DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:08:42 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:00:32 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
[]
The Olympus E-10 featured focus by wire that worked quite well over
6 years ago, and would be even better with current or more advanced
technology. Zoom by wire would even be easier, since zoom is less
critical.

So why didn't they?

Good question. I'm guessing there were practical lens design limits.

Or perhaps there was simply no need (whereas having motorised focus does
allow auto-focus).

Depends on what you mean by "need" -- there are other things that can be
optimized with motorized design, as I've described previously.

Either way, it's just speculation.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Fair enough: The issue only affects one-touch zooms and crappy
two-touch zooms.

another insult.

I didn't say anything about you, only about the patently crappy lens
design. It's a cheap non-OEM lens, right?

oem lens.

I've never seen a good OEM
lens with such a serious defect.

so because you've never seen it, it doesn't exist? i get it.

ironically, one 'cheap crappy non-oem zoom' lens i happen to have from
over 20 years ago and no longer use is one of the one-touch zooms i own
which *doesn't* creep.

don't i recall you saying somethign about generalizations being wrong?
why yes, i do.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

i will assume that since you are avoiding the question, no such camera
exists. if that's an incorrect assumption, feel free to cite the model
(or models) so that i (and others) can fairly evaluate it.

How childish.

nothing childish about it.

as i've stated before, i am not convinced that a powered zoom is
better, and perhaps after seeing the camera which you describe, i will
be convinced.

what are you hiding?

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:06:26 -0800, nospam wrote:

In article , John Navas
wrote:

perhaps i missed it among the hundreds and hundreds of posts. which
camera is it, that is available today, has the servo system you
describe?

I didn't say that.

um, i'm *asking* you what you said, because i may have missed it in all
of these lengthy threads.

No you're not -- you're arguing for the sake of argument.

another incorrect assumption.

i will assume that since you are avoiding the question, no such camera
exists. if that's an incorrect assumption, feel free to cite the model
(or models) so that i (and others) can fairly evaluate it.

Now that's rich. If any one of these resident-trolls ever got near a real camera
they probably wouldn't even be able to recognize the 3D version of what they've
only seen in photos their whole lives. Just set down any camera at an angle
that's not been seen in any reviews and they'd not even know it was there.

On Nov 23, 7:40 pm, John Navas wrote:
Here's a John Navas image:
http://img113.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ilteredex6.jpg
To see the full version, *click on it*. Then examine the 'detail'
around the tower and cables poking out of the fog...
For comparison and further example of typical prosumer quality, here's
an image from one of my prosumers (Oly C8080, 8Mp):
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/brisbane_morn.jpg
It's still quite soft, but (imo of course!) has less noise and little
in the way of artefacts. It's just 'OK' - not great, especially if
printed beyond 11"x8".
Totally different image.

Well, duh. But it was shot in similar light levels to most of your
samples. It isn't great, but it runs rings around yours. If you
can't spot the difference, then that shows your quality standards.

And finally, here's an image that was taken on a DSLR (courtesyScott
W):
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89240657/original
Totally different image.

Well duh again. It simply shows the pixel-by-pixel detail of an SLR.
Makes both yours *and* mine look like mush. Post one of yours at that
size, and anywhere near that sharp. Oh wait, you think your image
*was* that sharp.... Enough said.

John thinks his image is *better* than that last one, and that it
prints 'excellently" at A3 (~11"x17").
I said nothing of the kind.

Bull****. Here's the quotes. *You* posted them.
First:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
From: John Navas
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:01:14 GMT
Subject: San Francisco Bay Fog

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:52:10 -0800 (PST), wrote
And finally, here's an image that was taken on a DSLR:
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89240657/original
John thinks his image is as good as that

It's actually better.

I repeat, *you* said "It's actually better". That would make you a
liar. No insult - statement of fact.

Here's the second quote:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
From: John Navas
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:49:43 GMT
Subject: Excellent A3 prints from small sensors too!
I can happily get excellent A3 prints from my 7.2 MP FZ8.

So aren't all those images from your FZ8? Aren't you pushing that
your FZ8 is as good or better than a DSLR? If so, why isn't it fair
to compare images?

Anyway, you're happy with what you have, so goodonya.

But don't lie, don't talk crap, and try to accept that others have
higher standards than you (and clearly, better vision). Then you
might find a lot less people have a go at you.

You also might want to note that the vast majority of your supporters
are all the same troll...

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:38:56 -0800, nospam wrote:

so because you've never seen it, it doesn't exist? i get it.

So because you've never seen a well implemented by-wire zoom mechanism on a P&S
camera, means it doesn't exist?

So because you've never seen a P&S camera that does better than most dSLRs,
means it doesn't exist?

So because you don't know how to use an LCD nor EVF to greater advantage than an
OVF, means it doesn't exist?

So because you've never seen (insert any of nospam's anti-P&S trolls), means it
doesn't exist?

I get it.


****'n MORON! Holy ****'n ****! Do they get any more idiotic than nospam? I
don't think that's possible!!

So because you've never run into anyone as ignorant and stupid and pathetic and
trollish as "nospam" before, doesn't mean they exist?

I won't hold my breath trying to find them.

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On 23 Nov 2007 01:06:12 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
SMS ???. ?
Neil Harrington wrote:

I haven't seen it on any new laptop, including any the ones I've
bought over
the last three or four years. IIRC Toshiba used to use the little blue
button thingy, and they don't now.

Dell still has it on some business notebooks, such as the D630. It was
also on the D620. They are going after the users that will no longer buy
Thinkpads, but that got used to the TrackPoint.

And prefer it. Like so many better tools, you have to learn how to use
it effectively before it pays off.

And there is a fundamental and fatal flaw.

Technology that requires the user to adapt is inherently flawed.
Technology needs to adapt the the user.

And there is a fundamental and fatal flaw.
Put an average driver in a real race car and the results will be funny.
Put a race driver in an average car and the results will be better.

What's the analogy supposed to be? That someone who's spent years trying to
make a motorized zoom work as fast and accurately as a manual zoom, will
then have "better results" with a manual zoom because of all that practice
with the more awkward system? I don't think so.

Neil

"Neil Harrington" wrote:
"John Navas" wrote:

And there is a fundamental and fatal flaw.
Put an average driver in a real race car and the results will be funny.
Put a race driver in an average car and the results will be better.

What's the analogy supposed to be? That someone who's spent years trying
to make a motorized zoom work as fast and accurately as a manual zoom,
will then have "better results" with a manual zoom because of all that
practice with the more awkward system? I don't think so.

No. He's trying to tell you that you are too crapy a photographer to be able
to use a P&S camera. ROFL.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

John Navas wrote:
On 23 Nov 2007 01:02:31 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

Those aren't the kind of servos I've described -- those are dumb
steppers.

You referring to the servos used in P&S cameras. ...

Not true.

Well unless you're taking pictures with an F22 I don't see what you're
llittle red herring has to do with anything, except maybe an attempt
to distract from a losing argument.

--
Ray Fischer

John Navas wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
John Navas wrote:
SMS ???• ?
Neil Harrington wrote:

I haven't seen it on any new laptop, including any the ones I've bought over
the last three or four years. IIRC Toshiba used to use the little blue
button thingy, and they don't now.

Dell still has it on some business notebooks, such as the D630. It was
also on the D620. They are going after the users that will no longer buy
Thinkpads, but that got used to the TrackPoint.

And prefer it. Like so many better tools, you have to learn how to use
it effectively before it pays off.

And there is a fundamental and fatal flaw.

Technology that requires the user to adapt is inherently flawed.
Technology needs to adapt the the user.

And there is a fundamental and fatal flaw.
Put an average driver in a real race car and the results will be funny.

Notice that cars no longer use the levers used for steering the first
cars. Notice the vast array of improvements made to cars over the
past several decades.

Put a race driver in an average car and the results will be better.

The subject is "cameras".

Heard of them?

--
Ray Fischer