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 » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Samsung's latest contribution to P&S mediocrity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 3rd 09, 08:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default Samsung's latest contribution to P&S mediocrity

SMS wrote:
Rich wrote:
26-624mm equivalent and (of course) the ubiquitous, crappy 1/2.33" P&S
sensor. Plus raw mode and 3200 ISO.


ISO 6400 for 3M or less, LOL.

Can you even begin to imagine the noise in such an image?


Doesn't matter. There's clearly a market for people who don't care at
all about the quality of the image and are more concerned with having
the most megapixels, the widest range zoom, and the biggest LCD.


There isn't a person posting here who isn't willing to accept
compromises in image quality in order to get a camera that they
can use for an acceptable price. Some of them are arrogant snobs
who think that only their compromises are acceptable.

--
Ray Fischer


  #2  
Old September 3rd 09, 02:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Samsung's latest contribution to P&S mediocrity

Ray Fischer wrote:

There isn't a person posting here who isn't willing to accept
compromises in image quality in order to get a camera that they
can use for an acceptable price. Some of them are arrogant snobs
who think that only their compromises are acceptable.


True. It's all a question of which compromises you're willing to make.

Still, advising people to avoid a camera with very high noise and a
crappy lens (ignoring for a while all the other issues) doesn't
necessarily make someone arrogant, nor a snob.
  #3  
Old September 3rd 09, 07:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 259
Default Samsung's latest contribution to P&S mediocrity

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 06:35:23 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

There isn't a person posting here who isn't willing to accept
compromises in image quality in order to get a camera that they
can use for an acceptable price. Some of them are arrogant snobs
who think that only their compromises are acceptable.


True. It's all a question of which compromises you're willing to make.

Still, advising people to avoid a camera with very high noise and a
crappy lens (ignoring for a while all the other issues) doesn't
necessarily make someone arrogant, nor a snob.


If your judgment of a camera is solely based on the above, which
you have chosen as the only important features, then yes, you
could be termed a snob. Other features ( video, cost, ease of use,
ect.ect.) are all valid features. That is unless you are a snob and
believe that your criteria is all that should be considered.
 




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
Samsung's latest contribution to P&S mediocrity [email protected] Digital Photography 0 September 1st 09 08:13 PM
Samsung's latest contribution to P&S mediocrity Dave Cohen Digital Photography 0 September 1st 09 04:40 PM
My humble contribution - wrapper script for dcraw (linux) [email protected] Digital Photography 1 April 1st 07 02:57 AM
Is Samsung's 815....metal? Rich Digital Photography 9 November 26th 05 02:25 AM
Samsung's 815 RichA Digital SLR Cameras 1 June 4th 05 04:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:29 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.