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

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:53:00 GMT, Steve <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:54:55 -0600, george-brown
<gbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:31:31 GMT, Steve <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I'm sure there will be plenty of this type of Canon P&S available for
you if you need one no matter what you say here. They're the most
prolific P&S manufacturer out there. So go ahead and educate me, as
you so often say you like to do, and tell me what P&S I should get
that meets all of your points.


Ah, Grasshopper, ye of so little experience. Are you not aware that no two
cameras are created equal? Take for example my favorite Canon P&S. I wondered
why a few others complained of a little too much noise on the sensor. Or
spurious reports of the CD-quality sound being slightly ruined by some very
quiet background noise. When I obtained mine I did by testing quite a few of
them. No different than any other pro that tests several lenses to invest in
before deciding on which one (or ones) is best. That P&S camera is noise-free at
ISO200, completely usable at ISO400, and still quite acceptable at ISO800. Not
much difference still when using ISO1000 enabled by CHDK. Better image quality
than anything I could have hoped for if I based my purchase decision on what
everyone else told me to buy. Some sensors are noisier than others, right from
the same assembly line the same day, even one cut only one-away on that wafer.
Did you not know this? Similarly, when I finally got around to testing the
audio-recording capabilities (important to my line of nature documentation), it
also suffered from no problems at all. In assembly-line terms this one might be
considered the anti-lemon. (It works both ways you know.) The PRO takes the time
to only buy anti-lemons.

See, the point here is that a REAL pro will shop carefully. Not like some
snapshooter that buys sight-unseen, basing their decision on all others that
tell them what to buy, where to buy, how to wipe your nose.

Aren't you at least this much of a "pro"?

Ah, so you have the only camera in existance that can meet all of your
25 points and even other copies of the same model can't come close.
Now things are beginning to make sense. Can you say delusional?

Do you want me to base all DSLR performance on that 450D and kit lens? I might
as well, that's what you are doing to all P&S cameras. Taking the worst horror
stories about P&S cameras from 8 years ago and applying them to all P&S cameras
made today. I'm at least being kind comparing a DSLR disaster made today to an
excellent P&S camera made today.

Well hell, at least you admit you're comparing the worst that a DSLR
can do to the best an excellent P&S camera can do and they're still
close. That's a start in your rehab.

The cameras that use the Nikon 18-200 have a 1.5x crop factor. But
nevertheless, no one has ever said that getting the increase in
quality of DSLR cameras over a P&S isn't going to cost more. It most
likely will cost more, maybe even several times more.

MAYBE "several" times more? I see that you can't even do simple math in your
head.

Your "several times more" equates to 19.191176 (to be more precise) CONFIRMED
times more. There's no "maybe" about it. Nearly 20 times more is not "several".
Several refers to 3 or so. You've blinded yourself by your own delusions and
false-worship of a camera design to where you think a confirmed 20 is a "maybe
several". (Adding in the extra full point just because of all the extra crap
you'll need to carry to make that DSLR useful, heavy tripod, sturdy backpack,
etc.)

Yes, only several. A D200 with the the 18-200 VR will beat the pants
off any P&S in image quality, performance under demanding situations,
ability to "get the shot" that you'd miss with a slow focusing,
unresponsive P&S, and has a very useful zoom range that goes from 27mm
to 300mm in 35mm equivalent. Sure, it's not as much on the long end
as a P&S superzoom. But when you see the quality of a P&S superzoom
when pushed past the 300mm 35mm equivalent zoom range, it's pretty
useless anyway. Having a high quality useful zoom range is much more
important than having a low quality extended zoom range.

And I never thought I'd be talking about an 18-200 zoom as giving high
quality images because there are so many lenses available for DSLRs
that do much better. But compared to a superzoom P&S, the 18-200 VR
is gold.

And yes, only several times the cost is correct. A D200 + 18-200mm VR
outfit is not 20 times the cost of a superzoom P&S. It's only 3 or 4
times the cost and gives much better image quality in a wider range of
circumstances.

Also, being able to extend the low end of the focal length range with
something like a 12-24mm lens that gives much better image quality
than a wide angle adapter for a P&S is important. I do so much more
shooting at wider angles than telephoto even though I have a 70-300mm
(450mm in 35mm equivalent) that gives much better images than any P&S
at the same equivalent focal lengths.

But it will
also buy you better images in the hands of a talented pro.

I've already proved to myself that it does not. You're not going to change the
mind of someone that has already proved it to themself, using every which way
they could try to disprove it first. All that was left is that the P&S paradigm
wins, no contest anymore.

I realize you've already proved it to yourself, and I believe you.
It's obviously possible that you've done that, considering you've
already admitted you can't tell the difference between a 20" 640x480
monitor and a 20" 1920x1080 monitor from 20" away. The problem is
that you're a zealot, just like a religious zealot, trying to convince
everyone else that a P&S in the hands of a talented pro will give
better images than a high quality DSLR in the hands of a talented pro.

Someone who's completely ignorant about photography may actually
believe you, but only until they waste their money on a P&S and wonder
why they can't get images anything like they see in Sports
Illustrated, where just about everything those pros use is high
quality DSLRs.

Steve

Plain and simple, all that you are proving to me is that you are an idiot troll
who doesn't even know how to use a camera properly. (nor even do simple math)

I've already wasted far too much time being kind to you.

Case closed.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
    ... I'm not attacking the quality of your ... All I'm saying is that given the same conditions, a dslr is capable of ... You've shown from your own experience as a p&s camera enhusiast. ... at some samples of pictures from the Sony A900 with one of the Carl ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: ATTN: Resident-Troll ASSAR, a.k.a. Stephen Bishop, heres your picture...
    ... Most any P&S camera will do much of what is on that P&S partial FAQs list. ... to pass the image quality of the Canon 50D. ... glass on that DSLR would help, but I doubt it will make it any better than the ... The DSLR kit-lens was so abysmal that any other glass would have to be ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: DSLR or Deep Sky Imager?
    ... DSLR for astro imaging. ... luminance images, ... Neither camera is ... What is the reason for IR filters and imaging? ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: DSLR or Deep Sky Imager?
    ... DSLR for astro imaging. ... luminance images, ... Neither camera is ... What is the reason for IR filters and imaging? ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Does anyone know how much post processing goes on at DPreview?
    ... DPreview display. ... they test straight out of the camera. ... Do 70% of DSLR ... most kiosk printing folk like images with high ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)