Re: ATTN: Resident-Troll ASSAR, a.k.a. Stephen Bishop, here's your picture...

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:10:09 GMT, Steve <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In one breath you say there's no reason for you to hoard when someone
else can be making good use if it out there somewhere. And in the
next breath you say you don't want to reveal what cameras meet your
requirements because that would make the few remaining in circulation
difficult to obtain. Conflict.

Not true. They just don't realize that they are hoarding it for me, because they
may not realize what kind of camera they have. In the hands of a professional
they excel. In the hands of an amateur, they'll be putting it aside and buying a
better camera next year to see again if there's any talent-button on the newer
one. And so on and so on. My favorite cameras safely stashed away in some fool's
safe possession.


You can doubt it all you want, but it's not true. Better glass would
blow away the SX10 P&S as you can see from thousands of examples taken
with Canon DSLR's and high quality glass. The improvement in image
quality won't be as noticeable for some images where there's no
dynamics. But in other, more demanding situations, the quality
increase of a good DSLR with high quaility glass over any P&S in
existance is astounding.

I've yet to see any "astounding" in any DSLR photography that can't be similarly
accomplished with an excellent P&S, in the hands of a pro.


You don't even need L-Glass to beat any P&S. Something like the Nikon
18-200 gives you a good enough zoom range to avoid "missing the shot"
while giving much higher quality images than P&S superzooms.


Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
about if I do it....

Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x, that extra expense of ~$600 for
the 18-200mm gives you 28mm-320mm, we're still missing the 320mm-560mm range.
We're in for $675+$600=$1275 (camera + upgrade lens) so far. Is it still worth
the expense for lenses that may not beat the detail recorded by the $340 P&S?
How much more for the 320mm-560mm reach of similar or better quality?

We'll need a 200mm-350mm. Hmm... best I can come up with in a search is the
200-400, with an average price of $5,250.

So now we're at $6,525 to possibly match or slightly beat the performance of a
$340 P&S camera. Let's not forget that we might miss some very very important
shots with having to change lenses in time.

We've also added 115.5 oz. for the 200-400mm one, that's an extra 7.22 lbs. Add
in another 19.8 oz. for the 18-200mm one, that's an extra 1.24 lbs. Add in the
weight of the camera, 18.5 oz. (1.16 lbs.) and we're hauling 9.62 lbs. around,
for many miles a day (when you're a pro).

The $340 SX10 is 1.32 lbs. with lens.

Nope, sorry, can't see it. I can't see how a POSSIBLE slight increase in image
detail for $6,525 and 10lbs of gear in any way competes with $340 and 1.3 lbs.
of gear. Plus the missed shots from changing lenses, cleaning sensors, poor
low-temperature performance, etc. etc. etc.

The DSLR kit-glass already lost greatly to the P&S glass, I doubt the more
expensive glass will resolve more than 4x's the amount of detail needed to win.
Even if it did, the weight and cost already threw the DSLR out the window and
onto the concrete below. (Let us not forget the 25point list too, I couldn't
live with that obnoxious shutter noise and all those focal-plane shutter
limitations, to name but 2 of the 100's of reasons.)

If this doesn't prove that "A fool and his money are soon parted," I don't know
what else would.

It was interesting to do that. I knew it was going to make any comparable DSLR
look bad, but not THAT bad! No wonder none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys
wanted to answer, remaining so silent or continually red-herring evasive. All
that crates-of-eggs omelet on their face was preventing them from answering.


My two most favorite P&Ss are by no means the only ones (and would be difficult
to find if you did want them). Nor are some of the best all from Canon. A few
are, but not all. Panasonic and others have some excellent new contenders in the
race. A few of them outdoing the new Canon P&Ss.

But any not from Canon would not run CHDK, which eliminates many of
the points you keep posting. So we already know your P&S is from
Canon.

It only eliminates 3 points. That leaves 22 others to which most all other P&S
cameras qualify, a few points only applying to super-zoom models. I could have
listed 100 advantage points but I thought 25 would be enough. Want me to
increase that list that's used to reply to trolls? Let me know.

One of them is from Canon (I own quite a few, have two favorites that go on
treks). Who could pass up the ability to run CHDK? That opens up so many new
doors in photography, you can't even begin to imagine. If you've used CHDK since
the very first raw-only hack the new creative photography possibilities that
come to you are astounding, after you've climbed the (somewhat) steep learning
curve. Although, it didn't seem steep to me, but seems to be for others. I guess
because I used it as it grew from its primordial bytes.


Do some research, buy a few cameras, you just might end up realizing what I've
come to know--the blind-leading-blind DSLR-fanboys have been wrong all along.

I have done a lot of research. I have yet to find a single P&S that
can match the image quality of a good DSLR with good glass. That's
why I'm asking for your help. I'd love to find one.

Steve

Sorry, I'm all out of time. I would have answered but as you saw above, I spent
quite a bit of time doing my own research. :)

.

Loading