions of PS (I don't know what version they introduced it),
ACR also includes a de-fringe option in the lens correction tab. Here is an
example of it on and off (highlight edge only, image at 300% just to make it
easier to see):
De -fringe off:
http://i35.tinypic.com/2cf1i0.jpg
De-fringe on:
http://i36.tinypic.com/29nxezc.jpg
Of course, I'm not defending the problem as the least post production
correction required the better. Also, it's not something I've looked into
in any depth, so there maybe other problems like Paul Heslop mentioned.
TimOrt
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
nathan-cando
wrote:
>Allen Smithee wrote:
>>
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>> news:c9kYk.9904$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> >> If someone created a good, low noise 8Mp p&s camera with a lens like that
>> >> Zeiss 28-200 (that purple-fringing would be pretty easy to correct now
>> >> with today's in-camera processing!)
>>
>> > Purple fringing CA can't be removed like red/green CA in software. PF
>> > occurs all around bright contrasty areas & you have to do some tricky
>> > desaturating to minimise it.
>>
>> I haven't experienced purple fringing myself only normal CA, so am only
>> talking theory here, but isn't that what 'defringe' does in ACR? I was
>> under the impression that this was for removing purple, red and magenta
>> fringing, for example around secular highlights?
>
>I have a superzoom which has very bad fringing if contrast is high. I
>used to use one of the defringe options in photoshop or paintshop on
>my older camera but sometimes the fringing is so bad on this one that
>using these methods actually leaves an obvious colourised or even grey
>tone strip in the place of the fringe.
Any tools in untalented hands will always cause more destruction.
Cat Harris
>I have CS1
There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago that haven't
been improved since, to work with this century's editing needs that didn't
exist then. Would you use an abacus to help launch the space-shuttle too?
>so maybe different but on the lens correction tab it has
>red/cyan and blue/yellow CA adjustments which scale those channels till
>they match up better. PF is a matter of the blue-violet color (and
>sometimes green) being out of focus, not just misaligned in the XY
>direction. When I shoot wide open with high contrast edges on some
>super-fast or long/fast lenses I see PF and it's awfully hard to fix.
>One solution is to just desaturate the blue channel, or that specific
>color.
Only a rank amateur would do it that way.
Paul Heslop
ooh, bitchy :O)
The camera in question has an awful reputation, only I didn't find
that out til I had it in my paws. What I would have found was loads of
people pointing out the problems which I thought was just my one off
duff machine.
as for the defringing thingy it was really a kind of test which
failed, but hey, better to not try isn't it?
Just dug up a page which has some samples near the bottom, four in a
group, take a look at the guy in glasses and then the tree, but more
so the tree as it really is a good example of how bad it gets
http://www.digicamreview.co.uk/olympus_camedia_c725_review.htm
Paul Furman
That's red-blue chromatic aberration (CA). Maybe it's automatic in newer
versions but I have to adjust the sliders to do that. It makes a big
improvement, and a real improvement by re-aligning the colors.
> Of course, I'm not defending the problem as the least post production
> correction required the better. Also, it's not something I've looked
> into in any depth, so there maybe other problems like Paul Heslop
> mentioned.
>
>
>
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> I have CS1
>
> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago
It's only 3 or 4 years old.
>> so maybe different but on the lens correction tab it has
>> red/cyan and blue/yellow CA adjustments which scale those channels till
>> they match up better. PF is a matter of the blue-violet color (and
>> sometimes green) being out of focus, not just misaligned in the XY
>> direction. When I shoot wide open with high contrast edges on some
>> super-fast or long/fast lenses I see PF and it's awfully hard to fix.
>> One solution is to just desaturate the blue channel, or that specific
>> color.
>
> Only a rank amateur would do it that way.
Thanks for your helpful contribution. I've seen lots of different
approaches, haven't had a lot of need for it but your suggestion was
very helpful. Where I do have the need is wide open fast lenses & it's
spread out more than typical P&S PF.
lars_straffe
>_________ wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> I have CS1
>>
>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago
>
>It's only 3 or 4 years old.
>
Until this year the whole program was operating at only a 16-bit math level.
Most of it still is. Just because the program is only 3-4 years old doesn't mean
there's been any improvements in some of its basic tools. I haven't seen much
improvement in PS since v5.5. That was the last time they made enough
improvements in their software where it deserved a new version number. That was
over 8 years ago. By all rights CS4 should be called Photoshop v6.0.1.
How long did it take Corel to update their PSP filters to be able to deal with
16-bit depth color, 4 years, 5 years? Some of their filters still won't work on
16-bit color images. Truncating everything to 8-bit depth images when they are
used. Then people go merrily on their way, continuing to edit, never realizing
they lost 8x's the amount of data they first started with after having used one
of its 8-bit filters.
Think.
(I know that's difficult for you, but do try.)
lars_straffe
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:19:00 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>_________ wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> I have CS1
>>
>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago
>
>It's only 3 or 4 years old.
>
Until this year the whole program was operating at only a 16-bit math level.
Most of it still is. Just because the program is only 3-4 years old doesn't mean
there's been any improvements in some of its basic tools. I haven't seen much
improvement in PS since v5.5. That was the last time they made enough
improvements in their software where it deserved a new version number. That was
over 8 years ago. By all rights CS4 should be called Photoshop v6.0.1.
How long did it take Corel to update their PSP filters to be able to deal with
16-bit depth color, 4 years, 5 years? Some of their filters still won't work on
16-bit color images. Truncating everything to 8-bit depth images when they are
used. Then people go merrily on their way, continuing to edit, never realizing
they lost ***87.5% (7/8ths)*** the amount of data they first started with after
having used one of its 8-bit filters.
Think.
(I know that's difficult for you, but do try.)
>
Paul Furman
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:19:00 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>> _________ wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have CS1
>>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago
>> It's only 3 or 4 years old.
>
> Until this year the whole program was operating at only a 16-bit math level.
I don't even use 16 bit. If I need significant adjustments, those are
done in the raw conversion.
Ray Fischer
>_________ wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> I have CS1
>>
>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago
>
>It's only 3 or 4 years old.
You're responding to a known troll and liar.
Ignore it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:19:00 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>_________ wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have CS1
>>>
>>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago
>>
>>It's only 3 or 4 years old.
>>
>Until this year the whole program was operating at only a 16-bit math level.
A complete lie, but just the sort of lie we've come to expect from
this troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Replying_to_a_MORON
>lars_straffe wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:19:00 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>> _________ wrote:
>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have CS1
>>>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago
>>> It's only 3 or 4 years old.
>>
>> Until this year the whole program was operating at only a 16-bit math level.
>
>I don't even use 16 bit. If I need significant adjustments, those are
>done in the raw conversion.
That's 16-bit MATH you moron, not color bit-depth.
pat_kingsley
>Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>_________ wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have CS1
>>>
>>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago
>>
>>It's only 3 or 4 years old.
>
>You're responding to a known troll and liar.
>
>Ignore it.
Dear Resident-Troll,
Many (new & improved) 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.
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots you won't so easily alert
all those within a block around, by the obnoxious clattering noise that your
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
Paul Furman
Whatever, it doesn't matter for pictorial work. Can you illustrate an
example where it actually matters outside astro stuff?
Stephen Bishop
<p...@timefortrollkilling.org> wrote:
>On 01 Dec 2008 05:10:34 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>_________ wrote:
>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have CS1
>>>>
>>>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago
>>>
>>>It's only 3 or 4 years old.
>>
>>You're responding to a known troll and liar.
>>
>>Ignore it.
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
>Many (new & improved) 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.
>
Our troll is still showing signs of being educated beyond his
intelligence, just as some of those high pixel count p&s cameras have
far more pixels than their limited area can handle properly.
DSLRs are not immune to this, either. The D40 actually produces
better output by many standards of measure than the D40x, even though
the latter has a higher pixel count.
Stepen Bashop
Dear Resident-Troll,
SMS
> Using the G10 as an example do the majority of readers feel the MP war is
> over.
It may not be quite over. There could still be a move to lower noise
CMOS sensors (as in the G10) in lower priced P&S cameras. But even then,
they may not increase the resolution, choosing instead to decrease the
noise.
What we're seeing now is people owning multiple digital cameras. They
use a point and shoot when portability is of paramount importance, and a
D-SLR when image quality, shutter lag, and the need for longer or wider
lenses trumps portability.
ReplyForATroll
>measekite wrote:
>> Using the G10 as an example do the majority of readers feel the MP war is
>> over.
>
>It may not be quite over. There could still be a move to lower noise
>CMOS sensors (as in the G10) in lower priced P&S cameras. But even then,
>they may not increase the resolution, choosing instead to decrease the
>noise.
>
Resident Troll,
CMOS sensors are not less noisy, they're just faster. And often have more noise
due to so much of the sensor area being taken up with the required circuitry.
Do everyone a favor and actually educate yourself before parroting more
misinformation that you learned from equally stupid resident trolls in the past.
Now go crawl back under you rock until we need you to download a manual and look
up something for us. Try to refrain from entering any thread where you have to
actually use knowledge and think. You've proved time and again that that is
beyond your capabilities.
SMS
> People marketing to pixel-happy P&S retards will stop at 40, I'm sure of it.
What may bring some sanity back to the P&S resolution, at least at the
lower end, is the expense of doing 30fps video at the higher
resolutions. Canon has already run into this on their lower end A
series, i.e. look at the A590is versus the A570is. The A590 upped the
resolution slightly and simultaneously reduced the frame rate for video.
The G10 is rather insane. If not for the low-noise CMOS sensor it would
be horrible even at low-ISO, and it already does poorly at high-ISO.
As one reviewer wrote, "However, if you're a high ISO or low light
shooter, it's probably worth stepping up to a digital SLR (which,
incidentally, start at only $40 more than the G10)." Duh.
The problem for the G10 is that a) it's not all that small, b) it's
expensive, and c) it suffers from the usual P&S problems caused by the
small sensor and the contrast detect focusing. For not much more money
you can get a good D-SLR with two decent, image-stabilized, lenses. All
the experts agree that you're better off with a mid-range D-SLR than a
high end P&S like the G10.
ronny_druin
Dear Resident-Troll,
measekite
Then what if you want smaller and greater portability for less cash? And
you want to print 8x10 with some cropping and desire striking results. Is
it possible and how many MP should you look for>
measekite
> "measekite" <inkys...@oem.com> wrote in message
> news:nogYk.8523$Ei5....@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> Using the G10 as an example do the majority of readers feel the MP war is
>> over.
>>
>> It seems that as the sensor size remains (for the time being) fixed on
>> most of the point and shoot cameras the mfg has reached the limit on
>> increasing the MP while still improving image quality.
>>
>> At any ISO over the minimum (80/100) and in any light other than bright
>> high contrast light the image quality is becoming less and less. More and
>> more processing is being used to rid the image of noise translating to an
>> increase in artifacts and a reduction in sharpness. So while you have
>> more pixels for cropping and greater print sizes the real image quality
>> has not improved and much of the time is less.
>>
>> Now for those snapshooters who print 4x6 with very little cropping the
>> image quality is quite good but still will not look better than the
>> previous batch of camera a couple of years back even though the cameras
>> itself have more features and may be better.
>>
>> So what is the answer to getting better results. A 4/3 PS will be too
>> heavy and bulky but a larger sensor is needed. Maybe a sensor size
>> between the current PS and a 4/3 might be considered for cameras the size
>> of a Canon A series but for the smaller elph size cameras the MP count may
>> have reach its limit.
>>
>> So an A size series with a larger sensor and with an EVF might be the best
>> choice for a new generation of PS cameras. Also add an articulating LCD.
>> Now this needs to be smaller than the current long zoom EVF cameras like
>> the Canon S5 or SX10. Maybe the size of near a G10 but way less
>> expensive. Having RAW may be a benefit to some and not expensive to have
>> as standard on all cameras.
>>
>> So what you do think?
>
> I think the MP war just claimed another victim: me. I bought a G10 with high
> hopes, but image quality just isn't there. I'm dumping it and taking a long
> look at micro 4/3 for a smaller camera. I had hoped that even with higher
> noise the increase in resolution (pixel count) might produce better prints,
> but it does not. I compared an 8x10 of the same subject shot with a Sony 828
> and the G10, and the Sony produced better prints. I would have loved to see
> a G10 with a 2/3 8MP sensor, but it'll never happen. Damned shame, too. No
> more small sensor cameras for me.
measekite
Can you provide a little more detail in what was poor about the prints
from the G10?
Maybe they could come out with a 4/3 fixed lens or maybe scale down the
4/3 sensor to an even smaller body. Would you then get to print an 11x14
that can compete with a Canon or Nikon entry level DSLR?
SMS
> Then what if you want smaller and greater portability for less cash? And
> you want to print 8x10 with some cropping and desire striking results. Is
> it possible and how many MP should you look for>
You should look for a D-SLR, and redefine your idea of portability. The
high end P&S cameras still have smaller, noisier sensors than D-SLR
cameras in the same price range, so "less cash" is not an issue.
SMS
> Can you provide a little more detail in what was poor about the prints
> from the G10?
>
> Maybe they could come out with a 4/3 fixed lens or maybe scale down the
> 4/3 sensor to an even smaller body.
Not sure how much smaller than the Lumix G1 they could go, using a 4:3
sensor.
> Would you then get to print an 11x14
> that can compete with a Canon or Nikon entry level DSLR?
You're essentially asking for a D-SLR with non-interchangeable lenses.
This wouldn't reduce the manufacturing cost by much, and it would be
such a niche product that it would cost more than a high-volume D-SLR.
You're looking for a solution in search of a problem. There already
exists a way to get large prints, and removing "SLR" from the
description of the solution doesn't buy you anything.
ReyT-S
Dear Resident-Troll,
hugh_bilingsley
Dear Resident-Troll,
Stephen Bishop
<s...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 06:00:46 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:58:09 -0600, pat_kingsley
>><p...@timefortrollkilling.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On 01 Dec 2008 05:10:34 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>>>_________ wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have CS1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago
>>>>>
>>>>>It's only 3 or 4 years old.
>>>>
>>>>You're responding to a known troll and liar.
>>>>
>>>>Ignore it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>
Cute.
Brent_Cole
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
Stephen Bishop
Yet if you were to educate yourself as you suggest for others, you
would understand that it is much easier to control noise in a CMOS,
even though they inherently are more prone to noise than a CCD. That
is why Canon had such a head start in making low noise, high ISO
cameras. The proof in the real world is that cameras that use CMOS
sensors have lower noise than cameras that use CCD sensors.
Really, Vern, understanding what you say is far more important than
being able to look something up on Google.
But what is the point of all that if you don't show us your pictures
that demonstrate that you are the "real pro" you claim to be?
Oh, let me start your brilliant rebuttal for you. "Dear
Resident-Troll..."
carl-jamer
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:54:54 -0600, ReplyForATroll
><rf...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:40:58 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>measekite wrote:
>>>> Using the G10 as an example do the majority of readers feel the MP war is
>>>> over.
>>>
>>>It may not be quite over. There could still be a move to lower noise
>>>CMOS sensors (as in the G10) in lower priced P&S cameras. But even then,
>>>they may not increase the resolution, choosing instead to decrease the
>>>noise.
>>>
>>
>>Resident Troll,
>>
>>CMOS sensors are not less noisy, they're just faster. And often have more noise
>>due to so much of the sensor area being taken up with the required circuitry.
>>
>>Do everyone a favor and actually educate yourself before parroting more
>>misinformation that you learned from equally stupid resident trolls in the past.
>>
>>Now go crawl back under you rock until we need you to download a manual and look
>>up something for us. Try to refrain from entering any thread where you have to
>>actually use knowledge and think. You've proved time and again that that is
>>beyond your capabilities.
>
>
>Yet if you were to educate yourself as you suggest for others, you
>would understand that it is much easier to control noise in a CMOS,
>even though they inherently are more prone to noise than a CCD.
Oh no! Whatever will the resident-trolls do now? One virtual-photographer
resident-troll directly contradicting the other virtual-photographer SMS
resident-troll?
TROLL FIGHT! TROLL FIGHT!
> That
>is why Canon had such a head start in making low noise, high ISO
>cameras. The proof in the real world is that cameras that use CMOS
>sensors have lower noise than cameras that use CCD sensors.
>
>Really, Vern, understanding what you say is far more important than
>being able to look something up on Google.
>
Is that where you get all your photography experience from? Google?
It shows--loud and clear.
If it's on the net, it must be true, right?
If it looks like a professional web-site, they must be pros, right?
If 10,000,000 other people go there for their information then those must be
real facts, right? (Hint: popularity never equates to truth and reality. It just
happens to be whatever is the easiest for the greatest number of morons to
accept as truth. You know, people with low I.Q.s just like you.)
You just have to Google for all your photography knowledge because you've never
done any tests on your own to find out that more than half the web-pages on the
net are full of bullshit. Hell, you've never even touched a camera. Why do that
when you can just Google and pretend to be a photographer on usenet like SMS
does.
And now back to something less psychotic than armchair-photographer Stephen
Bishop and more P&S photography related:
Dear Resident-Troll,
Many (new & improved) 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.
rwalker
wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:11:12 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>Billy Vales wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>
>>>> No it's not the lens, it's the small sensor the poor lens is trying to
>>>> keep up with. You see the same purple fringing on 35mm cameras when
>>>> there's a super-fast lens trying to push the limits.
>>>
>>> Dear Resident-Troll,
>>> ...
>>> Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual
>>
>>
>>I'll take that as confirmation of my point.
>
>
Reading this newsgroup is much like walking around a barn yard. You
have to be careful or you will step in a cow pie. Here, they're
topped with "Dear Resident-Troll."
I'm still trying to find a good way to kill-file this idiot.
GianniZion
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
rwalker
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:54:37 -0500, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:39:43 -0600, TimOrt <t...@killingtrolls.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:11:12 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Billy Vales wrote:
>>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No it's not the lens, it's the small sensor the poor lens is trying to
>>>>>> keep up with. You see the same purple fringing on 35mm cameras when
>>>>>> there's a super-fast lens trying to push the limits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>>> ...
Gee, I wasn't expecting that.
fred williams
Dear Resident-Troll,
Paul Furman
>
> I'm still trying to find a good way to kill-file
Nfilter is working for me. I'm done reading them now.
--
TobiasRamsey
>rwalker wrote:
>>
>> I'm still trying to find a good way to kill-file
>
>Nfilter is working for me. I'm done reading them now.
Dear Resident-Troll,
rwalker
wrote:
>rwalker wrote:
>>
>> I'm still trying to find a good way to kill-file
>
>Nfilter is working for me. I'm done reading them now.
Thanks. I will give that a try.
dustin billings
Dear Resident-Troll,
rwalker
<d...@dslrtrollkillers.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:55:40 -0500, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:23:40 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>rwalker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm still trying to find a good way to kill-file
>>>
>>>Nfilter is working for me. I'm done reading them now.
>>
>>Thanks. I will give that a try.
>
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
>
Blow me.
Andre Lavelier
your homosexual fantasies ignored...
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that