If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:33:31 +0000, Tony Polson wrote in
: John Navas wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:03:08 -0800, SMS ???• ? wrote in : It all comes down to the sensor and the over-aggressive noise reduction that is Panasonic's forte. There's nothing wrong with the sensor, which is current state of the art, and the noise reduction can be turned down (or even off with RAW) if you don't like it. Get some real experience so you'll hopefully not make yourself look so foolish. Far from making himself look foolish, which he has done many times on here in the past, SMS is 100% right on this one. He's at best half-right (on noise reduction), and even that's being very generous (since noise reduction is configurable on some models, and even RAW is available on some models). I carry a Panasonic DMC-LX2 with me all the time. It has a Leica lens and is sold with a different finish and slightly different settings for colour rendition as the Leica D-Lux 3. I like it very much because of the 16:9 widescreen format, the excellent 28mm (equivalent) wide end of the zoom lens and the high degree of creative control that can be applied. But it is a noise box. The noise is extremely bad at high ISOs. And as SMS says, the noise is noticeable at ISO 100. A single data point. Other Panasonic cameras are very good at ISO 100, including the FZ8. There are far better digital point and shoot cameras than the Panasonic from the point of view of noise. Notable examples include the FujiFilm Finepix F series, which produce images that could almost pass for those from a DSLR. Again just a single data point, and they suffer in other ways (e.g., optics, resolution). There are few worse digital point and shoot cameras than the Panasonic from the point of view of noise in this price bracket. ... In fact Panasonic is comparable to other digital cameras with similar sensors. What's different is that default noise reduction settings of the latest Panasonic processors are more aggressive than some (not all) other cameras, although that's adjustable on some models. Furthermore, the colour fringing from the "Leica" lens is noticeable. It also lacks sharpness wide open at the edges, and doesn't perform all that well in the centre. Independent reviews say just the opposite. I use Canon DSLRs (two EOS 5D bodies) with mainly Carl Zeiss lenses and a range of film cameras including 35mm rangefinder bodies and Leica lenses. The "Leica" lens on the Panasonic DMC-LX2 is not worthy of the Leica name it carries. I've used German-made Leica lenses, Canon L-series lenses, and other top-grade lenses, and I strongly disagree. I have tried several examples of the Panasonic DMC-LX2 and found they performed more or less the same. I have compared my results with those from friends who use the Leica D-Lux 3 and they are essentially the same - except the colour rendition is more subdued, but that is a known feature of the D-Lux 3's firmware. In the end, I have had to accept that the Panasonic DMC-LX2 is a very noisy camera. I limit its use to situations where it performs well and/or for applications that don't demand good results. It is a noisy camera with a lens that is seriously optically flawed. It's pretty clear that you're unhappy with your LX2, probably should have gone with something else, that you're confusing lens with sensor, and that you lack experience with other Panasonic models, judging the entire brand on your unhappiness with the LX2. Do yourself a favor and try other models. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:19:39 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in : Tony Polson wrote: But it is a noise box. The noise is extremely bad at high ISOs. And as SMS says, the noise is noticeable at ISO 100. No question about it. I don't own one, but I've seen the results from one. ... Painfully obvious, like other superficial nonsense you post. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:45:27 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in : "SMS ???. ?" wrote in message .. . GOOD GRIEF! He must have a lot of time on his hands, and nothing to do with it but troll. Steven clearly does. How pathetic is that? Quite. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:42:52 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in : grant_jiles wrote: About as pathetic as a person with that much time on their hands to compile a list like that. No compiling at all. Just dumping the contents of my Thunderbird filter list for rec.photo.digital. It may help others in setting up their kill files without having to add the e-mail addresses individually. With a good filter list, newsgroups becomes much more readable and more useful. Translation: You're not troubled by those exposing your fantasies for what they are. It actually saves time by not having to wade through hundreds of posts by know-it-alls that know nothing. On the contrary -- you're not in it. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:58:43 GMT, John Navas wrote:
The reason manual focus is often omitted from compact cameras is that most of the target market can't or won't use it. Those that want it can of course choose a compact camera that has it. Considering how much that DSLR users depend on, pray to, and worship their camera's auto-focus I'm surprised that this feature hasn't been dropped from all DSLRs. If it wasn't for how fully "point and shoot" featured their DSLRs were they'd never buy them. The way they talk about their dependencies on auto-focus I doubt most of them even know what manual focusing is used for or even how to find it on their cameras. All my P&S cameras have manual focus. The ones I like best have a manual focus-ring on the lens barrel, just like all my SLR gear. Then again one of my others can run CDHK. That gives it a menu option to change the default manual focus method from button presses to the zoom lever, making it about as easy to use as a manual focusing ring. It also has a nice feature added, a simple press of another button does a micro-focus touch-up once you are in the right neighborhood. Locking in on the most detailed object within a few millimeters of where you manually focused to, never aiming for something of stronger contrast in the background because that's outside of it's micro-focus hunting limits. A well thought out compensation that's pleasurable and quite easy to use. It was the first P&S camera I bought that didn't have a manual focus-ring method. But then I wasn't buying it for that, I was buying it for how many more things it could do than no DSLR could ever do. I thought I'd hate the button-presses method. It was implemented surprisingly well. Not as nice as my others with a focusing-ring, but quite useable once you learn how to use it properly. Just as fast and accurate, if not more so under the right circumstances. A compact camera is a small sub-set of all P&S cameras. So it's fine to say that manual focusing has been dropped from many of those. But don't go lumping all P&S cameras into compacts or you'll be giving everyone the wrong impression. Most all the P&S cameras with manual modes have manual focusing of one type or another. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:20:46 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: Easier than entering all that stuff into a killfile, which obviously will only grow and grow (and I assume he never bothers re-using his old ones anyway), henceforth I'll just assume any unknown poster supporting that jerk is the jerk himself, and ignore it. Likewise I'll just assume any other idiotic post is from the same jerk, regardless of the subject or name used. It's easy enough to pick him out from his headers, but why waste the time. Sometimes I get to the point of kill-filing not only anyone that supports him, but anyone that even replies to him, because he feeds on the attention they provide. A newsgroup reader that could filter on text in the body of the message would work best, since he uses the same key words no matter how often he changes the "from" address in the header. Oh look, another off-topic troll from the MOST PROLIFIC RESIDENT-TROLL around! What were the chances of finding THAT again! LOL |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:26:15 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
wrote in : Calling a Crapasonic Lumix lens a "Leica" is kinda like calling a VW bug a Porsche. I'm not talking about Lumix lenses, I'm talking about Leica lenses. Panasonic is actually a world class manufacturer. Got anything substantial, or is flaming all you've got? -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:18:59 +0000, Tony Polson wrote in
: John Navas wrote: On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:10:28 +0000, Tony Polson wrote in : John Navas wrote: It seems you are right and my information was incorrect. Apology accepted. No apology either warranted or given. Thanks anyway. You're welcome. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:40:13 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message .. . Moreover tests of these lenses confirm that they do measure up to Leica standards; e.g., "everything you'd expect from Leica glass" http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4597/lens-test-panasonic-leica-d-summilux-25mm-f14-af.html That's "everything you'd expect from Leica glass" by Julia Silber, who in the first paragraph uses "prime" when she means fixed focal length. I think she's the only columnist in Pop Photo who does employ that popular but ignorant misusage. (Herbert Keppler certainly never does.) Someone that careless with language is not to be taken very seriously. Cheap shot #1. "Fixed focal length" is now the commonly accepted definition of "prime" lens -- see Wikipedia for a good discussion. And she does not say that the lens was "designed by Leica" or that "Leica monitors the quality control." She says, "Made in Japan by Panasonic to Leica's specifications," which is all but meaningless. Cheap shot #2. It's not meaningless, and these lenses do measure up to Leica optical and quality standards. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:20:14 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in : And of course you realize, given the poster's extremely long history of complete fabrications, never with any citations, references, or names, that "industry people I respect" does not mean that he actually knows, or has talked to, anyone remotely connected to the industry in question. That's actually you, Steven. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Bill Tuthill | Digital Photography | 1067 | December 29th 07 02:46 AM |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Helmsman3 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 790 | December 26th 07 05:40 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
Film lens on DSLR? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | January 3rd 05 02:45 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |