The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 07:56:52 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:55:36 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Ah, well that's where I first got into trouble. I looked at an
image and reported as accurately as I could on the defects
visible on close viewing, even though I said that these defects
may not be visible on a small print!

The defects aren't visible in a large print either -- you'd presumably
know that if you had actually printed it, as I did, instead of just
speculating -- but that wasn't the issue, as you know. That particular
image was dredged up by someone hunting through my website for something
bad to put down, not something posted here by me, and you jumped in with
your own put down. You had nothing to say about the images I posted,
nothing positive or constructive to say about the dredged up image, and
nothing at all to say about the dredged up image itself, just technical
bashing of that image. You then selected a good dSLR photo of your own
to compare to it. Neither accurate nor fair nor balanced nor helpful.

Actually, at least two people posted different photos selected at
random, not something that was dredged up.

Both of them were typical of that class of camera, as verified by
virtually any nonbiased review of those cameras. They weren't poor
photographs, they simply showed the kind of noise and artifacts that
those cameras are known for.

As to being helpful, yes it was. If nothing else, a newbie reading
all of this will have seen evidence of what different kinds of cameras
can produce rather than listening to enthusiasts on either side
bragging about their gear.

John, it really isn't a witch hunt. Most of us who have used those
kinds of cameras and who have graduated to ones with larger sensors
have simply come to grips with the issues, and made the appropriate
changes. Nobody is trying to trash you personally.







You nasty boy, you! grin To me, a beautiful photo is beautiful no
matter whether a newbie or a pro takes it and whether a snapshot
camera - not allowed to say P & S anymore! take it or an ultra-
expensive full-frame DSLR. Likewise, a crappy photo could be taken
by a pro using a great camera OR by a rank amatuer who just
"pointed and shot." So what? If one describes an image objectively
and without bias to either the photographer or the camera, how can
anyone object? Never mind, I already know!

Indeed. If only that had been the case. But instead it was the kind of
technical bashing by dSLR fans that's par for the course here. And at
the end of the day nobody could come up with comparable and better
images from a dSLR despite having bet that there just had to be such
images.

But you're right - the connation appears to be that just because
someone uses a P&S camera of today, they must somehow be poor
photographers or incapable of using a "better" camera. Even
though today's P&S may well have a lot more control than those
of the Instamatic era.

And images taken with COMPACT CAMERAS must somehow be poor images, no
matter how good the image and how good the technical quality for the
intended purpose.

Sure enough -- I later posted a stunning (I say immodestly) panorama of
the Golden Gate Bridge, and got a technical put down for my trouble of
artifacts that resulted from compressing the image for efficient
Internet viewing.

And, to you, David, and the many good people here, I say this: I
judge people by what they DO, and NOT by what they SAY nor by the
equipment they use whether it be a camera, graphics software, or
about anything. It at least SHOULD matter how well people perform
without anyone getting judgmental about the tools they choose to
use.

Of course. Would that everyone did the same.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:45:25 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:14:17 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

John Navas added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

Indeed. If only that had been the case. But instead it was the
kind of technical bashing by dSLR fans that's par for the course
here. And at the end of the day nobody could come up with
comparable and better images from a dSLR despite having bet that
there just had to be such images.

David is hardly a DSLR bigot and neither am I, so why are you so
defensive?

I've not called David a "bigot" -- be more careful in your choice of
words, pejoratives aren't helpful -- he's a good example of civility,
which I applaud, but I do think he exhibits a lack of objectivity and a
bias toward dSLR, and I don't think it's "defensive" to be exasperated
and object to unfair bashing.

Surely you must understand that all things being equal,
a DSLR will produce superior results to a small sensor camera for
any number of valid technical reasons.

With all due respect, that's a non sequitor -- all things are *never*
equal, and "superior results" is in the eye of the beholder, often
insignificant in the context of the intended purpose, which is why we
have different cameras, different lenses, and different photographers.

There are cases that will favor my FZ8, just as there are cases that
will favor a dSLR, just as there are cases where there will be no clear
winner.

Unlike some others here, I'm not guessing -- I've gone to the trouble of
shooting with comparable cameras the same subjects, chosen to favor
neither camera, printing the results at 8x10, asking people to compare
the prints and pick their favorites (double blind), and there was no
statistical winner.

But that isn't at all the
point. Virtually every camera sold can produce better results than
the person standing behind the viewfinder knows how to produce so
what's the point of continually making comparos that are, at best,
invalid to some degree?

Indeed -- it would be nice if this forum focused more on constructive
criticism of images themselves, but the majority of the posted feedback
is technical nitpicking and bashing, and even the image comments are
often more bashing than constructive. The recent thread "Fresh images
from my latest sailing expedition to Antarctica" drew these unhelpful
comments:

We obviously have a different definition of "stunning" or you must
not get out much, or at all. Tourist snapshots is all I see. Okay
fodder for a personal scrapbook of memories but not anything worth
buying, in any form. It's difficult to imagine anyone going to that
much expense and effort to come back with only that.
Keep trying I guess. Maybe you'll get 1 or 2 each year, if you keep
shooting enough.

I agree this particular Antarctic trip doesn't have much in the way
of keepers.

And images taken with COMPACT CAMERAS must somehow be poor
images, no matter how good the image and how good the technical
quality for the intended purpose.

I have seen NO ONE say that categorically.

Then you're not reading all the posts. Do I really need to cite them?

... But again, what does that matter if
YOU are satisfied with the results you get? ...

Ask your significant other how she/he would feel if everyone said she/he
looked fat. Even when feeling OK about your weight, it's no fun taking
constant flack, and I have no doubt you would feel the same way. Perhaps
that's why I've not seen you post images. Why don't you?

John, nobody has said the equivalent to you of "you look fat." It's
all about the capabilities of the cameras. Period. You really need
to learn to distinguish between objective criticism of inanimate
objects and personal attacks.



Not everything is life
is some sort of bull**** contest where to have a winner someone
else must be a loser. Why not allow for the possibility that many
cameras can produce adequate images and just enjoy what you have?

Good advice. Suggest you direct it at the bashers. I'm not a basher,
so your advice is misdirected.

Sure enough -- I later posted a stunning (I say immodestly)
panorama of the Golden Gate Bridge, and got a technical put down
for my trouble of artifacts that resulted from compressing the
image for efficient Internet viewing.

What did you expect?

No better here. Perhaps that's why I've not seen you post images.

Of course. Would that everyone did the same.

Including you, who seem to think that only YOUR camera choice is
the right one, implying that everybody else is somehow stupider
than you are. Give it a rest,

I've not done that. It's an accusation roughly akin to criticizing a
rape victim for being provocative and then objecting to getting raped.
Blame the victim.

You aren't a victim, John.




it's Christmas!

With all due respect, think of that next time before posting. I've not
flogged you in public. Why then do you presume to flog me in public,
and on Christmas Eve? Why did you not use private email (as I did with
David)? Do you really expect me to take this well? Are you trying to
start a fight?

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:54:54 +0000, savvo
wrote:

On 2008-12-23, Paul Furman wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
John Navas wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:55:53 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

I rest my case. I think your bias is clear, whether you honestly
don't see it or not, and will take that into account in the future.
John, as you objected to "small-sensor", and said that "compact" was
not appropriate (IIRC), ...

Come on, David, at least be above putting words in my mouth. I did not
say "compact" was not appropriate. I use the term myself. How could
you possibly have missed that?

Well, gentlemen: I did switch to "compact" sometime in the past year,

'Compact' is a good term. It also describes the sensor size in an obliqu
way. So, is that the official new non-discriminatory PC term for P&S?

It's the one I believe I've usually used. But I still ended up in the
twit filter.

Maybe those of us who have been banished with John's twit filter
should start a separate thread so we can moan to each other about how
unfair everybody has been to us.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Even though there's NO LENS on the mystery dSLR,
it's still not even close.
Adding the most comparable dSLR lens:

DSLR: 142 x 108 x 75mm +
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM: 92 x 184mm =
-------------------------------------------------
142 x 108 x 259 mm (4M cubic mm)

it's interesting that you pick a comparable lens that's very expensive
and few people buy because it suits your agenda, yet you dismiss
'loading up a windows box' so that its feature set is comparable to a
mac to be 'cooking the books.' as you said in that other thread,
what's fair is what people typically buy, and that's *not* a 28-300mm
stabilized zoom. you can't have it both ways.

Careful, David, your bias is showing.

it's actually the opposite. *your* bias is showing, along with a large
dose of hypocrisy.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:50:41 -0500, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Even though there's NO LENS on the mystery dSLR,
it's still not even close.
Adding the most comparable dSLR lens:

DSLR: 142 x 108 x 75mm +
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM: 92 x 184mm =
-------------------------------------------------
142 x 108 x 259 mm (4M cubic mm)

it's interesting that you pick a comparable lens that's very expensive
and few people buy because it suits your agenda, yet you dismiss

Hardly. I picked the closest lens I could find. If there's a more
comparable lens, let me know what it is and I'll update the chart.
But forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others

John Navas wrote:
[]
You are of course welcome to move on to whatever you wish, but your
exercise is unfair and meaningless, as I've explained. I didn't post
that image, or cite it as an example of anything, other than to
explain why it makes no sense to bash it. If you must, dredge up one
of your own culls or mangles and have at it. You're otherwise out of
line. And I'm tired of arguing about it.

John, the struggle of trying to find the words which cause you no offence
has become too much.

David

John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:04:38 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 07:46:19 GMT, "David J Taylor"
[]
The FZ8 is certainly /not/ a compact camera to me - that's
the realm of "flat" cameras such as the 36mm thick TZ5:

Yet you have no problem lumping them together as "P&S".
Careful, David, your bias is showing.

You have yet to provide a term you don't consider biased, and which
is
accepted by the digital photography community.

When did I stop beating my wife?
I'm not going to play that game.

While the FZ8 is not as small as many compacts -- shall we call them
super compacts? -- it's smaller than the "bridge" FZ50, and a lot
smaller than a dSLR, especially with a comparable lens, and unlike
the dSLR, the FZ8 _does_ fit in a jacket pocket.

I just tried both my FZ5 and my Nikon D60, and no problem fitting
either
into a jacket pocket. You just store the lens (or wide-angle
adapter) in
a second pocket.

Careful, David, your bias is showing, again. You can't put your D60
in your pocket with a comparable lens unless your pocket is a
backpack.

The FZ8 is nearer the size of a small DSLR:

FZ8: 112 x 72 x 79mm
= 637,056 cubic mm
DSLR: 142 x 108 x 75mm
= 1,150,200 cubic mm

Even though there's NO LENS on the mystery dSLR,
it's still not even close.
Adding the most comparable dSLR lens:

DSLR: 142 x 108 x 75mm +
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM: 92 x 184mm =
-------------------------------------------------
142 x 108 x 259 mm (4M cubic mm)

Careful, David, your bias is showing.

No bias,

So you say, but it sure looks like bias to me.

I did forget the lens, for which I apologise,

An amazing oversight, don't you think?

BTW, the lens you
have chosen doesn't fit the camera I quoted.

True, but it's the closest dSLR lens I know of in terms of performance
and quality.

The nearest might be:


http://www.ukdiscountproducts.com/pr...cfm?sid=google

Just an example.

Doesn't fit your D60 either.

Careful, David, your bias is showing, again.

And that lens doesn't compare to the lens on my FZ8 -- narrower range,
slower speed, not stabilized, lower quality, far more expensive.

Please refer to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

David

John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 07:32:01 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote
in :

I think that "offense", as well as
"beauty" are in the eye of the beholder!

It's not objectively offensive to insult or demean someone or
something? Really?

Please refer to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

David

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:11:53 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
[]
You are of course welcome to move on to whatever you wish, but your
exercise is unfair and meaningless, as I've explained. I didn't post
that image, or cite it as an example of anything, other than to
explain why it makes no sense to bash it. If you must, dredge up one
of your own culls or mangles and have at it. You're otherwise out of
line. And I'm tired of arguing about it.

John, the struggle of trying to find the words which cause you no offence
has become too much.

Fair enough, David, the struggle of trying to take you as fair and
objective has also become too much.

Such nice sentiments on Christmas Eve.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:12:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

And that lens doesn't compare to the lens on my FZ8 -- narrower range,
slower speed, not stabilized, lower quality, far more expensive.

Please refer to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

Which one would that be?
That being polite, fair, and objective is too hard?

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others