25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:26:48 -0600, Izzy Sammath
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:08:50 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:


They can only be used effectively at one aperture
to gain optimum use from them.

Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without
losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play
with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame.


Some people are revealing their ultimate ignorance and/or their ultimate
self-deception. It is DSLR lenses that are only optimized for one f-stop, P&S
lenses are optimized across the full f/stop spectrum. Due to the DSLR's larger
lens size their physical diameters aren't figured as accurately. They are only
figured as accurately as what the public will accept, due to the consumer's
inability to test their lenses to any greater degree than their sensor's larger
photo-site will allow.Please stop trying to display your financially-supported
biases and your apparently obvious ignorance.

You'd be surprised how much you reveal by your off-handed ignorant comments.

Why don't you just post some of your pictures and put to rest the
questions about your apparent lack of qualifications to make such
blanket insults?

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:51:20 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:26:48 -0600, Izzy Sammath
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:08:50 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:


They can only be used effectively at one aperture
to gain optimum use from them.

Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without
losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play
with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame.


Some people are revealing their ultimate ignorance and/or their ultimate
self-deception. It is DSLR lenses that are only optimized for one f-stop, P&S
lenses are optimized across the full f/stop spectrum. Due to the DSLR's larger
lens size their physical diameters aren't figured as accurately. They are only
figured as accurately as what the public will accept, due to the consumer's
inability to test their lenses to any greater degree than their sensor's larger
photo-site will allow.Please stop trying to display your financially-supported
biases and your apparently obvious ignorance.

You'd be surprised how much you reveal by your off-handed ignorant comments.

Why don't you just post some of your pictures and put to rest the
questions about your apparent lack of qualifications to make such
blanket insults?


No need post my photos to prove what was stated above. Just look at the sample
photos on this page:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

Now, compare how much CA is in the two images between the smaller sensor P&S
camera and the larger sensor DSLR. Keep in mind that the sensor's pixels are
much smaller on the smaller sensor. The angular distance of the CA on the DSLR
lens is more than 6x's the amount of CA being produced by the P&S lens when you
take their sensor's photo-site sizes into account. EASILY revealing that the
optics of the P&S camera are resolving details 6X's better than a DSLR lens.

Case closed.

You shouldn't have asked for proof. There's more there than anyone would ever
need. Now everyone can easily see what you didn't want them to see and what you
didn't want them to believe.

"****ingTrolls" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:17:25 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote:

See figure 3 he
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html
That's purple fringing: axial/longitudinal chromatic aberration.
You only see it in super-fast lenses or cheap lenses in high contrast
and in most all P&S with high contrast scenes.


Oh dear, an insecure DSLR purchaser proposing a challenge. Let me find all
the
links that show even worse lateral CA on all DSLR lenses.

Can you be any more lame? The same CA exists on ALL cameras.


Rubbish. Another drunk who blames CA on the sensor!!
A book on rudamentary optics isn't too expensive, Dover sells them cheap.

"andie-barns" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:22:55 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
news
Jesus Rich, no wonder I've got you plonked in most of these groups.
I have never commented like that before but come on...

The one all-encompassing reason for buying a P&S is compactness.
Everything
else (including quality) comes second. I've heard it 100x in camera
stores.

Quality is second? You've not used many P&S cameras in the last 3 years,
have
you.

Here's a quick recent example where the P&S quality far surpasses the
DSLR.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

Just one of hundreds that prove the P&S has surpassed the DSLR, long ago.
Catch
up.


Oh dear. Canon's known to be mediocre $100 kit lens and shots that
completely lack any real dynamic range as "proof" of camera superiority?
An Olympus E-420 and it's 14-42mm kit lens ($450) would crush all of them,
in those configurations.

Well,On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:31:50 -0500, Stephen Bishop
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:08:39 GMT, Steve wrote:


On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:34 -0500, Stephen Bishop
wrote:

This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...amera-rankings


That site is furthering my decision that the next camera I get may be
a D90 instead of a D300. I still have more research to do but it's
looking more and more that way.

Steve

If I were buying a new camera today I would also seriously consider
the D90.

I was playing around with one in the store along with a couple of
other sub-$1000 DSLR's and it really felt nice. Especially noticable
was the huge, bright and beautiful viewfinder when compared to cameras
like Canon's Rebel. No, I haven't done any exhaustive testing. Just
operating them all in the store for comfort level. And it's nice.

Steve

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:12:22 -0500, "RichA" wrote:


"andie-barns" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:22:55 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
news Jesus Rich, no wonder I've got you plonked in most of these groups.
I have never commented like that before but come on...

The one all-encompassing reason for buying a P&S is compactness.
Everything
else (including quality) comes second. I've heard it 100x in camera
stores.

Quality is second? You've not used many P&S cameras in the last 3 years,
have
you.

Here's a quick recent example where the P&S quality far surpasses the
DSLR.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

Just one of hundreds that prove the P&S has surpassed the DSLR, long ago.
Catch
up.


Oh dear. Canon's known to be mediocre $100 kit lens and shots that
completely lack any real dynamic range as "proof" of camera superiority?
An Olympus E-420 and it's 14-42mm kit lens ($450) would crush all of them,
in those configurations.



Didn't you forget a little something? You have to add in all the glass you'd
have to buy to cover a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range. Now how much does that
DSLR cost you, one that can beat the SX10? $2000? $5000? Really, how much? Don't
forget to tell us how much weight you're also going to have to carry around once
you pay out the nose for all that glass. And all the missed shots while you're
taking time to find the right one to attach to your camera.

How come none of your lame dSLR-trolls ever want to answer these simple
questions?

:-)

"Izzy Sammath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:08:50 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote:


They can only be used effectively at one aperture
to gain optimum use from them.

Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without
losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play
with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame.


Some people are revealing their ultimate ignorance and/or their ultimate
self-deception. It is DSLR lenses that are only optimized for one f-stop,
P&S
lenses are optimized across the full f/stop spectrum. Due to the DSLR's
larger
lens size their physical diameters aren't figured as accurately.

What a clueless dolt. Tell me, If I have two lenses, both 100mm f2.8, which
one is larger, the P&S's or the DSLR's?

"Colin.D" wrote in message
...
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul Furman wrote:
Stephen Bishop wrote:
Vern, CashTownsend wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Although some P&S lenses are quite good, none are f/1.8 or faster,
most have purple fringing CA problems & there are no really wide
recitilear options on P&S.

You failed to read to what you are trying to refute. Already covered
and
disputed. Points #1, #2, etc.

Purple fringing is a problem of ALL digital cameras. It is NOT caused
by the
lens, but by the sensor (are you actually this stupid?). Some DSLRs
are worse in
this regard than the better P&S cameras. Purple fringing is not just
in the
realm of P&S cameras. But only a moron would say something like that.
Correction. The purple fringing that plagues most P&S cameras is
rarely seen in dslrs. The problem is partly the sensor, which is
made worse by the small size of the P&S version. The other part of
the problem is the extremely short focal lengths of lenses on P&S
cameras.

It used to be believed that purple fringing was sensor blooming, maybe
it is a part of how tiny pixels emphasize CA in the lens but mostly it
is CA of the sort that you see is super-fast DSLR lenses, or cheap
lenses.

I thought that if the purple fringing was worst at the edges of the
image, and worst at wide apertures, i.e. varied across the image in
amount depending of how much refraction the light rays had gone
through in their path through the lens, then it was refractive
chromatic aberration. But if moving to the image centre and stopping
down didn't reduce it in the appropriate proportion for refractive CA,
then to that extent it was sensor blooming CA.

CA on the edges of an image is caused by lateral CA, a condition caused by
different colors causing different sized images on the film/sensor. axial,
or longitudinal CA is caused by different colors coming to a different
focus, so some colors will be out of focus when others are in focus. To
some extent, lateral CA is correctable by software, as is pincushion and
barrel distortion.

Blooming is really light spill into adjacent pixels, usually happening
only on bright or overexposed areas of the image.

And it isn't @$@#!@ blue or red so I wish people would STOP calling
LENS-induced CA "blooming."

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:46:47 -0500, "RichA" wrote:


"Izzy Sammath" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:08:50 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote:


They can only be used effectively at one aperture
to gain optimum use from them.

Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without
losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play
with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame.


Some people are revealing their ultimate ignorance and/or their ultimate
self-deception. It is DSLR lenses that are only optimized for one f-stop,
P&S
lenses are optimized across the full f/stop spectrum. Due to the DSLR's
larger
lens size their physical diameters aren't figured as accurately.

What a clueless dolt. Tell me, If I have two lenses, both 100mm f2.8, which
one is larger, the P&S's or the DSLR's?


Is that actual focal length or 35mm equivalent? It matters. Or aren't you bright
enough to know this. Probably not, or you would have known to included that
important information that you left out of your question.

RichA wrote:
"Colin.D" wrote in message
...
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul Furman wrote:
Stephen Bishop wrote:
Vern, CashTownsend wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Although some P&S lenses are quite good, none are f/1.8 or faster,
most have purple fringing CA problems & there are no really wide
recitilear options on P&S.

You failed to read to what you are trying to refute. Already covered
and
disputed. Points #1, #2, etc.

Purple fringing is a problem of ALL digital cameras. It is NOT caused
by the
lens, but by the sensor (are you actually this stupid?). Some DSLRs
are worse in
this regard than the better P&S cameras. Purple fringing is not just
in the
realm of P&S cameras. But only a moron would say something like that.
Correction. The purple fringing that plagues most P&S cameras is
rarely seen in dslrs. The problem is partly the sensor, which is
made worse by the small size of the P&S version. The other part of
the problem is the extremely short focal lengths of lenses on P&S
cameras.
It used to be believed that purple fringing was sensor blooming, maybe
it is a part of how tiny pixels emphasize CA in the lens but mostly it
is CA of the sort that you see is super-fast DSLR lenses, or cheap
lenses.
I thought that if the purple fringing was worst at the edges of the
image, and worst at wide apertures, i.e. varied across the image in
amount depending of how much refraction the light rays had gone
through in their path through the lens, then it was refractive
chromatic aberration. But if moving to the image centre and stopping
down didn't reduce it in the appropriate proportion for refractive CA,
then to that extent it was sensor blooming CA.

CA on the edges of an image is caused by lateral CA, a condition caused by
different colors causing different sized images on the film/sensor. axial,
or longitudinal CA is caused by different colors coming to a different
focus, so some colors will be out of focus when others are in focus. To
some extent, lateral CA is correctable by software, as is pincushion and
barrel distortion.

Blooming is really light spill into adjacent pixels, usually happening
only on bright or overexposed areas of the image.

And it isn't @$@#!@ blue or red so I wish people would STOP calling
LENS-induced CA "blooming."


Say what?? Where did I write anything about blue or red, or that
blooming was lens-induced??

Perhaps you replied to the wrong post.

Colin D.