DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Nov 23, 11:14 pm, acl wrote:
On Nov 23, 12:25 pm, wrote:



And finally, here's an image that was taken on a DSLR (courtesy Scott
W):http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89240657/original

Unless I'm mistaken, that is a stitched image (I don't remember is
Scott said it or not, but it's certainly downsampled, almost certainly
from a stitched image).

Yes, acl, I think you are probably right, although I assumed it might
be from a high-end dslr, downsampled to be closer to the pixel size of
the Navas examples..

The facts remain:
- Navas stated that his image was better than Scott's example, while
simultaneously referring to 'excellent' prints at 11" x 17" sizes from
his FZ8. That position is either laughable, or simply a reflection of
his lack of experience with printing large images.
- At those sizes on most images (ie those containing sharp detail), a
DSLR will walk all over a prosumer, simply because the DSLR has clean,
virtually noiseless images and (almost) 'pixel-level' sharpness.
- The FZ8 is a rather noisy camera, with resolution of around 1600
lph, while a typical dslr like the current Canon EOS 400D manages 2000
lph, with a very clean image. The noise levels and NR smearing
problems drag the FZ8's effective resolution down much further even at
the lowest ISO setting, and it is left in the dust by large sensor
cameras when shooting at 200 ISO or above.

Don't get me wrong, I've printed some wonderfully 'sharp-looking'
images at 11" x 17" from my 8/9Mp prosumers. But those were
invariably things like close portraits, where the image does *not*
draw the viewer in for a close look. At viewing distances of a couple
of feet, they look pin sharp. But try to print an image containing
very fine detail, like this:
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/b...morn_small.jpg
and all bets are off. That 8MP prosumer image looks fine at a couple
of feet when printed to 11 x17, but when you move in to examine the
detail, it is not there. If you want to prove this, here's the
original full-res image:
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/brisbane_morn.jpg
Try printing a portion of it at about 200 ppi (which would produce a
roughly A3 sized image if printed in full). And try whatever amount
of post-proc to see if you can get it sharp...

I invite readers to compare that image, which imo is a pretty good
example of the best a prosumer can manage, with John's, he
http://img113.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ilteredex6.jpg
(click on it to see the full-res version)
John doesn't see any problem with that image....

Some people *are* happy with the results of small sensor cameras on
large images. And the prints can indeed look impressive... until you
get close. With many images, the image *content* invites the viewer
to look closely. And some people have just never seen a sharp large
print...

Anyway, it seems we are all arguing with just John and one very poor
troll with multiple posting names. I'm not wasting more time on such
folk. The pictures adequately tell the story.

DSLR IDIOTS-STRIKE AGAIN! wrote:

I have used MANUAL zoom lenses ALL MY LIFE. I now prefer a
decently made BY WIRE zoom for many reasons, least of not which
is the sealed lens design environment that it allows.

Which camera is that?

I have used OPTICAL viewfinders ALL MY LIFE. I now prefer the
hundreds of advantages of a well made EVF and LCD system.

I'd like to try one. What brands and models would you recommend?

I just saw images by a $400 P&S camera that were posted that have
2X's the resolution of $13,000 worth of DSLR camera and L glass.

Do you know which camera was used?

Where can I see the images?

Thanks, W

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:57:12 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:31:00 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote in :

Few, if any, such cameras meet my definition of
'prosumer'

False.

True. It's *my* definition.

Fair enough. Sorry.

My definition is considerably different.

those would be the midrange DSLRs from at least Canon and
Nikon. ...

It's sad that some DSLR (large sensor) fans are so threatened on
equipment and technique that they feel the need to try to belittle and
put down smaller cameras and the people who use them.

Of course that's sad. I am not, however, among them,

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

and your repeating
this refrain /ad nauseum/ and indiscriminately is turning you into a
pest here, as you seem to prefer to argue rather than discuss.

I've actually discussed to a fare thee well. The argument has been
coming from DSLR fans determined to put down compact cameras.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:06:13 -0800 (PST), wrote
in :

On Nov 23, 11:14 pm, acl wrote:
On Nov 23, 12:25 pm, wrote:

And finally, here's an image that was taken on a DSLR (courtesy Scott
W):http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89240657/original

Unless I'm mistaken, that is a stitched image (I don't remember is
Scott said it or not, but it's certainly downsampled, almost certainly
from a stitched image).

Yes, acl, I think you are probably right, although I assumed it might
be from a high-end dslr, downsampled to be closer to the pixel size of
the Navas examples..

Which is of course unfair, inappropriate and misleading. But hey, don't
let little things like that stand in the way of bashing compact cameras,
right?

The facts remain:
- Navas stated that his image was better than Scott's example, while
simultaneously referring to 'excellent' prints at 11" x 17" sizes from
his FZ8.

That's false, and you know it.

That position is either laughable, or simply a reflection of
his lack of experience with printing large images.

That position is simply offensive.

- At those sizes on most images (ie those containing sharp detail), a
DSLR will walk all over a prosumer, simply because the DSLR has clean,
virtually noiseless images and (almost) 'pixel-level' sharpness.

My FZ8 can produce objectively excellent prints at that size.

- The FZ8 is a rather noisy camera, with resolution of around 1600
lph, while a typical dslr like the current Canon EOS 400D manages 2000
lph, with a very clean image. The noise levels and NR smearing
problems drag the FZ8's effective resolution down much further even at
the lowest ISO setting, and it is left in the dust by large sensor
cameras when shooting at 200 ISO or above.

Yet another unfair, inappropriate and misleading comparison. Are you so
desperate you have to reach that high? What's next, medium format?

The FZ8 actually beats comparable (6 MP) DSLRs in resolution, as proven
in objective testing, and produces clean images and prints when used
properly, as my samples have shown.

Don't get me wrong, I've printed some wonderfully 'sharp-looking'
images at 11" x 17" from my 8/9Mp prosumers. But those were
invariably things like close portraits, where the image does *not*
draw the viewer in for a close look. At viewing distances of a couple
of feet, they look pin sharp.

In other words, normal viewing distance.
Your "drawing people in" is bogus.

But try to print an image containing
very fine detail, like this:
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/b...morn_small.jpg
and all bets are off. That 8MP prosumer image looks fine at a couple
of feet when printed to 11 x17, but when you move in to examine the
detail, it is not there. If you want to prove this, here's the
original full-res image:
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/brisbane_morn.jpg
Try printing a portion of it at about 200 ppi (which would produce a
roughly A3 sized image if printed in full). And try whatever amount
of post-proc to see if you can get it sharp...

I invite readers to compare that image, which imo is a pretty good
example of the best a prosumer can manage, with John's, he
http://img113.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ilteredex6.jpg
(click on it to see the full-res version)
John doesn't see any problem with that image....

Totally different images.

Some people *are* happy with the results of small sensor cameras on
large images. And the prints can indeed look impressive... until you
get close. With many images, the image *content* invites the viewer
to look closely. And some people have just never seen a sharp large
print...

Nonsense.

Anyway, it seems we are all arguing with just John and one very poor
troll with multiple posting names. I'm not wasting more time on such
folk. The pictures adequately tell the story.

They do indeed, just not the story you're claiming.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:03:29 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:

Since you object to common courtesy, I'm omitting my sig block.

No, John, it isn't courteous to effectively tell someone to go away and
then add "best regards". It's being vapid, and I know you aren't
normally "vapid", but your mileage is variable these days.

That's just your opinion. My opinion is quite different.
And there we have it.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:57:12 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:31:00 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote in :

Few, if any, such cameras meet my definition of
'prosumer'
False.
True. It's *my* definition.

Fair enough. Sorry.

My definition is considerably different.

those would be the midrange DSLRs from at least Canon and
Nikon. ...
It's sad that some DSLR (large sensor) fans are so threatened on
equipment and technique that they feel the need to try to belittle and
put down smaller cameras and the people who use them.

Of course that's sad. I am not, however, among them,

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps you could actually post some indications where I do so???

and your repeating
this refrain /ad nauseum/ and indiscriminately is turning you into a
pest here, as you seem to prefer to argue rather than discuss.

I've actually discussed to a fare thee well. The argument has been
coming from DSLR fans determined to put down compact cameras.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

There are some espousing almost any viewpoint who can't take it. Are we
regulars to be joyful that you're here to straighten out the miscreants?

Some- not you of course!- mistake our correcting of wrong statements
made about cameras as an attack on compact cameras or their users. While
a handful do that, most of us don't, and won't. In fact, I love my G-3.

--
John McWilliams

On Nov 24, 12:06 am, wrote:


The facts remain:
- Navas stated that his image was better than Scott's example, while
simultaneously referring to 'excellent' prints at 11" x 17" sizes from
his FZ8. That position is either laughable, or simply a reflection of
his lack of experience with printing large images.

I agree. The images he's posted show a lack of experience (not
noticing extremely prominent sharpening halos combined with loss of
low contrast detail etc). All this may or may not matter in a print of
a given size, but posting them as proof that camera X is a technically
capable tool, and after rather loudly proclaiming that it's just as
good as anything else, well, either he likes being laughed at or he
really didn't realise how crappy those shots were (technically).

- At those sizes on most images (ie those containing sharp detail), a
DSLR will walk all over a prosumer, simply because the DSLR has clean,
virtually noiseless images and (almost) 'pixel-level' sharpness.

As Roger Clark repeated many times, this lack of noise helps a lot:
you can use something like focus magic to make the image much sharper,
and also sharpen more before you run into trouble. This makes your
image behave as if it was shot at a higher resolution. This really
does work, and usually one is limited by noise. Similarly for
sharpening to emphasise edges etc.


Don't get me wrong, I've printed some wonderfully 'sharp-looking'
images at 11" x 17" from my 8/9Mp prosumers. But those were
invariably things like close portraits, where the image does *not*
draw the viewer in for a close look. At viewing distances of a couple
of feet, they look pin sharp. But try to print an image containing
very fine detail, like this:http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/b...morn_small.jpg
and all bets are off. That 8MP prosumer image looks fine at a couple
of feet when printed to 11 x17, but when you move in to examine the
detail, it is not there. If you want to prove this, here's the
original full-res image:http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/brisbane_morn.jpg
Try printing a portion of it at about 200 ppi (which would produce a
roughly A3 sized image if printed in full). And try whatever amount
of post-proc to see if you can get it sharp...

In fact I was planning to download that and play around with it, out
of curiosity.



I invite readers to compare that image, which imo is a pretty good
example of the best a prosumer can manage, with John's, hehttp://img113.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ilteredex6.jpg
(click on it to see the full-res version)
John doesn't see any problem with that image....

Yes. That says it all, I think.

Anyway, it seems we are all arguing with just John and one very poor
troll with multiple posting names. I'm not wasting more time on such
folk. The pictures adequately tell the story.

On 11/23/07 1:40 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:31:00 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:

Compact is certainly a more reasonable term, although big differences
between different classes of compact cameras warrant further
clarification, for which many people use "bridge" or "prosumer" a the
high end.

Compact is good.

True.

Few, if any, such cameras meet my definition of
'prosumer'

False.

those would be the midrange DSLRs from at least Canon and
Nikon. ...

It's sad that some DSLR (large sensor) fans are so threatened on
equipment and technique that they feel the need to try to belittle and
put down smaller cameras and the people who use them.
Navass, you have created a macro for that last run-on sentence that have
closed more than several posts, haven't you? Well, aren't we just so
special?

On 11/23/07 1:42 PM, in article
, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

John Navas wrote:
[]
It's sad that some DSLR (large sensor) fans are so threatened on
equipment and technique that they feel the need to try to belittle and
put down smaller cameras and the people who use them.

John,

I've enjoyed discussing some things with you, but this repetition really
doesn't help anyone.

David


It's his sig line. He is just sooooooo smart, he thinks.

John Navas wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
John Navas wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
John Navas wrote:

Those aren't the kind of servos I've described -- those are dumb
steppers.

You referring to the servos used in P&S cameras. ...

Not true.

Well unless you're taking pictures with an F22 I don't see what you're
llittle red herring has to do with anything, except maybe an attempt
to distract from a losing argument.

Perhaps you should clean your glasses, and learn some basic manners.

Certainly not from a condescending asshole like you.

Deny it all you want, but I've explained the concept in considerable
detail,

Oh, so you're not actually dealing with reality. You're trying to use
bull**** in order to explain why a compact camera COULD be better
than an SLR.

Got it.

--
Ray Fischer