The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:06:00 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

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

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

That's a fallacy of Appeal to Popularity.

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.

You must be missing many of the posts. There are many that disparage,
denigrate, and put down, "p&s" or "small sensor" cameras in general and
my FZ8 in particular. Do I really need to cite them?

It has been just a
vigorous debate on the relative merits of a whole raft of issues.

It's actually been technical nitpicking, much of which is at best
subjective, and patently manufactured in the case of the image that was
dredged up from my site.

You seem to be a small camera/P & S bigot for no good reason.

Please note that you are the one using a pejorative, not me.
I've used the non-pejorative term "fan" in this thread.

Nobody is trying to force you to buy a bigger/better camera nor to
even try to convince you why they're better.

No to the former, but yes to the latter.

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!

That kind of mischaracterization is part of what I'm talking about.
The FZ8 is not "P & S genre", not at "bottom of the food chain", and
it's not "nearly the entire world". It's in a class of camera most
commonly called "super-zoom" by knowledgeable people.

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.

That's just plain wrong -- the lens on the FZ8, most notably, is
objectively equal to or better than the great majority of dSLR lenses,
despite much lower cost. That clearly seems to bug the hell out of dSLR
fans, who apparently feel so threatened they have to try to put it down.
Not even live and let live, much less give the devil his due.

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

I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, and try to have a bit
more objectivity. Surely these holidays are a good excuse for the
positive.

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

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:47:22 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

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.

Regardless of your mistaken impression of the motives of others, it is
only a comparison of cameras... NOT you or your ability. Why do you
keep making it to be so?

Many of your pictures do in fact demonstrate a keen eye for
photography. It's just that you could be doing a much better job at
it with a better camera.

You've been told before that the images in question were taken AT
RANDOM from your website. They were NOT chosen to be the worst
possible example in order to put you down. There were many worse
images there to choose from if the goal was just to be nit picking.
(Again, that refers to the CAMERA, not to you.)

And the same comments have applied toward some of the images that you
specifically chose as examples.


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.


But don't you see, this just further illustrates the point. Images
from a better camera simply don't need the same level of post
processing correction to make them look acceptable.






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.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:51:43 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

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?

All this over the way that most people prefer to call a certain class
of camera, including camera manufacturers and retailers? And none
of which has absolutely anything to do with using any camera to create
real photographs?

Well, Merry Christmas to everyone.

And if the word "Christmas" offends anyone, too bad. Jesus is the
reason for the season. Deal with it! :-)

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:01:50 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

clip for brevity


That's just plain wrong -- the lens on the FZ8, most notably, is
objectively equal to or better than the great majority of dSLR lenses,
despite much lower cost. That clearly seems to bug the hell out of dSLR
fans, who apparently feel so threatened they have to try to put it down.
Not even live and let live, much less give the devil his due.

Truly, even if true that does not bug any "dslr fans" in the slightest
because it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the end result.
You're picking just one aspect of lens performance, ie resolution.

You are ignoring the objective evidence that even if that lens had
twice the resolution, it wouldn't come through in the final images
because of the limitations of the small sensor.

Seriously, why do you think the lens on the camera you happen to like
poses any "threat" whatsoever to the users of other types of cameras?
You must imagine that they all have the same ego that you do.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say; and any
objective real-world comparison of images from the FZ8 with most dslrs
shows the former to be lacking.

To quote the conclusions in dpreview:

-Some areas of performance actually worse than predecessor
-Noise is, as usual, a bit of a problem at lower ISO settings
ISO 400+ noise reduction produces color bleeding and loss of low
contrast detail
-Default noise reduction too high at all ISO settings (use low NR
setting)
-Limited dynamic range, highlight clipping in JPEGs
-Default contrast a bit on the high side
-Occasional (mild) fringing
-Occasional focus hunting at long end of zoom in low light and in
macro mode
-Slight video lag in live preview makes very short shutter lag rather
pointless

So it really doesn't matter if the resolution of the lens is somewhat
better than some dslr lenses. In many images, the higher noise and
limited dynamic range detract from the image far more than a few lines
of resolution.


Why ignore those facts and continue to take this defensive position?
It sounds like you are the one who feels threatened.


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

I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, and try to have a bit
more objectivity. Surely these holidays are a good excuse for the
positive.


That's all we've been asking you to do. Accept the objective
evidence and stop turning into some kind of personal vendetta towards
you because you happen to like using those cameras.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

That you can't configure
a Mac as cheaply, and that even the twice as expensive Mac has a much
smaller screen, is unfortunate for the Mac.

the screen is not 'much smaller.' it has the exact same number of
pixels as the dell.

Do you not know what smaller means?

you said 'much smaller.' now it's just 'smaller' ?

Nothing whatsoever to do with pixels.
Think inches.

both the dell you mentioned and the macbook have 1280 x 800 pixel
screens and can display exactly the same amount of information.

the macbook does it with a 13" screen resulting in a laptop that is
smaller, thinner and lighter. the dell does it with a 15" screen and
is larger and heavier. some people prefer even smaller screens, such
as in a netbook. as you say, different strokes for different folks.

and as for the price, yes, apple does not have a $500 laptop at this
time. they do have $1000 laptop and it is competitive with $1000
laptops from other companies.

Case closed. Game over.
I'm done.

good.

In article , Stephen Bishop
wrote:

Why ignore those facts and continue to take this defensive position?
It sounds like you are the one who feels threatened.

indeed.

savvo wrote:
On 2008-12-23, dj_nme wrote:
savvo wrote:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/3029504851_0e6ca565c9_o.jpg
So what did your VCR do that deserved dismemberment?

It stopped working so, as with all failed electronics, it joined the
photo props bin aka the garage.

I suppose that is a crime warranting dismemberment. ;-)
There are all sort of mechanical and electrical goodies inside a dead
VCR, so the bits could still do something other than just being a photo
prop.

On 12/24/08 2:43 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:32:21 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

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.

Done.

As you do sometimes have good points to make, and as I would have liked to
see more photos from your FZ8, a camera similar to one of my favourites, I
do this rather reluctantly, but I cannot justify the time spent pandering
to your every whim and your continual completely unjustified attacks on
me.

Likewise.

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.
New Handle: "Peerless Nav-Ass", nice ring!

On 12/24/08 8:10 PM, in article
, "dj_nme"
wrote:

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

That's nice.
Will you live up to your promise this time?
Are you kidding?!? That ego cannot be contained.

Stephen Bishop wrote:

And if the word "Christmas" offends anyone, too bad. Jesus is the
reason for the season. Deal with it! :-)

It doesn't bug people, it amuses them. Jesus has nothing to do with the
season. Jesus was born in the Spring or Summer. People complain about
the commercialization of Christmas when in reality that's the only part
that makes any sense.