If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|TROLL| 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:26:48 -0600, Izzy Sammath
wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:08:50 -0800, Paul Furman wrote: They can only be used effectively at one aperture to gain optimum use from them. Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame. Some people are revealing their ultimate ignorance and/or their ultimate self-deception. It is DSLR lenses that are only optimized for one f-stop, P&S lenses are optimized across the full f/stop spectrum. Due to the DSLR's larger lens size their physical diameters aren't figured as accurately. They are only figured as accurately as what the public will accept, due to the consumer's inability to test their lenses to any greater degree than their sensor's larger photo-site will allow.Please stop trying to display your financially-supported biases and your apparently obvious ignorance. You'd be surprised how much you reveal by your off-handed ignorant comments. Why don't you just post some of your pictures and put to rest the questions about your apparent lack of qualifications to make such blanket insults? |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|TROLL| 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:51:20 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:26:48 -0600, Izzy Sammath wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:08:50 -0800, Paul Furman wrote: They can only be used effectively at one aperture to gain optimum use from them. Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame. Some people are revealing their ultimate ignorance and/or their ultimate self-deception. It is DSLR lenses that are only optimized for one f-stop, P&S lenses are optimized across the full f/stop spectrum. Due to the DSLR's larger lens size their physical diameters aren't figured as accurately. They are only figured as accurately as what the public will accept, due to the consumer's inability to test their lenses to any greater degree than their sensor's larger photo-site will allow.Please stop trying to display your financially-supported biases and your apparently obvious ignorance. You'd be surprised how much you reveal by your off-handed ignorant comments. Why don't you just post some of your pictures and put to rest the questions about your apparent lack of qualifications to make such blanket insults? No need post my photos to prove what was stated above. Just look at the sample photos on this page: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml Now, compare how much CA is in the two images between the smaller sensor P&S camera and the larger sensor DSLR. Keep in mind that the sensor's pixels are much smaller on the smaller sensor. The angular distance of the CA on the DSLR lens is more than 6x's the amount of CA being produced by the P&S lens when you take their sensor's photo-site sizes into account. EASILY revealing that the optics of the P&S camera are resolving details 6X's better than a DSLR lens. Case closed. You shouldn't have asked for proof. There's more there than anyone would ever need. Now everyone can easily see what you didn't want them to see and what you didn't want them to believe. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)
"****ingTrolls" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:17:25 -0800, Paul Furman wrote: See figure 3 he http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html That's purple fringing: axial/longitudinal chromatic aberration. You only see it in super-fast lenses or cheap lenses in high contrast and in most all P&S with high contrast scenes. Oh dear, an insecure DSLR purchaser proposing a challenge. Let me find all the links that show even worse lateral CA on all DSLR lenses. Can you be any more lame? The same CA exists on ALL cameras. Rubbish. Another drunk who blames CA on the sensor!! A book on rudamentary optics isn't too expensive, Dover sells them cheap. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)
"andie-barns" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:22:55 -0500, "RichA" wrote: "Paul Furman" wrote in message news Jesus Rich, no wonder I've got you plonked in most of these groups. I have never commented like that before but come on... The one all-encompassing reason for buying a P&S is compactness. Everything else (including quality) comes second. I've heard it 100x in camera stores. Quality is second? You've not used many P&S cameras in the last 3 years, have you. Here's a quick recent example where the P&S quality far surpasses the DSLR. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml Just one of hundreds that prove the P&S has surpassed the DSLR, long ago. Catch up. Oh dear. Canon's known to be mediocre $100 kit lens and shots that completely lack any real dynamic range as "proof" of camera superiority? An Olympus E-420 and it's 14-42mm kit lens ($450) would crush all of them, in those configurations. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)
Well,On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:31:50 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:08:39 GMT, Steve wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:34 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote: This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...amera-rankings That site is furthering my decision that the next camera I get may be a D90 instead of a D300. I still have more research to do but it's looking more and more that way. Steve If I were buying a new camera today I would also seriously consider the D90. I was playing around with one in the store along with a couple of other sub-$1000 DSLR's and it really felt nice. Especially noticable was the huge, bright and beautiful viewfinder when compared to cameras like Canon's Rebel. No, I haven't done any exhaustive testing. Just operating them all in the store for comfort level. And it's nice. Steve |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:12:22 -0500, "RichA" wrote:
"andie-barns" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:22:55 -0500, "RichA" wrote: "Paul Furman" wrote in message news Jesus Rich, no wonder I've got you plonked in most of these groups. I have never commented like that before but come on... The one all-encompassing reason for buying a P&S is compactness. Everything else (including quality) comes second. I've heard it 100x in camera stores. Quality is second? You've not used many P&S cameras in the last 3 years, have you. Here's a quick recent example where the P&S quality far surpasses the DSLR. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml Just one of hundreds that prove the P&S has surpassed the DSLR, long ago. Catch up. Oh dear. Canon's known to be mediocre $100 kit lens and shots that completely lack any real dynamic range as "proof" of camera superiority? An Olympus E-420 and it's 14-42mm kit lens ($450) would crush all of them, in those configurations. Didn't you forget a little something? You have to add in all the glass you'd have to buy to cover a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range. Now how much does that DSLR cost you, one that can beat the SX10? $2000? $5000? Really, how much? Don't forget to tell us how much weight you're also going to have to carry around once you pay out the nose for all that glass. And all the missed shots while you're taking time to find the right one to attach to your camera. How come none of your lame dSLR-trolls ever want to answer these simple questions? :-) |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|TROLL| 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)
"Izzy Sammath" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:08:50 -0800, Paul Furman wrote: They can only be used effectively at one aperture to gain optimum use from them. Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame. Some people are revealing their ultimate ignorance and/or their ultimate self-deception. It is DSLR lenses that are only optimized for one f-stop, P&S lenses are optimized across the full f/stop spectrum. Due to the DSLR's larger lens size their physical diameters aren't figured as accurately. What a clueless dolt. Tell me, If I have two lenses, both 100mm f2.8, which one is larger, the P&S's or the DSLR's? |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|TROLL| 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)
"Colin.D" wrote in message ... Chris Malcolm wrote: In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul Furman wrote: Stephen Bishop wrote: Vern, CashTownsend wrote: Paul Furman wrote: Although some P&S lenses are quite good, none are f/1.8 or faster, most have purple fringing CA problems & there are no really wide recitilear options on P&S. You failed to read to what you are trying to refute. Already covered and disputed. Points #1, #2, etc. Purple fringing is a problem of ALL digital cameras. It is NOT caused by the lens, but by the sensor (are you actually this stupid?). Some DSLRs are worse in this regard than the better P&S cameras. Purple fringing is not just in the realm of P&S cameras. But only a moron would say something like that. Correction. The purple fringing that plagues most P&S cameras is rarely seen in dslrs. The problem is partly the sensor, which is made worse by the small size of the P&S version. The other part of the problem is the extremely short focal lengths of lenses on P&S cameras. It used to be believed that purple fringing was sensor blooming, maybe it is a part of how tiny pixels emphasize CA in the lens but mostly it is CA of the sort that you see is super-fast DSLR lenses, or cheap lenses. I thought that if the purple fringing was worst at the edges of the image, and worst at wide apertures, i.e. varied across the image in amount depending of how much refraction the light rays had gone through in their path through the lens, then it was refractive chromatic aberration. But if moving to the image centre and stopping down didn't reduce it in the appropriate proportion for refractive CA, then to that extent it was sensor blooming CA. CA on the edges of an image is caused by lateral CA, a condition caused by different colors causing different sized images on the film/sensor. axial, or longitudinal CA is caused by different colors coming to a different focus, so some colors will be out of focus when others are in focus. To some extent, lateral CA is correctable by software, as is pincushion and barrel distortion. Blooming is really light spill into adjacent pixels, usually happening only on bright or overexposed areas of the image. And it isn't @$@#!@ blue or red so I wish people would STOP calling LENS-induced CA "blooming." |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|TROLL| 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:46:47 -0500, "RichA" wrote:
"Izzy Sammath" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:08:50 -0800, Paul Furman wrote: They can only be used effectively at one aperture to gain optimum use from them. Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame. Some people are revealing their ultimate ignorance and/or their ultimate self-deception. It is DSLR lenses that are only optimized for one f-stop, P&S lenses are optimized across the full f/stop spectrum. Due to the DSLR's larger lens size their physical diameters aren't figured as accurately. What a clueless dolt. Tell me, If I have two lenses, both 100mm f2.8, which one is larger, the P&S's or the DSLR's? Is that actual focal length or 35mm equivalent? It matters. Or aren't you bright enough to know this. Probably not, or you would have known to included that important information that you left out of your question. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|TROLL| 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an OverpricedDSLR (minor typo corrections)
RichA wrote:
"Colin.D" wrote in message ... Chris Malcolm wrote: In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul Furman wrote: Stephen Bishop wrote: Vern, CashTownsend wrote: Paul Furman wrote: Although some P&S lenses are quite good, none are f/1.8 or faster, most have purple fringing CA problems & there are no really wide recitilear options on P&S. You failed to read to what you are trying to refute. Already covered and disputed. Points #1, #2, etc. Purple fringing is a problem of ALL digital cameras. It is NOT caused by the lens, but by the sensor (are you actually this stupid?). Some DSLRs are worse in this regard than the better P&S cameras. Purple fringing is not just in the realm of P&S cameras. But only a moron would say something like that. Correction. The purple fringing that plagues most P&S cameras is rarely seen in dslrs. The problem is partly the sensor, which is made worse by the small size of the P&S version. The other part of the problem is the extremely short focal lengths of lenses on P&S cameras. It used to be believed that purple fringing was sensor blooming, maybe it is a part of how tiny pixels emphasize CA in the lens but mostly it is CA of the sort that you see is super-fast DSLR lenses, or cheap lenses. I thought that if the purple fringing was worst at the edges of the image, and worst at wide apertures, i.e. varied across the image in amount depending of how much refraction the light rays had gone through in their path through the lens, then it was refractive chromatic aberration. But if moving to the image centre and stopping down didn't reduce it in the appropriate proportion for refractive CA, then to that extent it was sensor blooming CA. CA on the edges of an image is caused by lateral CA, a condition caused by different colors causing different sized images on the film/sensor. axial, or longitudinal CA is caused by different colors coming to a different focus, so some colors will be out of focus when others are in focus. To some extent, lateral CA is correctable by software, as is pincushion and barrel distortion. Blooming is really light spill into adjacent pixels, usually happening only on bright or overexposed areas of the image. And it isn't @$@#!@ blue or red so I wish people would STOP calling LENS-induced CA "blooming." Say what?? Where did I write anything about blue or red, or that blooming was lens-induced?? Perhaps you replied to the wrong post. Colin D. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections) | A REAL-Pro Photographer | Digital Photography | 313 | May 20th 09 02:14 PM |
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections) | A REAL-Pro Photographer | 35mm Photo Equipment | 250 | May 19th 09 03:35 PM |
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR | A REAL-Pro Photographer | Digital Photography | 3 | November 8th 08 01:36 AM |
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR | A REAL-Pro Photographer | Other Photographic Equipment | 3 | November 8th 08 01:36 AM |
25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR | A REAL-Pro Photographer | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | November 5th 08 08:10 AM |