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

The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old December 7th 08, 11:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:02:35 +0000, Robert Sneddon
wrote:

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.


And that is perhaps the best reason to have a p&s, to have a camera in
your pocket with you at all times.

But that doesn't in any way suggest that a p&s should replace your
dslr, rather it should merely be a supplement.


  #42  
Old December 7th 08, 11:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:44:07 +1100, "Pete D" wrote:


"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.


That's the best approach. Take the best gear you're willing to carry
with you.

There's a reason why Ansel Adams made many of his masterpieces with a
view camera, hauled into the mountains with the help of a mule. He
could have taken the easy way out and just carried a 35mm camera
around his neck. But the results would have showed it.

Would Ansel be using a p&s today? Perhaps he would, but only for the
purpose of checking exposure and compositon before making the actual
exposure with his high-end dslr. :-)




  #43  
Old December 7th 08, 11:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:10:26 -0600, ZackaryZ
wrote:

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:44:07 +1100, "Pete D" wrote:


"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.


Translation: Backpack = sturdy DSLR camera bag. Hike = 1 block walk in the local
dog-park.

Weight/Cost comparison:

Canon SX10 = 28mm-560mm lens, 1.3 lbs. $340

DSLR = 18-200mm lens + 200-400mm lens + heavy-duty tripod to use the longer 7.2
lb. lens, total = 18 lbs. $6,500 + dust on sensor + missed shots from changing
lenses and having to use tripod most of the time + wildlife frightened away from
clattering mirror + misshaped bird and insect wings from focal-plane shutter
distortions + no room for food and important supplies to hike for more than a
few short hours distance.



Yet the fact is that overwhelmingly the best digital wildlife
photographs are made by photographers using a dslr. Those
disadvantages you list rarely pose a problem in the real world.





  #44  
Old December 7th 08, 12:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:19:35 -0500, "Charles"
wrote:


"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.


Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers.


BINGO. That's the most said with the fewest words around here in a
long time.

I'm just thankful that the camera enthusiasts keep the camera
companies in business so we photographers can choose from the best
possible equipment to meet our needs.



  #45  
Old December 7th 08, 12:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:48:45 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" wrote:

"Charles" wrote in message
...

Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers.


Q: What's the difference between a photographer and a painter?

A: Two painters can carry on a long discussion without mentioning brushes.


One of my favorite anonomous quotes goes something like this: "That
was a great meal. What kind of pots and pans did you use?"



  #46  
Old December 7th 08, 12:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:12:50 -0600, Ronald G.
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:19:35 -0500, "Charles" wrote:


"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.


Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers.


DSLR purchasers are not necessarily photographers. The vast majority of them are
desperate talentless amateurs thinking they can become a pro by just buying a
more expensive camera.


And what about the vast majority of p&s purchasers? Perhaps they are
smart enough to realize they don't have talent and they don't waste
their money on equipment that they know they won't be able to use to
the fullest.





  #47  
Old December 7th 08, 12:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 21:52:23 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:


"Ronald G." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:19:35 -0500, "Charles"
wrote:


"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.

Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers.


DSLR purchasers are not necessarily photographers. The vast majority of
them are
desperate talentless amateurs thinking they can become a pro by just
buying a
more expensive camera.


No, most of them are former P&S owners sick of noise turning up on 5x7
prints..


Silly. Everybody knows that a real pro considers noise to be a means
of artistic expression. Only rank amateurs rely on clean tack-sharp
images to hide their lack of talent. But their pictures give them
away because everything in them is twisted unto a u-turn from the
distortion from their noisy focal plan shutters.






  #48  
Old December 7th 08, 12:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:14:33 -0600, MilesLandau
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:10:17 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" wrote:

"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.


Content will trump quality every time.


Very true.

However, it's also true that poor quality will distract from the
content.



  #49  
Old December 7th 08, 12:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:38:58 -0600, Mitchell Graysin
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 21:54:54 -0500, "RichA" wrote:


"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
"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.


99% of the planet are not out to get grab shots with camera phones in just
bombed subway trains. Or record schoolyard fights with equally mediocre
"video" modes. Some actually care about the technical quality of a
carefully done shot.


If those "carefully done shots" don't convey anything interesting to anyone then
all the "technical quality" in the universe is not going to help you.

Look at it this way ... you have more computer under your fingertips than all
the computing power put together for the Apollo 11 mission to get men's
footprints on the surface of the moon. In fact, a C-64 (64k RAM) computer had
more computing power than used for Apollo 11. And what do you do with all that
technical quality at your fingertips? You convey meaningless nonsense that is of
no use to anyone. You could broadcast your sentences across the globe or to
nearby planets on every transmission frequency known to man at 1,000,000
megawatts each in high-fidelity 3D audio. And still your words would be of no
use nor importance to anyone. The quality and power of your vehicle will never
relate to the contents nor determine the content's worth.

Content will trump quality every time.

While you're trying to digest that FACT, also try to enjoy all those "carefully
done" "technical quality" missed shots of yours. (I strongly suspect that you'll
come up empty on both counts.)



All that is moot. The quality of the content has nothing whatsoever
with the camera you choose to use.

Quality can only enhance good content. Lack of quality always
detracts from the content.

The fact is that if dslr cameras resulted in so many missed shots,
then the vast majority of professional photographers wouldn't rely on
them to put food on their table.



  #50  
Old December 7th 08, 12:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:12:05 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

RichA writes:

99% of the planet are not out to get grab shots with camera phones in just
bombed subway trains.


But 99% of amateur photographers are out to grab shots, and don't care about
quality.


Amen!


 




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
Life? Reality? dale In The Darkroom 0 April 6th 08 09:49 AM
Sickening amount of dust in 5D image RichA Digital SLR Cameras 22 June 7th 07 02:31 AM
The SICKENING HORROR of sensor dust RichA Digital SLR Cameras 12 December 21st 06 02:06 PM
reality check? Kinon O'Cann Digital Photography 6 January 18th 06 08:05 AM
D50 Reality? Strath Digital Photography 0 March 18th 05 09:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:38 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.