The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:29:56 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

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

Then why don't you? Seriously. Instead of the rants you've
posted.

What other possible
course is there when dealing with someone so obviously devoide
of logical creative thought processes?

Name calling only discredits yourself.

You fool, you're talking to a sporger!

Whatever that is.

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

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:41:48 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
wrote in
pan.2008.12.29.21.41.45.30717@numb_and_incoherent :

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:25:14 -0600, HEMIROID-Powered wrote:

First, learn how to snip.

That is NOT acceptable Usenet convention. Or netiquette.

Not true.

A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/

Summarize What You are Following Up.
...
Summarization is best done by including appropriate quotes from the
original article. Do not include the entire article since it will
irritate the people who have already seen it. Even if you are responding
to the entire article, summarize only the major points you are discussing.

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

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:08:02 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
wrote in
pan.2008.12.30.01.07.59.675209@numb_and_incoheren t:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:03:14 -0800, John Navas wrote:

A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/

That document is 8 years old,

Yep.

conventions have changed with the growth of
Usenet.

Nope. It's still regularly posted.

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

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:08:02 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
wrote in
pan.2008.12.30.01.07.59.675209@numb_and_incoheren t:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:03:14 -0800, John Navas wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:41:48 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
wrote in
pan.2008.12.29.21.41.45.30717@numb_and_incoherent :

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:25:14 -0600, HEMIROID-Powered wrote:

First, learn how to snip.

That is NOT acceptable Usenet convention. Or netiquette.

Not true.

A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/

That document is 8 years old, conventions have changed with the growth of
Usenet.

See also
"Quoting style in newsgroup postings"
http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/nquote.shtml

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

John Navas wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
John Navas wrote:

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.

You can argue that a Ford Escort is just as fast as a Corvette, and
you can argue that a P&S is just as good as an SLR, but the truth
will still be that a bigger engine makes for a faster car and a bigger
sensor makes for better image capture.

Fatally flawed analogy that's typical of compact camera denigration by

"My Escort really is faster than a corvette!"

--
Ray Fischer

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:30:40 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:25:14 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

HEMI-Powered added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...


It's hard to believe that one twit can engender so much smoke on
an issue of no possible consequence to anyone. I mean, even if
there were any relavent issues to the P & S vs DSLR argument,
which there are not, why would either side think they could
convince the other? Instead, all that is happening is that
otherwise normal, reasonable, logical people have allowed
themselves to be caught up in a silly argument which not only
has no merits whatsoever but worse, has yours and many other
people's blood pressure up. And, the OP who started all this
nonsense must be trully laughing their ass off at all the
attention they're getting. A bigger bunch of buffoons is hard to
imagine!

First, learn how to snip. Then, you can start by apologizing to me,
David Taylor and everyone else you savaged with your vile comments.

Pot ... kettle ...

And you expect us to believe that you aren't black?

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:03:14 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:41:48 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
wrote in
pan.2008.12.29.21.41.45.30717@numb_and_incoheren t:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:25:14 -0600, HEMIROID-Powered wrote:

First, learn how to snip.

That is NOT acceptable Usenet convention. Or netiquette.

Not true.

A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/

Summarize What You are Following Up.
...
Summarization is best done by including appropriate quotes from the
original article. Do not include the entire article since it will
irritate the people who have already seen it. Even if you are responding
to the entire article, summarize only the major points you are discussing.



However, John, in your case you use snipping as a tool to remove
relevant parts of the discussion that you don't want to respond to...
and then put words in the other person's mouth when the evidence is no
longer there.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:47:56 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:09:47 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Stephen, thinking, intelligent, logical people everywhere would
clearly listen to and believe your thesis, but you aren't dealing
with such a person, hence I doubt that no matter how well written
you will lose and no matter how strident you get you will be
defeated.

The flaw in that thinking is that Stephen is one of the prime offenders.

John, I may have offended *you* because I haven't accepted your very
selective evidence that you think proves your view that your
compact/p&s/whatever camera in your hands is the equal of a larger
sensor camera in capable hands.

If you were really paying attention, you would have seen that I have
complimented you personally as a photographer on several occasions.
You just seem to be in denial over the fact that some types of cameras
have serious deficiencies with regard to certain aspects of image
quality.



The only thing to do is to suck if up, let the OP "win"
and let this thread finally dry up and die.

Then why don't you? Seriously. Instead of the rants you've posted.

What other possible
course is there when dealing with someone so obviously devoide of
logical creative thought processes?

Name calling only discredits yourself.

Like when you called me a house n-word?

Interesting.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:57:08 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On 30 Dec 2008 06:07:40 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
John Navas wrote:

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.

You can argue that a Ford Escort is just as fast as a Corvette, and
you can argue that a P&S is just as good as an SLR, but the truth
will still be that a bigger engine makes for a faster car and a bigger
sensor makes for better image capture.

Fatally flawed analogy that's typical of compact camera denigration by

"My Escort really is faster than a corvette!"

It probably could get you where you are going every bit as fast. That
the Corvette is faster off-road is as meaningless as claiming that a
dSLR could get a better image in theory than a compact digital.

When I shoot and print 8x10, as I often do, the print from my Panasonic
DMC-FZ8 is typically every bit as good as prints made from dSLR images.
The exceptions are a minority of shots, some of which are better with
the FZ8, some of which are better with dSLR.

I don't think that anyone questions that a good P&S can take
photographs that will result in prints that are equal to a photograph
taken with a dslr. (That is, anyone except the hobby-horse riders who
insist - without logical basis - that one device is inherently better
than another.)

The noticeable difference, though, is that many P&S shooters are not
using comparable devices to what most dslr shooters are using. You
cannot reasonably say that what you can accomplish with your camera is
the same as what any P&S shooter can accomplish with his camera.

You seem to be trying to make the case that if John Navas, with John
Navas's camera, can take good photographs, then any user of any P&S
camera can do the same. That's not any more true than any
photographer using a dslr can take good photographs.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:18:17 -0500, tony cooper
wrote in
:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:57:08 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

When I shoot and print 8x10, as I often do, the print from my Panasonic
DMC-FZ8 is typically every bit as good as prints made from dSLR images.
The exceptions are a minority of shots, some of which are better with
the FZ8, some of which are better with dSLR.

I don't think that anyone questions that a good P&S can take
photographs that will result in prints that are equal to a photograph
taken with a dslr. (That is, anyone except the hobby-horse riders who
insist - without logical basis - that one device is inherently better
than another.)

The noticeable difference, though, is that many P&S shooters are not
using comparable devices to what most dslr shooters are using. You
cannot reasonably say that what you can accomplish with your camera is
the same as what any P&S shooter can accomplish with his camera.

Of course not (absent luck), although automatic functions have improved
to the point that average shooters now get many more good images than in
the past, quite a few of which are very good to excellent in the context
of their intended use.

Likewise you cannot reasonably say that what a good photographer can
accomplish with a dSLR is the same as what any dSLR shooter can
accomplish with a dSLR.

"The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches
behind it." -Ansel Adams

You seem to be trying to make the case that if John Navas, with John
Navas's camera, can take good photographs, then any user of any P&S
camera can do the same. That's not any more true than any
photographer using a dslr can take good photographs.

To be clear, I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that the better
compact cameras are quite capable of taking excellent images, bashing by
certain dSLR fans notwithstanding.

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