On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:04:30 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

daveFaktor wrote:
John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:33 +1000, daveFaktor
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg
Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired
bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best!
Nonsense.
It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic
sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their
current (and future it world seem) technology.
Likewise nonsense.

Had you (1) an open mind and (2) bothered to look at the EXIF data, you
would have seen that this handheld image was actually a remarkable
achievement.


If you qualified that with "for a P&S" you might have gained some
credibility. The fact is John - and one you consistently fail to
recognise - is that just the miniature sensors in P&S cameras guarantee
a noisey picture. 3 or 4 other factors work against them producing low
noise images too.

There are some things a P&S can do that a DSLR is either hard pushed to
achieve or can't achieve at all but noise control is not one of them.
The only reason your camera can take a low light picture at all is the
extremely low shutter speeds you can use. We used to use FZ50
Panasonic's at 1/15th (hand held) for low light shots. There's examples
he
http://www.d-mac.info/previews/scott-katrina/

That doesn't mean I'd use one for action capture or critical work where
large prints are expected. Like this one. The canvas print is over six
feet wide. A totally impossible shot for a P&S.

http://www.d-mac.info/examples/HDRatdawn.htm


The size of a print depends on the resolution of the original image, and
there are plenty of 10mp P&S cameras that can supply data to a large
print. So what is the resolution of the camera you used?


Wrong-o, simpleton moron beginner gear-head ( = not a photographer). The
printable size of the image depends solely on the content and subject
matter. It has very little to nothing to do with the resolution of the
camera's image. You'll figure it out, someday. Maybe. Probably not.

Tell me, just how large can you print an eye-catchingly beautiful
mist-shrouded water-scene from a 5 megapixel camera when using adequate
upsampling interpolation, before the viewer will ever notice?

Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron.


How large can you upsample and print a strong composition of bold
geometrics from a 1 megapixel camera before the viewer ever notices?

Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron.


How large can you upsample and print a tight-shot of the assassination of
some world-loved political leader when taken with a 3 megapixel camera?

Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron.


Content means EVERYTHING.