The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:48:15 -0800, SMS
wrote in :

David J Taylor wrote:
John Navas wrote:
[]
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.

Don't worry, John, I will save you the bother. I am putting you in my
killfile, and I would prefer that you sent me no further unsolicited
private e-mail.

Most people put John in both their Usenet kill-files _and_ their e-mail
kill-files once they're treated to his modus operandi.

"Most people" means Steven and all his friends.
In other words, one person.

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

dj_nme wrote:

Just because you enjoy using a particular camera does not make the
short-comings of it's small sensor size vanish.

Not all small sensor cameras are as bad as the Panasonic models in terms
of noise at ISO above 100. Some do well at ISO 200 and even 400.

The relatively poor quality images from the FZ8 that we've seen are in
line with all the reviews of the FZ8.

"Heavy noise reduction smears/mottles details when ISO is above 100, or
in low light."

"Where the FZ8 falls a little short is in image noise and its aggressive
noise reduction. But those shortcomings can generally be overcome with
lots of light, and sticking to low ISO settings."

"Noise is, as usual, a bit of a problem at lower ISO settings."

"The FZ8 is a winner in terms of features and specs, but falls short in
image quality except at the lowest ISO setting."

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:17:40 -0800, SMS
wrote in :

dj_nme wrote:

Just because you enjoy using a particular camera does not make the
short-comings of it's small sensor size vanish.

Not all small sensor cameras are as bad as the Panasonic models in terms
of noise at ISO above 100. Some do well at ISO 200 and even 400.

Likewise the FZ8. The FZ28 is even better.

The relatively poor quality images from the FZ8 that we've seen are in
line with all the reviews of the FZ8.

"Heavy noise reduction smears/mottles details when ISO is above 100, or
in low light."

"Where the FZ8 falls a little short is in image noise and its aggressive
noise reduction. But those shortcomings can generally be overcome with
lots of light, and sticking to low ISO settings."

"Noise is, as usual, a bit of a problem at lower ISO settings."

"The FZ8 is a winner in terms of features and specs, but falls short in
image quality except at the lowest ISO setting."

If you have any real experience with it, you would know that turning
noise reduction down results in good images at ISO 200, and even ISO 400
But since you don't have any real experience, all you can do is
regurgitate what you've dug up on the Internet that you think puts it
down.

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

John Navas wrote:
snip
Case closed. Game over.
I'm done.

That's nice.
Will you live up to your promise this time?

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:33:17 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:17:40 -0800, SMS
wrote in :

dj_nme wrote:

Just because you enjoy using a particular camera does not make the
short-comings of it's small sensor size vanish.

Not all small sensor cameras are as bad as the Panasonic models in terms
of noise at ISO above 100. Some do well at ISO 200 and even 400.

Likewise the FZ8. The FZ28 is even better.

The relatively poor quality images from the FZ8 that we've seen are in
line with all the reviews of the FZ8.

"Heavy noise reduction smears/mottles details when ISO is above 100, or
in low light."

"Where the FZ8 falls a little short is in image noise and its aggressive
noise reduction. But those shortcomings can generally be overcome with
lots of light, and sticking to low ISO settings."

"Noise is, as usual, a bit of a problem at lower ISO settings."

"The FZ8 is a winner in terms of features and specs, but falls short in
image quality except at the lowest ISO setting."

If you have any real experience with it, you would know that turning
noise reduction down results in good images at ISO 200, and even ISO 400
But since you don't have any real experience, all you can do is
regurgitate what you've dug up on the Internet that you think puts it
down.

Those with real experience know that when you turn down the noise
reduction to avoid those artifacts you get.... more noise! There
is no free lunch. Your own photos demonstrate this, as does every
single unbiased camera review out there.

It isn't a put-down to recognize the facts.

Those cameras definitely have a place, but that place is not in
providing the best image quality.

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

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, I'd rather not get involved in parts of this debate but what
seems to be happening is some disagreement over the interpretation
of one or two specific images that John is somehow translating into
the perception that his choice of camera type is being attacked. Of
course, it is not as best I can see. Quality is quality is quality,
and not is not is not. Since I have no skin in the game, I'm not
going to further engage.

Have a pleasant holiday!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Accuracy is the degree a measurement meets a known or true value
while precision is the degree of reproducibility in the measurement
itself" - Mathematical definition

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

I suggest you take note of what your peers here have said.

Sadly there are precious few peers here.
I suggest you take note of what I have said.

John, as best I can tell, NO ONE has attacked you or your choice of
digital camera type or even any of your images. It has been just a
vigorous debate on the relative merits of a whole raft of issues.
You seem to be a small camera/P & S bigot for no good reason.
Nobody is trying to force you to buy a bigger/better camera nor to
even try to convince you why they're better. And, it isn't just one
or two "peers" that feel like - in general - P & S genre cameras
are at the bottom of the food chain, it is nearly the entire world!

Now, if there are OTHER reasons why you or anyone prefers a P & S,
including the love of small size and light weight and lesser
expense, they who are we to tell you that you're wrong? But, as
soon as one desires to either increase their image quality via
better optics or lower noise OR wants to get longer zoom ranges or
even interchangeable lenses, then all bets are off.

Chill out and try to enjoy life for what it is, rather than for
what it is not.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Accuracy is the degree a measurement meets a known or true value
while precision is the degree of reproducibility in the measurement
itself" - Mathematical definition

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

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:49:02 -0600, "HEMI-Powered"
wrote in
:

The notion being complained about here was that some reference
to Sarah Palin being a Mom who wants to help her kids play
hockey, much like there are "soccer Moms" and other kinds of
"Moms" had some oblique racial overtones by defining so-called
code words. I was using this silly ass example of how and why
just about anything, no matter how common or benign, is
considered to be offensive by SOME.

Which says nothing about the use of words that aren't benign,
and known to be offensive to the recipient.

If you are offended by "hockey mom", there's something wrong with
your brain! And, why is it that "those people" can use the "N" word
but I can't, or call their women a "ho" but I can't? That's called
a double standard and is both reprehensible and offensive TO ME! If
people want to be insulted or offended by inventing bull****
euphemisms or code words to make others out to be racist or bigots,
let them. It is their problem, not mine.

And, how in Hell did the PC-ing of America ever come to the point
it has where for others to assert their rights and freedoms, I must
always give up mine? I'm ****ing sick and tired of being called
vile names for using words and phrases that up until a year or two
ago were perfectly acceptable, and then some lunatics or Far Left
Loons decided to make them "offensive."

It's like your fetish about being offended by the term "P & S". To
the millions of other people, this merely means a smallish, less
expensive camera fully capable of creating excellent images. You
CHOOSE to be offended and sure enough, you are!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Accuracy is the degree a measurement meets a known or true value
while precision is the degree of reproducibility in the measurement
itself" - Mathematical definition

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:01:40 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

David, I'd rather not get involved in parts of this debate but what
seems to be happening is some disagreement over the interpretation
of one or two specific images that John is somehow translating into
the perception that his choice of camera type is being attacked. Of
course, it is not as best I can see. Quality is quality is quality,
and not is not is not. Since I have no skin in the game, I'm not
going to further engage.

With all due respect, Jerry, there's a world of difference between a
fair and balanced critique, and focusing on just negative issues, real
and imagined. Worse, this wasn't about images I posted, it was about
bashing of an image dredged up from my website by someone looking for a
bad image to put down, and after I had explained the image was not
representative of the camera. This was then compounded by posting a
good image claimed to be comparable (on only superficial grounds).
If it's not an "attack", then it's at least an unfair putdown that
strongly suggests bias.

When I shoot an event, I often do a lot of snaps for competitors, and
because of limited time between the event and post-event socializing,
put them through a crude automated correction and compression that
results in a pleasing screen/slide-show image, but that degrades the
image at the pixel level. Thus these images are not representative of
the camera, and using them to put it down is unfair bashing.

If you're going to "engage" at all, then I think you've got a
responsibility to fully inform yourself on both sides of the issue
before drawing any conclusions.

Have a pleasant holiday!

You too! I'm looking forward to a Christmas party at 11 with good
friends.

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

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:10:18 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

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

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:49:02 -0600, "HEMI-Powered"
wrote in
:

The notion being complained about here was that some reference
to Sarah Palin being a Mom who wants to help her kids play
hockey, much like there are "soccer Moms" and other kinds of
"Moms" had some oblique racial overtones by defining so-called
code words. I was using this silly ass example of how and why
just about anything, no matter how common or benign, is
considered to be offensive by SOME.

Which says nothing about the use of words that aren't benign,
and known to be offensive to the recipient.

If you are offended by "hockey mom", ....

I didn't say that.

And, why is it that "those people" can use the "N" word
but I can't, or call their women a "ho" but I can't?

Because their race wasn't the oppressors. Seems both obvious and
understandable to me.

That's called
a double standard and is both reprehensible and offensive TO ME! If
people want to be insulted or offended by inventing bull****
euphemisms or code words to make others out to be racist or bigots,
let them. It is their problem, not mine.

No offense (sincerely), but that seems a bit over the top to me.

And, how in Hell did the PC-ing of America ever come to the point
it has where for others to assert their rights and freedoms, I must
always give up mine?

What rights and freedoms are you giving up? Saying the "n" word?
Is it that important to you?

I'm ****ing sick and tired of being called
vile names for using words and phrases that up until a year or two
ago were perfectly acceptable, and then some lunatics or Far Left
Loons decided to make them "offensive."

What "vile names"? Seriously.

It's like your fetish about being offended by the term "P & S".

With all due respect, Jerry, you can't have it both ways, to complain
about "vile names", and then accuse me of having a "fetish". As you
wrote, "That's called a double standard and is both reprehensible and
offensive TO ME!"

To
the millions of other people, this merely means a smallish, less
expensive camera fully capable of creating excellent images. You
CHOOSE to be offended and sure enough, you are!

Just as you "CHOOSE" to use the term, even though you know it to be
inaccurate, and to be offensive to me, not the term itself, but the
inappropriate way it is being used. There is a difference, as I'm sure
you know.

Cameras like the FZ8 are actually most commonly called "super-zoom" by
knowledgeable people, their defining characteristic, not "point and
shoot". And Panasonic, like other manufacturers, uses the term "compact
digital" to refer to its Lumix cameras in general, not "point and
shoot".

You do of course have a right to call cameras like the FZ8 whatever you
want, but that doesn't mean you get a pass on your _choice_ of term.
Fair enough?

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John