Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL

On Nov 7, 4:37 pm, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote:
John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:46:06 GMT, "David J Taylor"
[]
They were a pain - much slower to add an accessory lens (typically
screw-on) than to change lenses on a DSLR. ...

Yep. And a pain to lug around, just like SLR lenses.

I have OEM wide angle and telephoto adapters for my Olympus C-2500L,
and they were such a hassle that I finally just stopped using them.

That's a big part of why I love the huge zoom range of my DMC-FZ8.
While it's not as wide at 36 mm (35 mm equiv) as the latest 28 mm wide
zooms, it's faster at the tele end, and I can usually get the wide
angle I want, often wider than 28 mm (24 mm or even 20 mm), with
stitched images.

Well, you can now take the approach of a single-walk round lens with a
27 - 300mm zoom range, available from several manufacturers, some
including IS/VR. So there may not be a need to change lenses anything
like as often. I weighed by DSLR versus my compact camera outfits, and
the DSLR was only 3oz (85g) heavier, for a similar focal length range.

I also use stitched images, and find them very effective (I use the
paid-for AutoPano Pro variant of AutoStitch). I've also just bought a
Panasonic TZ3 as an ultra-lightweight carry-round camera - that's 28 -
280mm.

Cheers,
David

The ultra compact P&S cameras serve a purpose, to be very portable and
still afford some kind of image, better than a camera phone.
The larger P&Ss also serve a purpose, as a practice target for a
strong 7-iron.

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:41:55 -0800, Rich wrote in
. com:

On Nov 7, 1:09 pm, Bill Tuthill wrote:
Rich wrote:

Marketing whores killed the quality P&S.

???

The Canon G7 produces higher quality results than a Rebel 350D
from what I've seen. Probably due to crappy kit lens on the Rebel.

Haven't seen pictures from the G9 yet, but it has RAW mode again.

The Rebel will stomp it into the dirty, quality wise.

Sometimes, yes; often, no.

As long as you
make sure to stop down the Rebel lens to around f9.

Which would put it at an even bigger disadvantage to the superb Leica
lens in my Panasonic DMC-FZ8 at f/2.8

These crummy P&Ss show noise at under 100 ISO, and the efforts in-
camera to clean it up (often permanently on) do more harm than good.

Crummy P&S perhaps, but images from my Panasonic DMC-FZ8 are excellent,
albeit with noise reduction turned down to low.

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:37:28 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

That's a big part of why I love the huge zoom range of my DMC-FZ8.
While it's not as wide at 36 mm (35 mm equiv) as the latest 28 mm wide
zooms, it's faster at the tele end, and I can usually get the wide
angle I want, often wider than 28 mm (24 mm or even 20 mm), with
stitched images.

Well, you can now take the approach of a single-walk round lens with a
27 - 300mm zoom range, available from several manufacturers, some
including IS/VR. So there may not be a need to change lenses anything
like as often.

Tamron AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical [IF] Macro (Model
A20)? With the cropping factor of typical non-full frame bodies, that
would be much worse on the wide end than the Leica lens on my DMC-FZ8,
not much longer on the long end, much slower, and not even close
optically.

I weighed by DSLR versus my compact camera outfits, and
the DSLR was only 3oz (85g) heavier, for a similar focal length range.

With what lens? With something reasonably close to the Leica lens, like
the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus lens, the weight
difference is huge:
* DMC-FZ8: 310 g
* Canon 300D + EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM: 560 g + 1,670 g = 2,230 g
Even with the less good Tamron, the weight difference is still huge:
* Canon 300D + Tamron AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR: 560 g + 555 g = 1,115 g

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:43:50 -0800, Rich wrote in
. com:

On Nov 7, 4:37 pm, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote:
John Navas wrote:

That's a big part of why I love the huge zoom range of my DMC-FZ8.
While it's not as wide at 36 mm (35 mm equiv) as the latest 28 mm wide
zooms, it's faster at the tele end, and I can usually get the wide
angle I want, often wider than 28 mm (24 mm or even 20 mm), with
stitched images.

Well, you can now take the approach of a single-walk round lens with a
27 - 300mm zoom range, available from several manufacturers, some
including IS/VR. So there may not be a need to change lenses anything
like as often. I weighed by DSLR versus my compact camera outfits, and
the DSLR was only 3oz (85g) heavier, for a similar focal length range.

I also use stitched images, and find them very effective (I use the
paid-for AutoPano Pro variant of AutoStitch). I've also just bought a
Panasonic TZ3 as an ultra-lightweight carry-round camera - that's 28 -
280mm.

The ultra compact P&S cameras serve a purpose, to be very portable and
still afford some kind of image, better than a camera phone.
The larger P&Ss also serve a purpose, as a practice target for a
strong 7-iron.

The compact Panasonic DMC-FZ8 prosumer super-zoom bridge camera is
objectively better in terms of resolution than comparable DSLRs even
with fixed focal length prime lenses, much less roughly comparable zoom
lenses, and produces even better results in many cases due to big
advantages in terms of size, weight, lens speed, lens quality, handling
and flexibility.

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com

Rich wrote:

The Rebel will stomp [a G7] into the dirt, quality wise.

In theory. In practice, the Rebel produces a lot of crap photos.

As long as you make sure to stop down the Rebel lens to around f9.

Most people don't think about stopping down, so why doesn't the
Rebel's AE program do this automatically? My Minolta SLR did.
One big main problem seems to be that the Rebel vastly overexposes
earth tones, even greens, so it's not a good camera for a place
such as the Grand Canyon, which is where I made comparisons.
I have no idea why the G7 is less prone to overexposure.

These crummy P&Ss show noise at under 100 ISO, and the efforts in-
camera to clean it up (often permanently on) do more harm than good.

In practice, not a big problem. Daytime photos can be shot at ISO 100,
and most digicams have flash for night photos. Some have IS.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Tamron AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical [IF] Macro (Model
A20)? With the cropping factor of typical non-full frame bodies, that
would be much worse on the wide end than the Leica lens on my DMC-FZ8,
not much longer on the long end, much slower, and not even close
optically.

the tamron just started shipping a few weeks ago. because it is so
new, there are no tests of it yet (that i have seen). so, how do you
know it is 'not even close optically' ? you are just assuming it is
not that great with zero facts to back it up.

John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:04:32 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in
:


Rich wrote:


I had a look at the output (at 80 ISO) of a Fuji 9000 super zoom. It
looked like it had been filtered through textured glass, so inferior
to a decent DSLR output it wasn't funny.
I'm only guessing, but I would wager that if some company (whatever
happened to the Sigma??) put out a fixed lens, or 2-3x zoom P&S with a
relatively compact body and at least a 4/3rds sensor, for $800 it
would sell to the DSLR crowd anyway. Olympus produced a 35mm macro
lens with an f3.5 focal length. If that lens weren't in a macro body,
it would only occupy about 1/2" x 1/2" of space and would allow for a
body that would be easily pocketable.

Then people would complain, "if only they had made the lens detachable
and made other lenses available for wide-angle and telephoto," and
demand for add-on lenses and adapters would boom again.

Look what happened with the booming after-market for lenses and adapters
for the high-end point and shoot cameras. ...


The aftermarket is actually pretty small, not "booming" -- the vast
majority of users don't buy such accessories, which is why they are so
hard to find at retail.

This does echo my experiences with finding wide and tele adapters for
fixed lens cameras, in my city the camera shops only stock either a
small selection of them made for video cameras (to small in diameter to
be adapted) and some pricey ones made specifically for particular evf cams.
Such as the Olympus adapters made for the E10 and E20 and the adapters
for the Sony R1, neither of wich could be described as "cheap" compared
to the retail price of some consumer level zoom (d)slr lenses.

Bill Tuthill wrote:
Rich wrote:
Marketing whores killed the quality P&S.

???

The Canon G7 produces higher quality results than a Rebel 350D
from what I've seen. Probably due to crappy kit lens on the Rebel.

Haven't seen pictures from the G9 yet, but it has RAW mode again.

No one forces anyone to use the kit lens. The better quality is almost
certainly at low ISO as well. And of course the advantages of a D-SLR
over a P&S go beyond image quality anyway, a big advantage is the much
shorter shutter lag and AF time.

dj_nme wrote:

This does echo my experiences with finding wide and tele adapters for
fixed lens cameras, in my city the camera shops only stock either a
small selection of them made for video cameras (to small in diameter to
be adapted) and some pricey ones made specifically for particular evf cams.
Such as the Olympus adapters made for the E10 and E20 and the adapters
for the Sony R1, neither of wich could be described as "cheap" compared
to the retail price of some consumer level zoom (d)slr lenses.

In Silicon Valley, I was surprised to see non-camera stores such as
Fry's and Micro-Center carrying such a large variety of adapters and
other accessories that you'd think would have to be ordered on-line or
purchased from a real camera store. The catch is that they only carry
them for the top-selling cameras, i.e. the Canon G series and the Canon
A series. You're not going to find any adapters for Olympus or Sony at a
big box store.

When I wanted the wide-angle adapter for my G2 I could have bought the
Canon lens and adapter locally, but everything I read said to avoid the
Canon stuff because the adapter design was flawed (too large) and it
interfered with the flash. I ordered the Lensmate and found the A-28 new
from Ritz.

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:45:29 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in
:

dj_nme wrote:

This does echo my experiences with finding wide and tele adapters for
fixed lens cameras, in my city the camera shops only stock either a
small selection of them made for video cameras (to small in diameter to
be adapted) and some pricey ones made specifically for particular evf cams.
Such as the Olympus adapters made for the E10 and E20 and the adapters
for the Sony R1, neither of wich could be described as "cheap" compared
to the retail price of some consumer level zoom (d)slr lenses.

In Silicon Valley, I was surprised to see non-camera stores such as
Fry's and Micro-Center carrying such a large variety of adapters and
other accessories that you'd think would have to be ordered on-line or
purchased from a real camera store. The catch is that they only carry
them for the top-selling cameras, i.e. the Canon G series and the Canon
A series. You're not going to find any adapters for Olympus or Sony at a
big box store.

Sony is #2 in overall sales (Olympus #4). So much for accuracy. LOL
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1175724860.html

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com