Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS wrote:

Sherry Miller wrote:
Morey Staffer wrote:

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



If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
for their budget line of DSLR's.

That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.

Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.

I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) to beat the images from that camera.

2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?

Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
bother to carry them with you that is.

Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
up.

What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.

Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.

ParkerGrant wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:21:02 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

Sherry Miller wrote:

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

If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
lens for their budget line of DSLR's.

Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.

David

Why? A talented photographer they can do all their photography even at ISO25 if
they want to. Many real pros have done just that for many decades. High ISO is
the amateur's crutch. Someone thinking that a selling point is just revealing
that they know very little about how to use a camera properly and even less
about the art of photography.

By that argument the most talented professionals are those using
pinhole cameras. Lenses are just an amateur's crutch.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 20 Nov 2008 11:18:46 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

ParkerGrant wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:21:02 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

Sherry Miller wrote:

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

If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
lens for their budget line of DSLR's.

Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.

David

Why? A talented photographer they can do all their photography even at ISO25 if
they want to. Many real pros have done just that for many decades. High ISO is
the amateur's crutch. Someone thinking that a selling point is just revealing
that they know very little about how to use a camera properly and even less
about the art of photography.

By that argument the most talented professionals are those using
pinhole cameras. Lenses are just an amateur's crutch.

Nobody said that clean high ISOs aren't nice to have, but they're certainly not
a requirement by any stretch of the imagination. A pro could take images with a
pinhole camera and their talent will show loud and clear through that pinhole
lens. The same cannot be said of an amateur. In the hands of an amateur those
high ISOs used with the most expensive camera and glass will not help them. They
think it will, but it never does. Their photos still look like they were taken
by an amateur snap-shooter tourist. Look at the ones that used to post in this
newsgroup as perfect examples. Always priding their photography on their chosen
camera and yet all their photos still looked like crap. There's nothing they can
do to stop that from happening. They're caught in a trap of their own making and
their own stupidity. Always blaming or applauding the camera, always trying to
get one that's even more automatic. A camera with a built in "talent button", or
so they hope. Never realizing that it is they, not their camera, who must learn
how to take photos worth viewing, even if they only have a pinhole camera at
their disposal.

ben_pallace wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:25:54 +0000, bugbear
wrote:

ParkerGrant wrote:
Why? A talented photographer they can do all their photography even at ISO25 if
they want to.
I await such shots from a moody, smoky acoustic gig
in a club.

BugBear

Depends on the effect that you want to achieve. Some motion-blur is more than
welcomed, it is required to impart some moods and overall ambiance to make a
photo a success. A pro might also request that some strategically placed, but
unobtrusive, lighting might be allowed.

I have some photos of this nature taken at ISO80 from quite a few all-night
outdoor music events. Most of the event lit up with just campfires with a few
dim colored lights hitting the stage. Taken hand-held with a 300mm f.l. lens.
You wait for the right moment to click the shutter. When the artist's face might
be perfectly still but their hand might be in motion to show their work on the
frets of the guitar. Or the moment when their head dips to a limit of its motion
and catching a flair of blurry hair, but the face remains tack-sharp for that
partial second. It's all about the timing, knowing your subject, and being able
to anticipate when to trip the shutter. It's called talent, and the art of
photography. Something that so few of you ever seem to discuss. Most likely
because none of you know what it is. You all want that camera to do it all for
you, don't you. Buy another one, maybe there's talent inside that next camera.
Maybe it's listed on the box or in the manual somewhere. Keep looking, you might
one day find it.

I call bull****.
Based on your description of the lighting, (campfire, a few
dim stage lights), I'd estimate the subject brightness to
typically be about EV4. If you are understating the actual
lighting, and the stage lights are quite a bit brighter than
you are describing, then maybe you'd get to EV6 brightness.
If that is the case, at ISO 80 and F2.8, you'd need a
1/10sec exposure. Handheld at 300mm for 1/10 sec to give
tack sharp images? not bloody likely, even with an excellent
IS system.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:23:18 -0600, Morey Staffer
wrote:



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

Shows me that if you don't mind crappy pictures even in daylight, you
can get a P&S or a Rebel XSi with a cheap lens. Now, if you want to
see some of the differences in capability of the *camera* vs. the
lens, from the exact same review see:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...IS/noise.shtml

Steve

David J Taylor wrote:
Sherry Miller wrote:

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


If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
lens for their budget line of DSLR's.

Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.

If anything, that comparison convinced me not to buy an SX10!

I do have the Canon 18-55mm kit lens, but I got it because the
difference in price between body-only and the kit was very small. It's
actually not as bad as that comparison shows, when used in the proper
conditions.

They could have used even worse lenses if they wanted to; the kit lenses
Canon used to include on their film Rebel cameras.

The key point is that with a D-SLR you're not stuck with crappy lenses
like you are with P&S cameras, which often don't even have glass lenses
but horrible acrylic lenses.

OTOH, if all you care about is zoom range, and don't care about image
quality, noise, dynamic range, etc., then the SX10 is an excellent
choice. They'll sell a lot of them to people that don't know any better.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:59:16 GMT, Steve wrote:


On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:23:18 -0600, Morey Staffer
wrote:



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

Shows me that if you don't mind crappy pictures even in daylight, you
can get a P&S or a Rebel XSi with a cheap lens. Now, if you want to
see some of the differences in capability of the *camera* vs. the
lens, from the exact same review see:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...IS/noise.shtml

Steve

So finds someone who doesn't have the talent to use anything lower than ISO1600.

Advertised how much more crippled you are. :-)

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:33:33 +1000, Doug Jewell
wrote:

Based on your description of the lighting, (campfire, a few
dim stage lights), I'd estimate the subject brightness to
typically be about EV4. If you are understating the actual
lighting, and the stage lights are quite a bit brighter than
you are describing, then maybe you'd get to EV6 brightness.
If that is the case, at ISO 80 and F2.8, you'd need a
1/10sec exposure. Handheld at 300mm for 1/10 sec to give
tack sharp images? not bloody likely, even with an excellent
IS system.

f/2.4 lens at 300mm

With IS I am able to take tack-sharp hand-held images at 1 second exposure at
430mm f.l. (35mm eq.) Here's a quick sample for you:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/...899ef47f_o.jpg

A 100% crop, this one with -1/3EV compensation too. Check the EXIF.

(Now let's hear all the talentless insecure trolls yell it's fake, or that it
wasn't hand-held.)

You reveal much about your amateur's snapshooter status.

Keep trying. You'll figure out how to do photography and use a camera one day.

Or not.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:08:28 -0800 (PST), frank
wrote:

On Nov 20, 4:58*am, Tod Burnstein
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS wrote:
Sherry Miller wrote:
Morey Staffer wrote:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...IS/outdoor_res...

If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
for their budget line of DSLR's.

That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.

Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.

I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) *to beat the images from that camera.

2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?

Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
bother to carry them with you that is.

Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
up.

What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.

Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.

Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
optics.

Can't even do the math eh? Figured as much.

There's one other little important tidbit that only amateur trolls wouldn't
know, or be able to keep in their itty minds, "Content trumps quality -- EVERY
TIME."

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:51:48 -0600, ParkerGrant
wrote:


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/...899ef47f_o.jpg

Sorry, bad link. Try again:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/...0aed5157_o.jpg