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

John Navas wrote:

Current EVF have gotten very good, and can now do things that can't be
done with an optical viewfinder, including 100% image, visible image in
very low light, and magnification while focusing, not to mention image
replay.

You left out the best one of all - histogram preview. :-)

On Nov 16, 4:17 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
Helmsman3 wrote:
I see no reason to waste my time answering any of your other questions when the
last few were such an obvious attempt at stupidity.

You run out of answers much faster than I though.

Try trolling someone else into being your entertainment.

Thanks for the hint, you really are a master of that art.

I'm smarter than you.

Smarting.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

-Wolfgang

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"!
Darwin was no fool! Thank you, that was a brilliant article!

On Nov 16, 4:17 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:


http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf


After reading that, I have to say that it is in fact a very
interesting paper. Thank you! I wonder how it was received in the
relevant research community.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:25:44 -0800 (PST), acl
wrote:

On Nov 16, 4:17 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:


http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf


After reading that, I have to say that it is in fact a very
interesting paper. Thank you! I wonder how it was received in the
relevant research community.

Once a troll always a troll. Since that has nothing to do with photography his
trollness has been completely revealed. You all fell for it.

Not too bright, are you. Some people are smart enough to see them for what they
truly are. There's no artificial self-inflation about it. Just fact.

On Nov 17, 5:46 am, mike johannsen wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:25:44 -0800 (PST), acl
wrote:

On Nov 16, 4:17 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

After reading that, I have to say that it is in fact a very
interesting paper. Thank you! I wonder how it was received in the
relevant research community.

Once a troll always a troll. Since that has nothing to do with photography his
trollness has been completely revealed. You all fell for it.

Not too bright, are you. Some people are smart enough to see them for what they
truly are. There's no artificial self-inflation about it. Just fact.


Oh come on! Is that the best you can come up with? "you're stupid and
a troll", is that it? Look, this is a respectable newsgroup, you'll
have to try harder. I've suggested you try to insinuate that people
are X (for some X) without literally stating it in the past; eg, in
this context, work out what you could say that would seem reasonable
but, simultaneously, firmly plant the idea that I am a pompous idiot
in the reader's mind. Or something similar.

Come on, it's not that difficult. Try a little harder! I only keep
going on about this because it's a shame to see this group go down
only because of the volume of idiotic posts (such as yours-by your
leave!). If they had some finesse, it would be much more palatable.

"Neil Harrington" wrote:

Well, "designed by Leica" is one thing and "built to Leica standards" is
another. You think E. Leitz has real Leitz employees scrupulously inspecting
every "Leica" lens made somewhere in eastern or southeastern Asia?


These issues were discussed on a Leica forum about a year ago and
answers were obtained from Leica in Solms.

Apparently the lenses were not designed by Leica, but by Panasonic.
Leica suggested some improvements to the designs and helped put in
place a quality control system that would ensure a consistent product,
but that is all.

Leica is too small a company to develop digital point and shoot
cameras on its own, so a partner is essential. Fuji proved to be a
poor choice. Panasonic is proving to be a better choice, with strong
sales of Panasonic digital cameras (P&S and DSLR) with Leica branding.

Panasonic got to use the Leica name on its lenses as a quid pro quo
for allowing Leica to sell Panasonic digital cameras under the Leica
brand. The agreement benefits both parties, unlike Leica's previous
arrangement with Fuji which was very one-sided and ended in acrimony.

Of course the M8 digital rangefinder camera is a completely separate
development. One wonders if a collaboration with Panasonic might have
produced a better product, however.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:31:56 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:30:22 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

For overall huge zoom range this is clearly true, and for very little
money. But for any given FL a DSLR will have a better lens to choose
from, so this is a trade off between the two system.

Sometimes, but not always, notably at longer focal lengths. To match
(not beat) the FZ8 Leica lens at (say) 300 mm (35 mm equiv), you'd need
something like the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM ($3,900 at B&H).

Well not really, the FZ8 at the long end is only a f/3.3 lens.

It's f/3.3 at 432 mm, not 300 mm (35 mm equiv), and even f/3.3 is "only"
1/3 stop slower than f/2.8, hardly noticeable.

It is
equivalent to a 432mm 35mm lens. My 300mm f/4 would beat in any every
way, yours might be a bit faster, but for the number of photons
collected per pixel it falls way short. My 300mm lens captures 10x the
number of photons / pixels as your lens does. And mine is sharp wide
open. ...

Since you're keeping the brand and model secret, I assume it's not
well-respected, and i'll have to rely on educated guesses.

The Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM is easily the best 300 mm lens I know
of, but will only match the FZ8 Leica lens when stopped down to f/5.6.
I'm willing to bet your unnamed lens isn't as good, and probably has to
be stopped down to f/11 to measure up, almost four stops slower than the
FZ8 Leica lens, but even at f/8 it would be almost three stops slower.

Since you didn't mention stabilization, I take it your lens isn't
stabilized, a big disadvantage, easily worth another two stops.

Not a close contest, even if it is a decent lens.

p.s. That bit about number of photons has nothing to do with a lens.

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

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:19:55 GMT, Daniel Silevitch
wrote in
:

Oh look, the troll has emerged again. I suppose I should be grateful,
or impressed, or something, that there's only one '!' in the entire
message.

Could you all please take this to kind of thing to alt.insults-gangbang?
[follow-up set] When posting here, please have at least a tiny bit of
relevant content to relieve the monotony of the insults. Thanks!

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

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:30:48 GMT, Daniel Silevitch
wrote in
:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:22:38 GMT, John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:04:39 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

his point is that with modern tools, there is no difference in post
processing raw or jpeg, however, using raw produces a much better
result. many times, the amount of post processing is negligble,
regardless of format.

RAW processing takes quite a bit longer than just copying JPEG images to
hard disk.

Give Aperture or Lightroom a try; they both have free demos.

Been there; done that.

In
Aperture, the vast majority of the processing takes place in the
background, while you're looking at and sorting images in the
foreground, or while you're tweaking the shadows and the colors of one
picture. Select a new image to look at, and it gets "developed" in
a second or so (the selected image is immediately bumped to the front of
the processing queue). The machine crunches through the images faster
than I can sort and rate them, so I'm not usually waiting on it.

That not how I work, so it would slow me down.

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

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:46:07 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:09:33 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

When I am in low light I use a 28mm
f/2.8 lens and shoot at iso 800.

But that's presumably a very limited fixed focal length, and without
optical stabilization, which is worth 2-3 stops. With an FZ18 you could
be shooting f/2.8 at ISO 100 or 200.

It is rarely camera shake that is the problem for me,it is people
moving, so IS would add little to the shorter FL. Case in point is this
photos, taken at 1/8 second at f/2.8 and iso 800.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/71041153
If I had to take that at iso 200 it would have been a 1/2 second
exposure, people do not hold still that long, trust me I know.

1. That's actually 45 mm (35 mm equiv), not 28 mm.
2. EV 3 seems awfully low for that scene,
which I would think is more like EV 7-8.
3, I see no movement in that image.

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