A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 6th 07, 12:45 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
chester_baddington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:04:31 -0500, Doug McDonald
wrote:

David Ruether wrote:
"David Ruether" wrote in message ...

I should have this up in an hour or so, but I will put up comparison
photos at www.doughicksphotography.com/comparison.htm.
of a D1x with an 18-70mm at 18mm and f4 and a Sony 707 at
10mm and f4.5 (about the same angle of view). The files will be
very large...
--
David Ruether


YIKES!!! I had no idea that this would result in so much, uh,
conversation...! 8^) BTW,



That's an interesting comparison. Especially since it clearly shows
the superiority of the Nikon. Look, for example, at the
wheel rim of the farther car. How many holes does it have?
What is their shape?

Also, look at the lateral chromatic aberration.

Doug McDonald


Look at the fact that the dslr is using more zoom. Why can't it match let alone
beat the detail in all the leaves and grass and asphalt? You know, the other
99.9% of the photo. What? It can only pick out the larger details when zoomed-in
more? Then explain the missing texture, important LARGE texture, from the yellow
stripes in the street. Oh wait, that's right, someone already said that the sun
was in its eyes. Even though the shadows already show that that's not true. The
dslr couldn't compensate for it properly because it's not as good as the P&S
camera, but they seemed to overlook that little problem too. It's either missing
detail from blown highlights, or the dslr can't take a proper exposure, being
able to record the full dynamic range which is easily visible in the P&S camera.
Which is it? (all of those reasons)

Keep trying. LOL

Amazing, a dslr that can't even compete with a P&S camera. Well, it's not really
amazing. It's only amazing to those dslr fools that have never looked through
anything but their lousy dslrs, for which they have to incessantly try to find
excuses (full of holes) to justify why they spent so much on them. One recent
comparison of Roger's MkII against a Panasonic FZ18 showed the very same
improvement if not even more capability of the P&S cameras. Roger had to lock up
the mirror, mount the camera on a tripod, use expensive L-glass and he still
couldn't beat the resolution and detail in a HAND HELD FZ18. Then he comes back
trying to post even better photos to try to wipe that huge omelet that's still
smeared all over his camera and face. LOL

You dslr people sure are a good source of laughs, I'll give you that much.
  #62  
Old October 6th 07, 01:17 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
Doug McDonald[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

chester_baddington wrote:

Look at the fact that the dslr is using more zoom.


That's immaterial at the teensy difference.
Why can't it match let alone
beat the detail in all the leaves and grass and asphalt?


It does beat the Sony there. The Sony is seriously "shapness-enhanced"
to the point of halos. Befor vcomparing them, you MUST either
sharpen the Nikon or unsharpen the Sony.

This I did by sharpening the Nikon before making the comparison.


You know, the other
99.9% of the photo. What? It can only pick out the larger details when zoomed-in
more? Then explain the missing texture, important LARGE texture, from the yellow
stripes in the street.


The detail

Keep trying. LOL


I don;t have to ... I've proven my points.


Doug McDonald
  #63  
Old October 6th 07, 03:22 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
Mr.T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S


"chester_baddington" wrote in message
...
You dslr people sure are a good source of laughs, I'll give you that much.


So trade your PoS in on a camera-phone like most of the population. I'm sure
it will be more than good enough for your requirements.

MrT.


  #64  
Old October 6th 07, 05:13 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

JoelJameson wrote:

Sharpening artifacts? Try again. There's no way that sharpening artifacts will
account for all these extra blades of grass and extra leaves in the P&S camera
which can't be reclaimed in the DSLR photo.


There isn't more detail, there is coarse noise reduced, oversharpened
exaggerated detail. If you apply sharpening to both, you can see the P&S
is more coarse and contrasty, the DSLR is finer with more detail.

In fact, since the DSLR image is
zoomed in slightly more than the P&S camera you'd think it would EASILY provide
more detail.


Best I could figure, the DSLR pixels are enlarged. I'm not clear on that
or how you are figuring this.

Even with that extra zoom going for it the
DSLR creates muddier details and less of them, and it has NOTHING to do with the
lens in use.


The DSLR image is more subtle because it's not been oversharpened or
contrast applied, what do you see he
http://edgehill.net/temp/d1x-707/pg1pc4
(heavy but equal sharpening applied to both for emphasis)
Which has more detail?
Which has huge colored halos?
Which has strange glop in the shadows?
Which has blocky jpeg artifacts?
Which has strange colors where no colors exist?
  #65  
Old October 6th 07, 03:06 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

chester_baddington wrote:

You dslr people sure are a good source of laughs, I'll give you that much.


Since you have to change your online name daily to escape filters,
you're only a sink for pity.
  #66  
Old October 6th 07, 07:08 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
Willarojo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

JoelJameson vehemently accused in
:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:53:33 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Bob Williams wrote:
Each camera should be tested under as close to the same
conditions as possible under bright lighting where each
camera can "show its stuff".


But that does *not* mean setting the two cameras to the
same settings! The scene is what should stay the same.
Each camera should be configured to produce its best
results of that same scene.

Another point is that the Nikon lens used was not a top
line lens to match the pro model body, and it was used
absolutely at the extreme of its zoom range. The Sony
only has one lense, but it was not used at the extreme
of its range (though granted it appears to have been
close enough that the image suffered greatly by even
being close).

A better test of the two camera's would have been to set
the Sony to about 19.1mm (equivalent to 75mm on a 35mm
camera), which would probably be about where it would
perform best. The Nikon could mount a 50mm f/1.8 AFD
lense or the 28-70mm AFD zoom set to 50mm if you insist
on a zoom. (After all one of the *primary* advantages
that an SLR camera has is being able to choose the best
glass for a given job!)

Otherwise, the comparison is *not* letting the camera
"show its stuff".



It's fun watching you ALL trying to make excuses for the DSLR.
As if in some way is going to make up for the fact that a camera
that costs LESS THAN 20% of the DSLR outperforms the DSLR.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, the sun was in its eyes (try again, the shadow sharpness
reveals the cloud cover), its shoelaces were too tight, it wore
the wrong girdle, there was a stone in its shoe .... Just throw
a better lens on that Nikon (thereby losing the same zoom range
as the P&S, crippling the DSLR so it's no longer anywhere near
equal to the P&S's capabilities) and it'll beat the P&S this
time! Yadda yadda yadda ....

Got any more excuses on why a DSLR can't beat an inexpensive P&S
camera? Keep 'em coming you self-deluded blind DSLR ****s!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sharpening artifacts? Try again. There's no way that sharpening
artifacts will account for all these extra blades of grass and
extra leaves in the P&S camera which can't be reclaimed in the
DSLR photo. In fact, since the DSLR image is zoomed in slightly
more than the P&S camera you'd think it would EASILY provide
more detail. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even with that extra zoom
going for it the DSLR creates muddier details and less of them,
and it has NOTHING to do with the lens in use. (do your homework
you stupid and ignorant DSLR ****s)

Yeah, keep putting those blinders on and making excuses. You're
good for a laugh. But that's ALL you are good for. The only
thing that you are proving to the WHOLE WORLD is that people who
buy and use DSLRs are self-deluded ignorant fools!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn this is funny. It's like watching a circus-ring of pathetic
clowns with blindfolds on, holding their beloved DSLR cameras,
running around the arena making silly beep-beep noises while
bumping into each other, then apologizing for each other, and
blaming each other for the other not being able to see.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come to think of it, this would perfectly explain why the photos
that DSLR owners post are total crap too! Like that crap from
Roger and Annika being so pathetic.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If they can't see the data
staring them in their face in these photos how could they even
be expected to know what makes for good photography in the first
place? MAKES PERFECT SENSE! They're ****in' BLIND!

The totally blind leading the totally blind while holding their
POS DSLRS!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**** is this funny! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch 'em squirm and wiggle.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only blind, monkey-mimic, clown-worms buy DSLRS!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I think you're running out of exclamation points, lemme give you a
few.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That should hold you for another post or 2. Don't thank me, I'm
happy to share, since they seem to be the extent of your posts'
content.

Willa
--
http://www.pbase.com/willarojo

“I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to
live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.”
Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

“We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from
Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing
important to communicate.”
Thoreau, Walden
******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

  #67  
Old October 14th 07, 09:30 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
hickster11
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S


"D-Mac" wrote in message
...
..

Once the images meet a certain level for quality, they have to meet a
"content" measurement because that's what sells. The content. If you can't
capture an opportunist photo or one that produces an Ohhh, Arrrr from a
viewer, you join the *elite* few who spend their life in envy of people

who
make a living doing what they want to do but their perfectionist nature
prevents them from doing.

Doug

I guess that accounts for the phenomenal sales

of Elvis Presley portraits on black velvet from Tijuana.
Bob Hickey


  #68  
Old October 14th 07, 09:47 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,898
Default Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

On Oct 14, 4:30 pm, "hickster11" wrote:
"D-Mac" wrote in message

  #69  
Old October 14th 07, 09:57 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
hickster11
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S


"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...


Giuliani (what's he on: his fourth or is it his fifth
wife**)?

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Giuliani"s fourth was a lesbian

marraige and not legal in N.Y.S. which always accounts for some confusion.
Bob Hickey


  #70  
Old October 14th 07, 11:59 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,898
Default Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

On Oct 14, 4:57 pm, "hickster11" wrote:
Giuliani"s fourth was a lesbian marraige and not legal in N.Y.S.
which always accounts for some confusion.
Bob Hickey


Yes, but I heard he looked lovely in his chiffon dress.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S Annika1980 Digital Photography 107 October 14th 07 11:59 PM
Ken Rockwell Le Patriote Digital Photography 4 March 29th 07 05:19 PM
Q. for Ken Rockwell Annika1980 Digital Photography 34 December 5th 06 07:12 PM
Ken Rockwell Cynicor Digital Photography 13 December 5th 06 12:41 AM
Rockwell wants your Money!!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 7 December 1st 06 09:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.