The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

Read it and laugh.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408...oup/page14.asp

RichA wrote:
Read it and laugh.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408...oup/page14.asp

I don't know why a) dpreview would do such a ridiculous comparison
rather than simply stating, "if you need high ISO, buy a D-SLR" and b)
why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to shoot
at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will perform. It's
like, geez it's so stupid that I can't even think of a good analogy.

In message , SMS
writes

b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to
shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will
perform.

Bad shot versus no shot at all. The pixel-peeping purists who infest
this august forum can't understand it, perhaps but nearly all the
pictures taken on any given day are not shot by would-be Ansell Adams
types, but are for the memories of the location and the time. A noisy
P&S picture is better than no picture at all, and few people are willing
to lug a heavy complex DSLR around with them when they are going out
somewhere not expressly to take pictures.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:02:44 -0500, "RichA"
wrote in :

Read it and laugh.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408...oup/page14.asp

Why? Panasonic did surprisingly well, and there are other compact
cameras that can do better than this particular group.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:55:03 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote
in :

SMS writes:

... why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to shoot
at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will perform.

Because the most common problems of amateur photography is inadequate
exposure, ...

On what do you base that???
--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]

"Robert Sneddon" wrote in message
...
In message , SMS
writes

b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to
shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will
perform.

Bad shot versus no shot at all. The pixel-peeping purists who infest
this august forum can't understand it, perhaps but nearly all the
pictures taken on any given day are not shot by would-be Ansell Adams
types, but are for the memories of the location and the time. A noisy
P&S picture is better than no picture at all, and few people are willing
to lug a heavy complex DSLR around with them when they are going out
somewhere not expressly to take pictures.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon

Dear Robert,

Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact,
lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic
mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in your
pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras.

Cheers.

Pete

In message
, Pete D
writes

"Robert Sneddon" wrote in message
...

Bad shot versus no shot at all.

Dear Robert,

Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact,
lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic
mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in your
pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras.

As you say, D-SLRs tend not to fit into pockets. Unless I was going out
to shoot pictures specifically I don't think I'd carry one. Most P&S
cameras will fit into jacket pockets, quite a few into a shirt pocket
even.

I have an older Fuji Z602, a bridge design that's not a pocket camera,
and it lives at home most of the time, not getting used much (I can't
recall off the top of my head when I last fired it up). My pocket camera
is a Canon A640 and it travels with me to work where I use it a lot
doing equipment surveys (the swivelling LCD is particularly useful in
cramped conditions). I shoot stuff indoors, often with bad or
non-existent light illuminated only by a hand-torch or a lightstick.
High ISO settings and resulting high levels of image noise don't worry
me or my employers as the pics are for reference to record equipment
serial numbers and such. These pics are not for display in a gallery.

My next camera will be another P&S, something with image stabilisation
which will help with longer hand-held exposures in bad lighting. Right
now if I'm trying to take night shots I tend to use a pocket tripod or
my regular full-sized Manfrotto but it's usually more trouble than it's
worth lugging that beast around on the off-chance I need it.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon

"SMS" wrote in message
...

I don't know why a) dpreview would do such a ridiculous comparison rather
than simply stating, "if you need high ISO, buy a D-SLR" and b) why the
P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to shoot at high ISO
when they know how poorly their products will perform.

Because sometimes a mediocre photograph is more useful than none at all.

Pete D wrote:


Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact,
lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic
mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in your
pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras.

Cheers.

Pete



Could you give us the names of the ones you can put in your pocket or
purse please?

"Robert Sneddon" wrote in message
...
In message
, Pete D
writes

"Robert Sneddon" wrote in message
...

Bad shot versus no shot at all.

Dear Robert,

Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact,
lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic
mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in
your
pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras.

As you say, D-SLRs tend not to fit into pockets. Unless I was going out
to shoot pictures specifically I don't think I'd carry one. Most P&S
cameras will fit into jacket pockets, quite a few into a shirt pocket
even.

I have an older Fuji Z602, a bridge design that's not a pocket camera,
and it lives at home most of the time, not getting used much (I can't
recall off the top of my head when I last fired it up). My pocket camera
is a Canon A640 and it travels with me to work where I use it a lot
doing equipment surveys (the swivelling LCD is particularly useful in
cramped conditions). I shoot stuff indoors, often with bad or
non-existent light illuminated only by a hand-torch or a lightstick.
High ISO settings and resulting high levels of image noise don't worry
me or my employers as the pics are for reference to record equipment
serial numbers and such. These pics are not for display in a gallery.

My next camera will be another P&S, something with image stabilisation
which will help with longer hand-held exposures in bad lighting. Right
now if I'm trying to take night shots I tend to use a pocket tripod or
my regular full-sized Manfrotto but it's usually more trouble than it's
worth lugging that beast around on the off-chance I need it.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon

Even when I backpack I take the best camera I can, the weight penalty for a
basic setup is not that much and I rarely find an excuse not to take it.
True enough my bigger D-SLRs are heavier but then I leave the grips and big
lenses at home at take just what I need.