26 Reasons to Choose a P&S Over a DSLR

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:
"A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg "

:-)

Simply astonishing!!!!
If only we had superman skills & clever inexpensive gear like that.

grin

1) The focus is on the brids tail, not its head,
2) The eye isn't visible,
3) Noisy,
4) No shadow detail.

There's some green and purple crap on the grey feathers, and some green
crap in the extreme bottom right corner.

I was being kind. ;^)

I don't really like to criticise but your comment prompted me to take
another look. I don't have anything to compare it with but there's, also,
sensor artefacts (if that's what those lines are) covering the whole
thing. The camera obviously has its limits and the shot itself doesn't
make the best of those.

It's crawling with sharpening glitches as well, which does help any.

I'm not quite sure what to look for so I'll take your word on that.

I know my A590 sensor and lens has limits whether CHDK raw or JPEG, and I've
had a play with noise reduction in post. CHDK raw and Noise Ninja are
definitely better than the JPEG but fixing a complex shot is more difficult.
A better and less noisy camera is on the cards further down the line but I'm
just treating things now as a learning exercise.

--
Charles E Hardwidge