Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:23:12 -0600, ShawnParks
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:56:46 -0500, "RichA" wrote:


"AndyEmers" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:27:09 -0800 (PST), Rich
wrote:


Dpreview could use a standard review for all P&S's:

Why just P&S cameras? These problems exist in all digital cameras. DSLRs
especially when using their wide-angle lenses.

-Coloured fringing at the edge of the field.

Learn something about optics and digital imaging. Colored fringing at the
edges
is called lateral chromatic aberration. This is due to optics, not
sensors. It's
more prevalent in many DSLR lenses because they can't be figured as
accurately
due to their larger physical dimensions. Purple fringing can occur
anywhere in a
photo and appears around all edges of strong contrasting details, not just
in
one direction around an object's edge.

-Difficult achieving good focus on the long end.

Learn something about how to use a camera properly. The only reason people
have
a difficult time achieving focus at the long-end of the zoom range is that
contrast focusing depends on a steady subject so it has some contrasting
edges
to latch onto. Inept amateurs don't know how to hold a camera steady when
using
long focal-lengths. Contrast-focusing delay is idiot-user error (and
trolls
repeating other troll's words), not camera error.

-Focus response and shutter response slow.

It would be interesting, but if the tests were done properly then you'll
find
out that P&S cameras actually have less shutter-lag because they don't
have to
move that slow noisy mirror out of the way or wait an extra 1/250th second
or
longer delay for solenoid response trying to get that slow focal-plane
shutter
to open.

Keep trying, DSLR-trolls. It's still not going to change facts and
reality.


Thanks Gomer, but I used two P&Ss for years before going to DSLRs, an
Olympus C-3040 and C-8080, one of the best made in terms of P&S image
quality and function. They simply cannot produce the quality of results of
a DSLR, for the reasons stated. You can't bend the laws of PHYSICS, small
pixels, contrast focus, and way overextended lens designs = mediocrity.


Sorry, your DSLR-troll reply doesn't hold water, this proof says otherwise:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

If you take the sensor size into account then the optics on the dSLR are putting
out 6x's the amount of CA as the glass from the P&S camera. The P&S camera is
also resolving more than 6X's the amount of detail as the DSLR glass.

Facts are facts.

I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
using sensor "crop ratio" differences.

Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
on that page, I count, on average:

4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens

6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).


Sensor sizes:

SX10, 10mPx = 1/2.3 " = 16 x 4.62 mm = 35 MP/cm² pixel density

EOS 450D, 12.2mPx = 22.2 x 14.8 mm = 3.7 MP/cm² pixel density

In order to have a proper angular-distance score for linear resolution, we have
to divide the pixel-width of the CA by the square root of those pixel-density MP
counts: average CA pixel span / square-root of pixel density
(see *** explanation below if confused by this)

5/5.9 = average CA distance on the P&S lens

7/1.92 = average CA distance on the DSLR lens

An accurate proportional score of true angular CA between the two lenses then
becomes:

P&S score = 0.85 amount of lateral CA
DSLR score = 3.65 amount of lateral CA

The DSLR lens is creating 4.3X's more CA than the P&S lens. This even on a 20x
zoom lens compared to a DSLR's more easy to design and create 3x zoom. Okay, so
it's not as much as the first guessed at 6X's more, but over 4X's more CA from a
DSLR lens is still just as bad. On a pass/fail rating the DSLR would clearly get
a FAIL grade.

Anyone care to do a quantitative analysis of image detail resolved by those two
lenses? The P&S clearly wins there again too, but by how much? Use the above
info to calculate angular resolving power ratios between those two lenses. The
image detail in the sample evergreens or buildings images from that page should
be enough to accurately determine it. My rough guess, judging by the foliage
photo is that the P&S lens is resolving about 10x's more detail than the DSLR
lens (when you adjust for sensor sizes as was done for CA width, using the
sensors' pixel spacings as your rulers).

So much for everyone's urban-legend parroted myth that DSLR glass is always
better, and always has less CA and more resolution. :-)


***(For the math-challenged: The reason I'm taking the square root of the
pixel-density count per cm², is for the same reason that you take the
square-root of a megapixel count to determine true linear resolution increases
or decreases between sensors. A 6-megapixel sensor has to be 4 times that
amount, or 24 megapixels, to truly double the resolution in all possible
directions. (Square-root of 6 = 2.45, square-root of 24 = 4.9, so to double the
resolution it would be 2 x 2.45 = 4.9) Resolution on a 2D surface is a function
of area, not a linear pixel-count in just one direction. You have to take the
square-root of a total pixel count to have a useful number to work with in your
base calculations.)

ShawnParks wrote:

I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
using sensor "crop ratio" differences.

Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
on that page, I count, on average:

4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens

6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).

The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

--
Ray Fischer

On 22 Nov 2008 20:37:23 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

ShawnParks wrote:

I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
using sensor "crop ratio" differences.

Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
on that page, I count, on average:

4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens

6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).

The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

Great!

How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.

So?

How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
missed-shots to beat that camera?

You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?

LindermanGrant wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
ShawnParks wrote:

I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
using sensor "crop ratio" differences.

Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
on that page, I count, on average:

4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens

6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).

The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

Great!

How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?

How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
sensor? How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens? Or a 12mm lens? Or
a tilt-shift lens?

Yes, you believe that screwdrivers are better than hammers. Don't let
reality get in the way.

--
Ray Fischer

On 22 Nov 2008 23:41:27 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

LindermanGrant wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
ShawnParks wrote:

I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
using sensor "crop ratio" differences.

Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
on that page, I count, on average:

4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens

6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).

The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

Great!

How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?

How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
sensor?

Not a requirement of a pro. High ISO's are only required by amateurs who don't
know how to use a camera properly. At ISO's of 200 or less images are every bit
as clean as from a larger sensor. And some P&S cameras can have the same clean
images (see: Fuji) at higher ISO's as do all dSLRs.

How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens?

Not a requirement of a pro. Larger apertures are only required by amateurs who
don't know how to use a camera properly or don't know how to use their optics
creatively.

Or a 12mm lens?

About $90. I found one that turns my P&S cameras's zoom lenses into a seamless
9mm to 38mm (35mm eq.) focal-length zoom range without any extra CA nor softness
of details.

Or a tilt-shift lens?

Only needed during the pre-digital days. All perspective corrections can be done
with most any simple editor these days. Some of them, like Photoline, can even
do excellent perspective corrections on 64-bit depth CMYK images.


Yes, you believe that screwdrivers are better than hammers. Don't let
reality get in the way.

You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver, as well
as an excellent macro-scope, video-cam, CD-quality stereo sound recorder,
thermometer (CHDK cameras also tell you the temperature and time, yes, it's
true), etc. etc. etc. Just because one camera can do it all doesn't mean it does
them all with lesser quality. Your dSLR might do them with lesser quality if you
tried to hack it to do so, because it wasn't designed to do any of those things.
This is not true of a camera that was purposely designed handle those advantages
to begin with.

Check out the Canon SX10 which beat the crap out of a dSLR, if you doubt that a
P&S camera can not only equal but beat dSLR cameras.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml


Okay, I answered your questions. How come you didn't answer the one about how
much it would cost to make a DSLR equivalent to, or beat, the SX10 P&S camera in
image quality? You know, this easy to answer question that all of you
dSLR-TROLLS keep evading:

How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.

So?

How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
missed-shots to beat that camera?

You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?

Afraid to answer it? Afraid that the answer will show you to be the dSLR-troll
and fool that you are?

Thought so.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:36:32 -0600, LindermanGrant
wrote:

On 22 Nov 2008 20:37:23 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

ShawnParks wrote:

I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
using sensor "crop ratio" differences.

Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
on that page, I count, on average:

4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens

6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).

The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

Great!

How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.

So?

How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
missed-shots to beat that camera?

You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:36:32 -0600, LindermanGrant
wrote:

On 22 Nov 2008 20:37:23 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

ShawnParks wrote:

I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
using sensor "crop ratio" differences.

Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
on that page, I count, on average:

4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens

6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).

The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

Great!

How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.

So?

How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
missed-shots to beat that camera?

You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?

Let's look at the bottom line, shall we? Virtually NO professional
photographers trust their livlihoods on P&S cameras. Zip. Nada.
None. Virtually ALL professionals shooting digital shoot with a
dslr. (With the exception of the very high dollar pros who shoot MF
cameras with digital backs.)

Maybe they all know something you don't?

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:20:18 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:36:32 -0600, LindermanGrant
wrote:

On 22 Nov 2008 20:37:23 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

ShawnParks wrote:

I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
using sensor "crop ratio" differences.

Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
on that page, I count, on average:

4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens

6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).

The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

Great!

How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.

So?

How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
missed-shots to beat that camera?

You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?

Let's look at the bottom line, shall we? Virtually NO professional
photographers trust their livlihoods on P&S cameras. Zip. Nada.
None. Virtually ALL professionals shooting digital shoot with a
dslr. (With the exception of the very high dollar pros who shoot MF
cameras with digital backs.)

Maybe they all know something you don't?



Oh ye who lives as a pretend-photographer resident-troll on usenet, here's just
one other pro that says otherwise
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6468-7844 There are
hundreds if not thousands more than just him.

Due to people like you who have such an amateurish contempt for P&S cameras, not
many real pros admit to using them publicly, will even forge their EXIF data
before submitting their photos to their publishers. There's one case of an
architectural magazine photographer who had to do just that to keep his job. Yet
his photos were featured on the front pages often. The editors none the wiser.
They could never tell the difference between his earlier dSLR photo quality and
the ones he submitted with his now-always-used P&S cameras, only that he was now
obtaining much more interesting and hard-to-get images. Had they found out they
would have ignorantly forced him to go back to using his dSLR gear which was
cumbersome and couldn't be used in the locations and public settings that he
needed to document. Quick examples: With an articulating LCD screen P&S camera
you can put the camera right up against a wall or into a remote corner and still
frame a shot without having to be behind a viewfinder with your body. Or hold it
at arm's length from a precarious balcony, using the articulating P&S's screen
to properly frame the designs that you need to capture.

It's as if P&S professionals have to hide in a closet or something to keep their
jobs due to idiots like you running around relentlessly spouting your inane dSLR
nonsense.

You and all just like you are nothing but a huge detriment to the field of
professional photographers everywhere.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:28:57 +1100, dj_nme wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:36:32 -0600, LindermanGrant
wrote:

On 22 Nov 2008 20:37:23 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

ShawnParks wrote:

I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
using sensor "crop ratio" differences.

Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
on that page, I count, on average:

4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens

6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
Great!

How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.

So?

How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
missed-shots to beat that camera?

You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?

Let's look at the bottom line, shall we? Virtually NO professional
photographers trust their livlihoods on P&S cameras. Zip. Nada.
None. Virtually ALL professionals shooting digital shoot with a
dslr. (With the exception of the very high dollar pros who shoot MF
cameras with digital backs.)

Maybe they all know something you don't?

No all pros use a DSLR camera or MF digital, some use a Leica or Epson
(d)RF camera.
But that wasn't quite what you're attacking in P&S troll's post though,
is it? :-p


Oh ye who lives as a pretend-photographer resident-troll on usenet, here's just
one other pro that says otherwise
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6468-7844 There are
hundreds if not thousands more than just him.

Due to people like you who have such an amateurish contempt for P&S cameras, not
many real pros admit to using them publicly, will even forge their EXIF data
before submitting their photos to their publishers. There's one case of an
architectural magazine photographer who had to do just that to keep his job. Yet
his photos were featured on the front pages often. The editors none the wiser.
They could never tell the difference between his earlier dSLR photo quality and
the ones he submitted with his now-always-used P&S cameras, only that he was now
obtaining much more interesting and hard-to-get images. Had they found out they
would have ignorantly forced him to go back to using his dSLR gear which was
cumbersome and couldn't be used in the locations and public settings that he
needed to document. Quick examples: With an articulating LCD screen P&S camera
you can put the camera right up against a wall or into a remote corner and still
frame a shot without having to be behind a viewfinder with your body. Or hold it
at arm's length from a precarious balcony, using the articulating P&S's screen
to properly frame the designs that you need to capture.

It's as if P&S professionals have to hide in a closet or something to keep their
jobs due to idiots like you running around relentlessly spouting your inane dSLR
nonsense.

You and all just like you are nothing but a huge detriment to the field of
professional photographers everywhere.

Herb Reed wrote:
On 22 Nov 2008 23:41:27 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

LindermanGrant wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
ShawnParks wrote:

I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
using sensor "crop ratio" differences.

Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
on that page, I count, on average:

4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens

6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).

The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

Great!

How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?

How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
sensor?

Not a requirement of a pro.

Smirk. Nothing like moving the goalposts.

High ISO's are only required by amateurs who don't
know how to use a camera properly.

And since you're such a great photographer I'm sure you can show us
your photos taken in low-light condition at 200ISO with an f4 lens.

How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens?

Not a requirement of a pro.

How would you know?

--
Ray Fischer