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

John Navas wrote:

It seems you are right and my information was incorrect.


Apology accepted.

John Navas wrote:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:03:08 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in
:

Neil Harrington wrote:

I'm glad to hear it. Panasonic does make an excellent product.

Panasonic consistently excels in the "features" department. Where it
always falls apart for Panasonic is in noise. You can shoot at ISO 100
pretty well (though some reviewers complain about the noise even at ISO
100).

Painfully obvious that you have no first-hand experience, and thus no
real idea what you're talking about.

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.

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.

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. There are few worse digital point and
shoot cameras than the Panasonic from the point of view of noise in
this price bracket. Obviously there are cheap, off-brand point and
shoot cameras that are much worse, but they are a fraction of the
price.

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.

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 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.

But it has its strengths. Use it within its limitations and make best
use of the RAW format and the results can actually be quite good for a
point and shoot digital compact camera.

But the results are not remotely as good as even the cheapest DSLR and
cheapest kit lens can produce. And anyone who believes otherwise is
guilty of severe self-delusion.

Tony Polson wrote:

Far from making himself look foolish, which he has done many times on
here in the past, SMS is 100% right on this one.

Well gee, thanks--I think. I guess the question of who looks foolish and
when is a subject where opinions may differ.

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. It's downright painful to look at ISO 200 or above on the
Panasonic's, and ISO 100 is not too wonderful either.

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:45:27 -0500, "Neil Harrington" wrote:


"SMS ???. ?" wrote in message
.. .
Neil Harrington wrote:
"GeraldG." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:43:11 -0500, "Neil Harrington"

wrote:

"Helmsman3" wrote in message
...

BTW, how many different names are you posting under?

Haven't hit on one you really like yet?

LOL, at least he keeps making everyone's kill-files longer and longer.
Hasn't been this much crap since "George Preddy" was around.

Here's my most current list:

























lid


















lid















lbo

































lid


















lid















lbo











GOOD GRIEF!

He must have a lot of time on his hands, and nothing to do with it but
troll. How pathetic is that?

Neil


About as pathetic as a person with that much time on their hands to compile a
list like that. As equally pathetic as someone who responds to trolls that post
lists like that. Resident trolls in any news-group always use these tactics, its
one of the easiest ways to spot them. Rather than discussing photography they
use things like this as red-herrings to evade any real discussions when their
lies have been exposed. Then idiots like you fall right into their cyber-life
trap. None of you being very bright. Perfectly self-evident.

Neil Harrington wrote:
John Navas wrote:

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.

So you're saying that the entire site should not be taken seriously? Their
dictionary definition of "Prime lens" is "A lens with a fixed focal length"
(http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Primelens).

What's the right definition?

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. It actually saves time by not having to wade through hundreds of
posts by know-it-alls that know nothing.

Add one more of course, ".

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:48:03 -0800 (PST), acl
wrote:

On Nov 17, 10:45 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:



GOOD GRIEF!

He must have a lot of time on his hands, and nothing to do with it but
troll. How pathetic is that?


I must admit that I am amused to discover that I am also a sock puppet
of the troll, according to SMS!

Resident trolls don't have to provide reliable data, they just have to post a
troll.

Only 3 of those addresses are correct.

SMS just provided something very useful to all of us. Anyone that doesn't want
SMS poking his ignorant nose into threads and hijacking them for attention for
himself with his usual trolling tactics, just use one of these email addresses
in your post. This is his block list.

How convenient of him to help all of us this way.



On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:21:27 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote:

Neil Harrington wrote:
"GeraldG." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:43:11 -0500, "Neil Harrington"

wrote:

"Helmsman3" wrote in message
...

BTW, how many different names are you posting under?

Haven't hit on one you really like yet?

LOL, at least he keeps making everyone's kill-files longer and longer.
Hasn't been this much crap since "George Preddy" was around.

Here's my most current list:

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Wilba wrote:

So you're saying that the entire site should not be taken seriously? Their
dictionary definition of "Prime lens" is "A lens with a fixed focal length"
(http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Primelens).

What's the right definition?

Some pedants insist that "prime lens" is best left as the
term for the main lens when using a supplementary lens.
They may have a point, but it is a widely used piece of slang
and rarely causes confusion.

But their definition of "zoom lens" is just wrong.
There are many lenses of adjustable focal length
which are not zoom lenses. For instance, a front cell
focussing lens is focussed by changing the focal length,
and would not be called a zoom lens by anyone.

A zoom lens is one which allows the focal length to
be changed and remains in focus when the focal length is
adjusted.

Peter.
--

"Peter Irwin" wrote in message
...


A zoom lens is one which allows the focal length to
be changed and remains in focus when the focal length is
adjusted.

Peter.

Perhaps, but I never trust any of mine.....I always refocus after changing
the focal length, if time permits........