25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)

On 21 Nov 2008 11:33:04 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Stephen Bishop wrote:
This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...amera-rankings

Notice how when tested according to real-world conditions, even the
best p&s cameras fall FAR short of even the cheapest dslrs.

Except of course those with large sensors. Which is why some people
prefer not to call them P&S cameras, because you can't sneer at their
quality. But they're not DSLRs. So they sometimes get called "bridge"
cameras, because while not being DSLRs, they move into DSLR image
quality territory. Having large sensors, they're also not compact. But
there's nothing in the P&S concept which necessarily entails
compactness, just as there's nothing in the DSLR concept which
necessarily involves a large sensor. It just so happens that most
DSLRs are big and have big sensors, and most P&S cameras are small and
have small sensors.

When you try to categorize cameras, you come up with a term like P&S
that most people understand to be something small, lightweight, that
you can carry in your pocket.

When you start adding bridge cameras to the P&S "category", then you
might as well include DSLRs since my DSLR *is* just as much a P&S (in
auto mode) as any bridge camera or even a pocket size P&S.

Instead of P&S vs. DSLR, It might be smarter to categorize them as
either interchangeable lens vs. fixed lens and non-conspicuously
carried in a pocket vs. doesn't fit so well in a pocket. Then things
are more clear what you're talking about except for the couple of
exceptions like the G1, which has interchangeable lenses but a smaller
sensor size.

So a bridge camera would be fixed lens/doesn't fit so well in a
pocket.

Bridge cameras are ok for people who are disgusted with the
performance of their pocket sized P&S and don't care enough about the
higher image quality and creativity enabling properties (like more
control over DOF at more focal lenghts) of a DSLR yet only want a
single camera. For me, I don't mind having two cameras ... a true
pocket size P&S that I can always have with me AND a DSLR for when I
don't mind the extra burden for the extra image quality and creative
abilities.

While every camera is a set of compromises, a bridge camera is just
too much so for me. You don't get all the benefits of a DSLR (larger
sensor, interchangable lenses, etc.) and it's not enough smaller than
the small DSLRs to make all that much of a difference in terms of
portability.

Steve

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:34 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:31:50 -0600, andie-barns
wrote:

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.


This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...amera-rankings

Notice how when tested according to real-world conditions, even the
best p&s cameras fall FAR short of even the cheapest dslrs.




Too bad you've been citing them as a source. There's a lengthy discussion at
dpreview where they found all kinds of huge errors in DxO's tests and proved it.

You'll learn. (no, that's impossible, someone like you is incapable of learning)

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

You're going to feel so stupid when you find out what some folks at dpreview
have found out about their tests.

(this is getting more and more funny)

But then, you net-trolls never could see facts from fiction.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:14:41 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:28:08 -0600, Seth Thomas
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:06:41 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

Jesus Rich, no wonder I've got you plonked in most of these groups.
I have never commented like that before but come on...


Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:


This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...amera-rankings

Notice how when tested according to real-world conditions, even the
best p&s cameras fall FAR short of even the cheapest dslrs.



LOL!! Wait until you find out. LOL!

Yep, funnier and funnier.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:07:09 +1300, "Colin.D" wrote:

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. It is worse with
small sensors and very small pixel dimensions, a major drawback of
compact or P&S cameras with sensors smaller than your little fingernail.

Colin D.

Correction: It *can* be worse, but isn't always worse on smaller sensors. It has
to do with the sensor design. That is different from sensor to sensor, large or
small. I've seen worse blooming on some DSLRs than on the P&Ss that I bought and
use. You shouldn't make ignorant generalizations, it makes all your information
look suspect.

robert calter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:07:09 +1300, "Colin.D" wrote:

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. It is worse with
small sensors and very small pixel dimensions, a major drawback of
compact or P&S cameras with sensors smaller than your little fingernail.

Colin D.

Correction: It *can* be worse, but isn't always worse on smaller sensors. It has
to do with the sensor design. That is different from sensor to sensor, large or
small. I've seen worse blooming on some DSLRs than on the P&Ss that I bought and
use. You shouldn't make ignorant generalizations, it makes all your information
look suspect.


Quote: "You shouldn't make ignorant generalizations, it makes all your
information look suspect."

Remarks like that characterize the sender as just a smartarse scoring
points off snide, put-down comments. Such remarks label the sender as
an ignorant, pompous idiot more intent on putting their point across
than in propagating truthful information.

You have just outed yourself as one of these know-nothing cretins.


Colin D.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:05:45 +1300, "Colin.D" wrote:

robert calter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:07:09 +1300, "Colin.D" wrote:

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. It is worse with
small sensors and very small pixel dimensions, a major drawback of
compact or P&S cameras with sensors smaller than your little fingernail.

Colin D.

Correction: It *can* be worse, but isn't always worse on smaller sensors. It has
to do with the sensor design. That is different from sensor to sensor, large or
small. I've seen worse blooming on some DSLRs than on the P&Ss that I bought and
use. You shouldn't make ignorant generalizations, it makes all your information
look suspect.


Quote: "You shouldn't make ignorant generalizations, it makes all your
information look suspect."

Remarks like that characterize the sender as just a smartarse scoring
points off snide, put-down comments. Such remarks label the sender as
an ignorant, pompous idiot more intent on putting their point across
than in propagating truthful information.

You have just outed yourself as one of these know-nothing cretins.


Colin D.

"ignorant generalizations" -- Generalizations based on a lack of adequate
information.

Your overcompensating defensiveness to such an innocuous comment reveals much
about the depth of your insecurities. Most likely based on someone having proved
your ignorance about the topic, a blindness of yours which you'd rather that
nobody knew about.

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.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:39:14 -0600, thomas-paynes
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

You're going to feel so stupid when you find out what some folks at dpreview
have found out about their tests.

(this is getting more and more funny)

But then, you net-trolls never could see facts from fiction.

Of course, dpreview exists to support the camera industry, just like
the amateur photo magazines. Take their results with a huge grain of
salt.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:34:11 -0600, AlbertW
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:34 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:31:50 -0600, andie-barns
wrote:

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.


This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...amera-rankings

Notice how when tested according to real-world conditions, even the
best p&s cameras fall FAR short of even the cheapest dslrs.




Too bad you've been citing them as a source. There's a lengthy discussion at
dpreview where they found all kinds of huge errors in DxO's tests and proved it.

You'll learn. (no, that's impossible, someone like you is incapable of learning)

Just because you've seen it online or heard people discussing it
doesn't make it true.

There is discussion at dpreview because people are upset that their
favorite camera didn't rate higher than it did. That's all it is,
equipment worshippers rather than photographers.

Speaking of which, where are your pictures that demonstrate your
expertise?