From Canon EOS 600D to a new mirror-less Canon camera body?

[Bengt_T]

My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.

I am considering to invest in a new mirror less Canon camera body than can use my present set of lenses. For initial selection I kindly ask for guidance in which body, or bodies, to "investigate".

[Incubus]

On 2021-10-12, Bengt_T <bengt_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.
>
> I am considering to invest in a new mirror less Canon camera body than can use my present set of lenses. For initial selection I kindly ask for guidance in which body, or bodies, to "investigate".

Canon's sensors are seriously lacking in dynamic range. I'd ditch the
whole lot and go with a full frame Nikon.

[David Taylor]

On 13/10/2021 10:31, Incubus wrote:
> Canon's sensors are seriously lacking in dynamic range. I'd ditch the
> whole lot and go with a full frame Nikon.

All that full-frame kit is too big and too heavy. When I "ditched the whole
lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.

Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always
have with me!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[Incubus]

On 2021-10-13, David Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/10/2021 10:31, Incubus wrote:
>> Canon's sensors are seriously lacking in dynamic range. I'd ditch the
>> whole lot and go with a full frame Nikon.
>
> All that full-frame kit is too big and too heavy.

Are you a pygmy?

> When I "ditched the whole
> lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
> quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.

I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.

> Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always
> have with me!

I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
video.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmdlpr....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> video.

there's no requirement that it be used.

[David Taylor]

On 13/10/2021 13:55, Incubus wrote:
> Are you a pygmy?
>
>> When I "ditched the whole
>> lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
>> quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
> I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.
>
>> Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always
>> have with me!
> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> video.

Probably compared to many people I am rather small, but I don't have a car so
anywhere I go (these days?) I have to carry my kit with me. Weight matters!

You would be surprised how low a light level modern phones can shoot, certainly
below naked eye visibility. Automatically takes and stacks exposures up to a
minute.

I take photos for personal interest - not for sale, and I don't have a studio
setup. The micro-four-thirds is easily capable of studio-quality work, though.

[RJH]

On 13 Oct 2021 at 14:23:28 BST, "David Taylor"

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> On 13/10/2021 13:55, Incubus wrote:
>> Are you a pygmy?
>>
>>> When I "ditched the whole
>>> lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
>>> quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
>> I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.
>>
>>> Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always
>>> have with me!
>> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
>> video.
>
> Probably compared to many people I am rather small, but I don't have a car so
> anywhere I go (these days?) I have to carry my kit with me. Weight matters!
>

Absolutely - a DSLR and a few lenses can easily top 5kg. I'd be surprised if
my micro 4/3 and 2 basic lenses are more than 1kg. Whatever, it's a big reason
why I don't use my DSLR any more . . .

> You would be surprised how low a light level modern phones can shoot, certainly
> below naked eye visibility. Automatically takes and stacks exposures up to a
> minute.

The iphone 12 takes some astonishing night time photos - picking out detail I
can't see.

--
Cheers, Rob

[Incubus]

It does add extra cost and weight, though.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmdtci....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> >> video.
> >
> > there's no requirement that it be used.
>
> It does add extra cost and weight, though.

video capabilities in an slr adds *zero* weight or cost. it's entirely
in firmware and nothing more than an extension of live view that saves
to a file.

for phones, there is a non-zero cost to adding a camera when there
would otherwise not be one, but a phone without a camera would not
sell, so it's a must-have feature. the added weight is negligible. the
issue with recent phones is thickness.

[Incubus]

On 2021-10-13, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <slrnsmdtci....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
>> >> video.
>> >
>> > there's no requirement that it be used.
>>
>> It does add extra cost and weight, though.
>
> video capabilities in an slr adds *zero* weight or cost. it's entirely
> in firmware and nothing more than an extension of live view that saves
> to a file.

It's a feature that requires additional testing, which has an overhead.
The research and design also increases overheads, particularly if a
camera manufacturer decides to use a more expensive sensor so that more
resolution is available with video. Additionally, it requires a fast
enough buffer for writing.

> for phones, there is a non-zero cost to adding a camera when there
> would otherwise not be one, but a phone without a camera would not
> sell, so it's a must-have feature. the added weight is negligible. the
> issue with recent phones is thickness.

A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
feature. People really are strange.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsme0ft....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> >> >> video.
> >> >
> >> > there's no requirement that it be used.
> >>
> >> It does add extra cost and weight, though.
> >
> > video capabilities in an slr adds *zero* weight or cost. it's entirely
> > in firmware and nothing more than an extension of live view that saves
> > to a file.
>
> It's a feature that requires additional testing, which has an overhead.

the overhead is negligible. live view is already there, so all they
need to do is save the data stream to a file and add a few menu items.

> The research and design also increases overheads, particularly if a
> camera manufacturer decides to use a more expensive sensor so that more
> resolution is available with video. Additionally, it requires a fast
> enough buffer for writing.

buffers are big for other purposes, namely number of stills before
locking up.

> > for phones, there is a non-zero cost to adding a camera when there
> > would otherwise not be one, but a phone without a camera would not
> > sell, so it's a must-have feature. the added weight is negligible. the
> > issue with recent phones is thickness.
>
> A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
> feature. People really are strange.

it's a very useful feature. just used it minutes ago, in fact.

[Alfred Molon]

Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
> A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
> feature. People really are strange.

It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.

My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[Savageduck]

On Oct 13, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article<slrnsmdtci....@localhost.localdomain>):

Video adds extra “weight”!??

Your understanding of added functions in modern digital cameras seems to be either distorted, or lacking. Explain yourself sir!

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[-hh]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:36:36 AM UTC-4, RJH wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2021 at 14:23:28 BST, "David Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 13/10/2021 13:55, Incubus wrote:
> >> Are you a pygmy?
> >>
> >>> When I "ditched the whole
> >>> lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
> >>> quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
> >>
> >> I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.

Nah, there’s also techniques too. We did that for an ad hoc night photo taken
with an iPhone5 which came out so well that we ended up using it for the 4x6
in our Christmas card that year.

> >>> Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera
> >>> I always have with me!
> >>
> >> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> >> video.
> >
> > Probably compared to many people I am rather small, but I don't have a car so
> > anywhere I go (these days?) I have to carry my kit with me. Weight matters!
> >
> Absolutely - a DSLR and a few lenses can easily top 5kg. I'd be surprised if
> my micro 4/3 and 2 basic lenses are more than 1kg. Whatever, it's a big reason
> why I don't use my DSLR any more . . .

It’s invariably a capability trade-off. My long reach system is ~12lbs (5.5kg) unpacked,
and it’s partner is +6lbs more. Another system is IIRC around 8kg unpackaged and
when packaged for transport is a shade over 20kg…oh, and these were chosen to be
APS systems, to not be as big/bulky/heavy as a FF.

> > You would be surprised how low a light level modern phones can shoot, certainly
> > below naked eye visibility. Automatically takes and stacks exposures up to a
> > minute.
>
> The iphone 12 takes some astonishing night time photos - picking out detail I
> can't see.

Indeed; recent developments have been pretty profound…

…and FYI, I’m interested in the same question as the OP: what mirrorless
noises would be good to compliment my pile of Canon EF glass that I’m not
particularly inclined to flip to another brand without huge justification?

-hh

[-hh]

Perhaps he’s referring to all of the extra widgets that one ends up buying to also do video…

…but these are offset by the lighter wallet! <g>

-hh

[Incubus]

On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
>> A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
>> feature. People really are strange.
>
> It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.
>
> My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
> exclusively user her phone to take pictures.

There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
telephone.

[-hh]

Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".

The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, are
a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.


-hh

[Incubus]

It depends on one's perspective. Personal convenience comes at a
broader cost but most people are sheep who know nothing about
technology.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> telephone.

such as?

[Whisky-dave]

if you're stupid or clumse you keep taking pictures of your ear while talking on the phone. ;-)

[-hh]

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 7:02:33 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:

Of course there's trade-offs, but the point still stands that "any" pic is better
than "no" pic, because the very first requirement is to have a recording device.

Thus, the "have it with you" that I mentioned, which is referring to Chase Jarvis's
2009 book, "The Best Camera: Is the One That's With You".

FYI, if you're not familiar with Mr. Jarvis, try reading his Wiki page:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_Jarvis#Awards_and_recognition>

Since he said that back in 2009, the advancements in underlying technologies
have enabled even smartphone cameras to reliably produce better quality images
than a full frame 35mm film camera's general capability, at a fraction of the cost,
weight, and size. It doesn't effectively matter that there's even better digital SLRs
that have pushed the limits higher, because that's often chasing niche or edge
cases: a technology only needs to be good enough for the primarily intended
applications, and for this criteria, smartphones have already demonstrated that
they surpass this 'good enough for the intended use' criteria for many applications.

Is it all applications? Of course not. But then again, there's also no full frame dSLR
camera that's able to do everything without needing hardware modifications such
as changing lenses, so this is a disingenuous criteria to try to selectively apply.

-hh

[Whisky-dave]

On Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 20:08:44 UTC+1, Bengt_T wrote:
> My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.
>
> I am considering to invest in a new mirror less Canon camera body than can use my present set of lenses. For initial selection I kindly ask for guidance in which body, or bodies, to "investigate".

I bought a canon ESO M6 MkII that I'm really happy with, but you'll need EF-EOS M mount adapter to use
the EF and EF-S, lenes.

I bought the 'kit' which was the body + lens + electronic viewfinder that attches to the hot-shoe.
Because of it's small size it can fit in a jacket pocket without too many issues or take the lens off which is far smaller than the one that came with the M3 I had previously.
I was presently suprised at how good the electronic viewfinder was no noticable lag and have used it more than I
thought I would.

[Whisky-dave]

Technology should be transparent to the user unless they have an interest in the technology.

[Incubus]

The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
consumer.

[-hh]

So claimed the horse buggy whip manufacturers ... /s


-hh

[Savageduck]

On Oct 14, 2021, Whisky-dave wrote
(in article<326e928a-3060-4c7d...@googlegroups.com>):

Worse! Shooting video in portrait orientation.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[Bill W]

On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article<slrnsmgcgj....@localhost.localdomain>):

Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmgcgj....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> >> telephone.
> >
> > such as?
>
> The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
> consumer.

what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
before.

[Whisky-dave]

Yeah that is bad, keep telling my facebook friends not to do it.
There's a very few occaions when it's OK, but normally it looks crap and annoying.

[Incubus]

People don't know what they want. They love being sold to. Some people
actually looked forward to digital television despite it being vastly
inferior to PAL (even HD is a joke). People buy DAB radios where the
quality is like an MP3 from the '90s and most of the stations broadcast
in mono. They want to share photos of their food on Facebook and
Instagram rather than learning photography. You respect their "choices"
far more than I.

[Incubus]

On 2021-10-14, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Lack of competition from camera brands as they go bust. Emphasis on bad
photos from camera 'phones.

[Bill W]

On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote

(in article<slrnsmgm1k....@localhost.localdomain>):

I guess I come up short in the arrogance department. We should all strive to
be more like you, and to know what others really need and want better than
they do.

[Incubus]

We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
quality.

[Alfred Molon]

The development of the camera market is similar to the rise and decline
of high end audio ("high fidelity").

For some time in the 1980s and 1990s people were spending significant
money on high end audio systems and every household was supposed to have
a "Hi-Fi system" in the living room.

Nowadays all music comes from smartphones and wireless earbuds / earphones.

It's the same for cameras. Obviously a 100MP MF camera will deliver
superb quality, but for most people a 12MP shot from a smartphone is
good enough.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmgmng....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> >> >> telephone.
> >> >
> >> > such as?
> >>
> >> The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
> >> consumer.
> >
> > what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
> > before.
>
> Lack of competition from camera brands as they go bust. Emphasis on bad
> photos from camera 'phones.

there's plenty of competition. nothing prevents nikon or canon from
doing what apple and google are doing.

[nospam]

In article <yrZ9J.678165$QHsf....@fx12.ams1>, Alfred Molon

<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The development of the camera market is similar to the rise and decline
> of high end audio ("high fidelity").

it's not similar at all.

high end audio is nothing more than snake oil designed to separate
people from their money.

cameras just keep on getting better.

the only 'snake oil' camera is sigma/foveon, which is pure rubbish.
actually, that's an insult to rubbish.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmgnp1....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
> quality.

top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

[Bill W]

On Oct 14, 2021, Alfred Molon wrote
(in article <yrZ9J.678165$QHsf....@fx12.ams1>):

> Nowadays all music comes from smartphones and wireless earbuds / earphones.

All?

[Fishrrman]

On 10/12/21 3:08 PM, Bengt_T wrote:
> My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.

Which lenses do you have?
Are they all EF-s?
Or any EF's (non-s)?

[Bengt_T]

My lenses are all EF-S lenses.

[Incubus]

On 2021-10-14, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

[Incubus]

On 2021-10-14, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com> wrote:

I use a Sony Discman with professional wired headphones.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
> >> quality.
> >
> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
>
> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

broadcast tv isn't the only source.

[Incubus]

It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
the appalling standard of broadcast television.

[Whisky-dave]

And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
pay for it.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmihu7....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and
> >> >> image
> >> >> quality.
> >> >
> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
> >>
> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
> >
> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
>
> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
> and soon 8K

bluray is obsolete.

buy/rent movies or create your own 4k/8k hdr content, including via a
phone.

> but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
> the appalling standard of broadcast television.

again, broadcast tv is not the only source, and it will change to
support higher quality anyway.

[Incubus]

We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
of the content you fucking div.

[Incubus]

On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <slrnsmihu7....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and
>> >> >> image
>> >> >> quality.
>> >> >
>> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
>> >>
>> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
>> >
>> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
>>
>> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
>> and soon 8K
>
> bluray is obsolete.

Really? There are shelves full of BluRay films in HMV.

> buy/rent movies or create your own 4k/8k hdr content, including via a
> phone.
>
>> but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
>> the appalling standard of broadcast television.
>
> again, broadcast tv is not the only source, and it will change to
> support higher quality anyway.

It's ironic that moving to digital has put us years behind in terms of
broadcast quality. It didn't have to be that way.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmj3nc....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and
> >> >> >> image
> >> >> >> quality.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
> >> >
> >> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
> >>
> >> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
> >> and soon 8K
> >
> > bluray is obsolete.
>
> Really?

really.

> There are shelves full of BluRay films in HMV.

they aren't selling very many.

very few people want to fuss with discs versus a couple of taps to
stream just about any movie ever made, especially for movies they only
want to watch once.

<https://fm-static.cnbc.com/awsmedia/chart/2019/11/08/VIDEO%20MARKET.157
3232240621.png>

> > buy/rent movies or create your own 4k/8k hdr content, including via a
> > phone.
> >
> >> but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
> >> the appalling standard of broadcast television.
> >
> > again, broadcast tv is not the only source, and it will change to
> > support higher quality anyway.
>
> It's ironic that moving to digital has put us years behind in terms of
> broadcast quality. It didn't have to be that way.

broadcast tv is yet another thing that's obsolete.

most people watch cable tv or more commonly, via the internet.

[Fishrrman]

On 10/15/21 3:39 AM, Bengt_T wrote:
> My lenses are all EF-S lenses.

They will work on an R-series camera with the Canon
adapters... BUT...

... the images will be "cropped" automatically. This will
result in a loss of pixels.

For example, the EOS R (which I have) is nominally 30mp, but
when I use one of my EF-s lenses, the resulting cropped
image is about 10mp.

Still usable, but definitely "less to work with".

If you were to get the EOS R5, however, the resulting images
would be around 18mp in size. However, if one is going to
spend the $$$$ for the R5, I would think one might also buy
either R-series lenses or trade in the EF-s glass for EF
(non "s") glass...

[Whisky-dave]

And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.
If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.

[Incubus]

We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.

[Whisky-dave]

So you want to go back to 405 lines why.

I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and everything worked.

[Incubus]

405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmtf7j....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
> >
> >
> > So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
> >
> > I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
> > If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
> > everything worked.
>
> 405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.

nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
resolution.

[Incubus]

Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmtga3....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?

pal/ntsc is significantly inferior. it's not even close.

[Incubus]

On 2021-10-19, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL. BluRay looks
nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmtgs6....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >> >> >> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
> >> >> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
> >> >> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
> >> >> > If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
> >> >> > everything worked.
> >> >>
> >> >> 405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
> >> >> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
> >> >
> >> > nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
> >> > better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
> >> > resolution.
> >>
> >> Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
> >
> > did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
>
> Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.

you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.

> BluRay looks
> nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
> discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.

broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.

[Incubus]

On 2021-10-19, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <slrnsmtgs6....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> >> >> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
>> >> >> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
>> >> >> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
>> >> >> > If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
>> >> >> > everything worked.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
>> >> >> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
>> >> >
>> >> > nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
>> >> > better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
>> >> > resolution.
>> >>
>> >> Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
>> >
>> > did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
>>
>> Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.
>
> you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.

Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression.

>
>> BluRay looks
>> nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
>> discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.
>
> broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.

I'm not measuring the quality of a display. I'm measuring the quality
of broadcast.

[Whisky-dave]

Make up your mind, if you have one.

"Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression."

but what exactly do you mean by "the quality of broadcast"

sre you refering to showing shakespeare and comparing that to 2 1/2 men ?

[nospam]

In article <slrnsmtiou....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus

<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
> >> >
> >> > did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
> >>
> >> Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.
> >
> > you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.
>
> Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression.

no it isn't.

> >
> >> BluRay looks
> >> nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
> >> discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.
> >
> > broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.
>
> I'm not measuring the quality of a display. I'm measuring the quality
> of broadcast.

digital broadcast tv is much better than ntsc/pal, which are close
enough to be considered the same, especially when compared to the newer
and higher quality standards.