A few photos to share cos Ray wanted to see some.

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by PeteD, Jul 28, 2008.

  1. PeteD

    PeteD Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. PeteD

    tony cooper Guest

    And you, everyone else's.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. PeteD

    ray Guest

    gy1tE_eTrIn8TgCfJ0fosZeufBjjKz1p2mA53cTfXtqNq1_1tBUo/Greens-Pool-Pano.jpg

    Where to begin:

    1) it's ray, not Ray - if I wanted it to be Ray, I'd sign it that way.
    2) I didn't 'want to see some' at all. I never claimed that dslr's could
    not take decent pictures. Quite the contrary, it was you who has claimed
    that a decent shot cannot be taken with a P&S.
    3) nice photos, although I'm not much into reptiles myself.

    http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.html
    http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.html

    It is worth noting that if I had been relying on a dslr neither of these
    photos would have been taken since I was several miles from the nearest
    road on a hike. But the trust P850 was right there, ready to go. I'm sure
    you're going to tell me the owl photo is too noisy to be used, but the
    fact is, it prints up quite nicely at 8x10.
     
    ray, Jul 28, 2008
    #3
  4. PeteD

    Pete D Guest

    Only some of these are with D-SLRs, some are with P&S's.

    Important thing here ray is lets post photos.
     
    Pete D, Jul 29, 2008
    #4
  5. PeteD

    Pete D Guest

    Excellent set of comments mate, I now await some examples from you as I am
    sure wou will do or risk looking like a bit of a dweeb.

    Cheers.

    Pete.
     
    Pete D, Jul 29, 2008
    #5
  6. PeteD

    Pete D Guest

    Come on Tony, you turn mate, show us some of yours, post them as big as you
    like and as many as you like I have plenty of bandwidth to kill.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Jul 29, 2008
    #6
  7. PeteD

    Pete D Guest

    Sadly I cannot comment on your photos cos they don't appear to exist, might
    have to check the link.
    Not Found
    The requested URL /region/moose.html was not found on this server.



    Not Found
    The requested URL /region/owl.html was not found on this server.
     
    Pete D, Jul 29, 2008
    #7
  8. PeteD

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Pages not found. Just me, or have you got the names wrong or forgotten
    to set permissions for the html files? Can see other parts of your
    site... (Suggest you try from a computer other than your own.)

    Anyway, a quick guess reveals that you probably refer to these images:

    http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.jpg
    http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.jpg

    They are nice enough shots, but I'm sorry, ray, they aren't really in
    the same league as those from a dslr. Specifically:
    - the noise in darker areas is very noticeable, despite obvious signs of
    NR, eg the left side of the owl image
    - detail has been smoothed out along with the noise, especially in the
    foliage - this is a common problem with small sensors (and some larger
    ones). The effect is very obvious all over the moose image, where there
    are innumerable little blurry patches where the NR has smoothed foliage
    detail thinking it was noise. Also, I don't know what type of feathers
    that owl has, but it looks rather like NR has attacked its chest.. I
    apologise if it has very fuzzy soft feathers in that area and truly
    looks like that!

    Can you turn the NR off?

    On the brighter side, the lens looks pretty good if those were taken at
    maximum tele, altho the bokeh looks interesting at top left of the owl
    image..

    You could (and did!) say that this is just pixel-peeping, and at
    'reasonable' sizes the images don't look too bad. But when you have
    these problems to deal with, the ability to print larger images from
    this type of image is much, much less than that from a dslr.

    And this from a person who doesn't normally use a dslr - my 'normal' cam
    is a 'bridge' camera too - it (Fuji S9000) also suffers from these
    problems to some extent but it is a step up from the P850 from what I
    have seen. And a dslr is another, larger step up from either. I don't
    have a suitable similar image (ie a tele shot including foliage, at
    full-size) from my Fuji on my site right at this moment, but here's one
    from a similar camera, the Olympus C8080:
    http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/brisbane_morn.jpg
    You will see some very slight NR defects in some small areas of foliage,
    but nothing like the P850 is showing above. Also note the general
    sharpness and much lower noise levels - yet this is straight from the
    camera as a JPG. If I had shot this raw it could have been better..

    Don't get me wrong - I *do* strongly believe there is a genuine need
    (and market) for p&s and bridge cameras, and folk who think that their
    way is the only way, need to get out more!
    I totally agree. I take the Fuji with me just about everywhere,
    including long hikes, and have 28-300 range and pretty decent image
    quality. If it was a DSLR I would have spent a *lot* more money, got
    somewhat better images, and either a sore back or a more limited f-l
    range. It's all a balancing act.
    It's not too noisy to be used... but a DSLR could have got you closer,
    far better image quality, and about zero noise. So you would be
    printing that at twice the size (or more) and it would look better.

    Does that make the dslr twice as good? Yes and No. There are MANY
    other criteria for making a camera choice. (O:

    If you are happy with the images for what you use them for, everything
    is fine. But I would question the P850 as an example of state of the
    art in its segment...
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 29, 2008
    #8
  9. PeteD

    ray Guest

    Sorry about the typo - chalk that up to a senior moment - those should
    be .jpg instead of .html. Sorry about that.

    http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.jpg
    http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.jpg
     
    ray, Jul 29, 2008
    #9
  10. PeteD

    ray Guest

    The issue was never "are they in the same league as a dslr" - the issue
    was that pete claimed that no P&S could produce shots which were usable
    for anything.
    Yes - pretty close to maximum magnification of both of those.
    Granted. I'm not proposing the P850 as a replacement for a dslr. One point
    is that with a dslr and the corresponding equipment necessary to get
    similar shots - I would not have gotten the pictures at all. I'm not in
    the habit of hiking with 20 pounds of camera equipment. With the P850 I
    can do 36-420mm in a compact, lightweight unit.
    Again, that was not my claim. I'm merely pointing out that a 'decent' P&S
    can produce images which are useful for something - pete has claimed they
    are totally unusable for anything.
     
    ray, Jul 29, 2008
    #10
  11. PeteD

    ASAAR Guest

    ASAAR, Jul 29, 2008
    #11
  12. PeteD

    PeteD Guest


    My apologies for arriving late at YA pissing contest, but in reading
    both relevant threads (and again a second time), the real problem here
    was in poor communication. Specifically of what was being assumed and
    unfortuantely not said.

    Specifically, ray (not Ray) apparently intended all along to point out
    that having a P&S for its convenience of small size is better than the
    "no camera" alternative ... but simply and unfortunately failed to
    highlight that point obviously enough.

    ray clarifies that here, saying:
    IMO, there is a bit of hyperbola here in that the dSLR rig won't
    actually weigh 20lbs, unless you're carrying along a lot of stuff, and/
    or a tripod too.

    Life is full of trade-offs.

    Personally, just last month, I did ~25 miles worth of hiking over a
    three days off in the Smokies (TN). Yeah, I had a P&S along too...it
    was mounted on the front of my pack, since its purpose was for for
    'grab' shots. But my actual photo objective were some long exposures
    on some backcountry waterfalls, so I had along my dSLR system too,
    along with a tripod.

    FWIW, plus 2.5-3L worth of water, raingear, lunch, GPS, first aid kit
    and other emergency items in the pack too.

    From what I've experienced in hiking with cameras, I would say that
    assuming reasonable health, what's responsible for not being able to
    transport ~5lbs of camera gear over 5 miles with relative ease is to
    try to do it with the "wrong" carrying gear setup.


    -hh

    The original thread was "P&S's day has come and gone", still waiting for
    some even half worthwhile shots to be posted to back this up.
     
    PeteD, Jul 30, 2008
    #12
  13. PeteD

    ray Guest

    Geez - I didn't think I stuttered at all!
    So, why in hell did you even bother with the P&S if it's totally
    worthless? It would seem you just agreed with my point!
    Well, thanks, but currently I'm not ready to be packing a dslr and two or
    three lenses when I can get what I need with a high zoom P&S. Part of what
    we have here is simply a question of adequacy. I've never claimed that one
    will get the same quality from a $200 P&S as from $1500 of dslr equipment.
    One that for many needs it is adequate. Pete says - no. No P&S is adequate
    for anything - ever.
     
    ray, Jul 31, 2008
    #13
  14. PeteD

    ray Guest

    That sounds like a deal to me. I'm merely trying to make the point that
    pete's claim that P&S's are not usable for anything under any
    circumstances is a bunch of B.S.
     
    ray, Jul 31, 2008
    #14
  15. PeteD

    Pete D Guest

    That is your assertion, I never said that and even posted some quite
    reasonable shots taken with P&S cameras and asked others to post their
    "good" shots, so far you are the only one that has posted a couple of shots,
    seems that no one is actuallt walking the walk here.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Jul 31, 2008
    #15
  16. PeteD

    ray Guest

    Quoted from previous discussion:
    UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES I DON'T FIND THE RESULTS ACCEPTABLE. THEY ARE IN
    THE
    SAME CLASS AS THE FZ30/50, NICE CONCEPT BUT THE RESULTS ARE HORRENDOUUS,
    THEY SUCK BIG TIME, SO I TAKE A D-SLR AND HANG THE WEIGHT.

    I rest my case.
     
    ray, Aug 1, 2008
    #16
  17. PeteD

    tony cooper Guest

    Why not rest the upper case while you're at it?
     
    tony cooper, Aug 1, 2008
    #17
  18. PeteD

    Pete D Guest

    Actually that was in regard to the P850 and FZ30/50 not P&S in general and
    the shots you posted bares this out. I can do a digital zoom from a basic
    non tele lens that are sharper and clearer than the ones you posted. Anyone
    else care to try and walk the walk?

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Aug 1, 2008
    #18
  19. PeteD

    ray Guest

    Because that was the way it was posted. The capitalization was his, not
    mine. When I quote, I quote.
     
    ray, Aug 1, 2008
    #19
  20. PeteD

    tony cooper Guest

    I agree. If you are shooting "automatic" with a P&S, and "automatic"
    with a dslr, the dslr will be faster in all respects. If you are
    shooting in one of the priority settings or manual, the dslr will
    still be faster in all respects if you do the same with the P&S.

    The only time the dslr is slower is when you compare using either
    manual or a priority setting to get a better image than a P&S used in
    automatic.

    The only real time advantage in the P&S is the situation where the
    really unexpected shot comes up and you can bring the P&S out of your
    pocket quicker than you can retrieve the dslr from the camera
    case...especially if a lens change is needed. Even this is a marginal
    advantage.
     
    tony cooper, Aug 1, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.