What is worse than a flimsy plastic DSLR housing? I found something FAR worse.

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Jan 24, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of
    their flimsy plastic shells.
    But, at least cameras like the Canon Rebel XTi take excellent pictures.
    Take a look at the results from this
    Samsung P&S piece of s---!!!!

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsungnv7/page7.asp

    The WORST possible scenario; A solid machined metal and EXPENSIVE
    housing, covering a CRAPPY,
    worthless and TINY sensor, with WAY too many pixels to EVER perform
    well!!! This is worse than Leica re-skinning Panasonic P&S's and
    upping the price 50%!!!
     
    RichA, Jan 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. : What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of
    : their flimsy plastic shells.
    : But, at least cameras like the Canon Rebel XTi take excellent pictures.
    : Take a look at the results from this
    : Samsung P&S piece of s---!!!!
    :
    : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsungnv7/page7.asp
    :
    : The WORST possible scenario; A solid machined metal and EXPENSIVE
    : housing, covering a CRAPPY,
    : worthless and TINY sensor, with WAY too many pixels to EVER perform
    : well!!! This is worse than Leica re-skinning Panasonic P&S's and
    : upping the price 50%!!!
    :
    Leica don't just resell Panasonic cameras with their own name on them. They
    participated in the development of the amazing vario lens and use their own
    programming in the processor. Comparing my own FZ50 Panasonic with the
    "reskinned" Leica suggest to me the resulting images are quite a different.
    Weather they are different enough to justify the price depends on how much
    status you seek amongst people you might try to impress with your spending.

    As for the Samsung? Not even a rebadged Pentax will save them.
     
    Doug MacDonald, Jan 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    babaloo Guest

    You seem to know what you are talking about with regard to camera bodies.
    As such I presume you believe DP review is the voice of the camera gods?
    Can I sell you a subscription to Popular Photography? Shutterbug? Ladies
    Home Companion?
    I believe these publications all have about equal reliability to web sites,
    snake oil salesmen and politicians. And computer magazines.
    They may be truthful, but . . . .
     
    babaloo, Jan 25, 2007
    #3
  4. RichA

    Ken Lucke Guest

    And anyone who believes that RichA "seems to know what he is talking
    about" - about anything - should do likewise :^)

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Jan 25, 2007
    #4
  5. Anyone that takes one source as their sole reason for purchasing
    anything should have their head examined.
     
    Little Green Eyed Dragon, Jan 25, 2007
    #5
  6. Why look at the worst cameras - there are some interesting innovations
    this year:

    28 - 504mm zoom:

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07012507olympusp550uz.asp

    An ISO 10,000 camera:

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07012504olympusfe250.asp

    Small-sensor cameras can produce excellent images when used with
    understanding.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 25, 2007
    #6
  7. What's most interesting about that is not the zoom range per se, but the
    "Dual Image Stabilization." The term isn't explained in the article, but it
    suggests that they may be using stabilization both in the lens and at the
    sensor. If so, that looks like a first.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2007
    #7
  8. RichA

    eawckyegcy Guest

    A few moments at google reveals their claims.
    Your idea "isn't even wrong".
     
    eawckyegcy, Jan 25, 2007
    #8
  9. Sadly, with current marketing, one stabilisation is probably optical, and
    the other is simply a higher shutter speed....

    Sigh!

    Interesting though, I hadn't spotted that.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 25, 2007
    #9
  10. Dang, you can't beat Google.

    Actually my idea was wrong, according to info on Google. That "Dual Image
    Stabilization" doesn't involve the lens at all, it's just "an advanced
    combination of mechanical CCD-shift Image Stabilization and Digital Image
    Stabilization." I don't think I like the sound of that "digital image
    stabilization" business.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2007
    #10
  11. Apparently not, but not much better either. Google reports it as "an
    advanced combination of mechanical CCD-shift Image Stabilization and Digital
    Image Stabilization." That last sounds suspiciously like the "electronic
    image stabilization" used in lower-priced camcorders -- definitely inferior
    to the real thing.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2007
    #11
  12. Yes, I agree.

    I looked with Google but didn't find anything. Where did you find this?

    Thanks,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 25, 2007
    #12
  13. RichA

    eawckyegcy Guest

    It is always difficult to penetrate the marketing bafflegab, but my
    feeling is that they are referring to some kind of electronic
    stabilization commonly present in video cameras. How much of an
    improvement this or other kind of down-stream stabilizer would amount
    to is unknown (my guess: negligible; shifting a smeared image around
    isn't stabilizing it), but "Dual Image Stabilization" certainly sounds
    like something straight out of Star Trek that all the 19 year old
    technoweenies Must Have. No doubt, just like with shaving razors,
    we'll soon have triple and quadruple as well.
     
    eawckyegcy, Jan 25, 2007
    #13
  14. http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_PressDetails.asp?pressNo=482

    Not the same camera, but apparently the same "Dual Image Stabilization"
    system.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2007
    #14
  15. David J Taylor, Jan 25, 2007
    #15
  16. RichA

    C J Campbell Guest

    Usually it consists of bumping up the ISO without telling you. "Digital Image
    Stabilization" is the new industry buzzphrase for fake IS. All of these
    things degrade picture quality.
     
    C J Campbell, Jan 25, 2007
    #16
  17. RichA

    Bill Funk Guest

    Have you ever had one (or heard of one) falling apart because of the
    plastic body?

    I didn't think so.

    --
    California's Assembly prepared
    Monday to move the state's
    primary up to February. An early
    California primary has unique
    advantages. It gives each candidate
    the chance to spend all their money
    to finish third behind Gary Coleman
    and a porn star.
     
    Bill Funk, Jan 25, 2007
    #17
  18. RichA

    Bill Funk Guest

    We've covered "digital image stabilization" before.
    It's a wider aperture coupled with a higher shutter speed.

    --
    California's Assembly prepared
    Monday to move the state's
    primary up to February. An early
    California primary has unique
    advantages. It gives each candidate
    the chance to spend all their money
    to finish third behind Gary Coleman
    and a porn star.
     
    Bill Funk, Jan 25, 2007
    #18
  19. RichA

    Mark² Guest

    Dpreview posted an "opinion" about this, and I agree with them on this one:

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07010501notimagestabilization.asp

    -Mark²
     
    Mark², Jan 26, 2007
    #19
  20. Mark² wrote:
    []
    Yes, I agree with them about the deliberately misleading descriptions of
    image stabilisation. I feel we are headed back to the era of "500 watt
    peak rms average music audio power" descriptions!

    I'm sure that the cameras with true optical image stabilisation will shine
    through though.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 26, 2007
    #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.