Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:09:36 -0800, John Navas
<spamfilter1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:08:47 -0500, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@xxxxxxx> wrote in
<ti5ok4lbrtvituinbtmv2mh0i1b11g61sl@xxxxxxx>:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:15:02 -0800, John Navas
<spamfilter1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I beg to differ.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not attacking the quality of your
pictures or your ability as a photographer. But you are fooling
yourself if you think they couldn't be better.

Photographs can always be better -- well, almost always -- but they
wouldn't have been better had it just been that I was shooting with a
dSLR. To claim otherwise, since you weren't there, is not only
speculative but a bit arrogant. The most you can say with any accuracy
is that you _think_ they _might_ have been better. They might have been
worse, or not got taken at all.

I'm not talking about the zen of being there.. :-)

All I'm saying is that given the same conditions, a dslr is capable of
better results from a technical perspective. That's not arrogance,
that's just reality. Of course, if you absolutely cannot have the
better camera with you , then any picture is better than no picture at
all.



How can you judge from a medium quality reduction? ;)

I can see what you posted. But even in the reduced size, you can see
the noise in the surfer's face. I have no idea what the original
looks like.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Look at this other example I referred to in another post, from your
website:

http://photos.navas.us/v/137/137-1/P1070104.jpg.html

At the small size it looks nice, and the composition is good except
for the masts being clipped a bit at the top. Overall, a nice action
picture that conveys the mood of being there.

However, click on it to blow it up to full size and you see a
different story. Even at ISO 100 there is much objectionable noise
which obscures any fine details that your lens can resolve. There is
also purple fringing in several places. Highlights on the boat are
blown out. Had you been able or willing to have a dslr with the
appropriate lens with you, the image would have been much better on
those points.

Keep in mind I'm not criticizing you, just pointing out the well-known
deficiencies of those types of cameras.




True or not, that doesn't matter -- the point is that a dSLR is not
essential. It's simply a tool. Other tools can be and are used.

Sure it matters.

On the contrary -- that many pros can and do use cameras other than
dSLRs is sufficient to make my point. It's not some sort of all or
nothing election where the majority rules.

True, there is no 'ruling' involved. Those guys can use any tool they
want that is appropriate to the situation. But the point is that it's
silly to think that because a few pros use a p&s that all the rest of
them are clueless for using the bigger and more expensive cameras.

I know you didn't say that, but that's the implication.



Yes, a tool is a tool. But the point is that
professionals who rely on their gear for their livlihood
overwhelmingly choose the dSLR because it is the better tool in most
situations.

Got any hard data to back that up, or do you just think that's true?

Just as much data as you have to back up your view. :-)



ESPECIALLY for fast moving sports.

I've shown otherwise.

You've shown from your own experience as a p&s camera enhusiast.
However, go to any event that is covered by professional
photographers, be it weddings, football games, auto races, news
events, portrait studios, etc. and you'll see very clearly what kind
of gear they use. And if you see any p&s cameras there, they will be
much in the minority.




Again, I beg to differ.

But it's still true.

In your opinion. Not in mine.

A film camera is basically a box that holds the
film and lens.

On the contrary -- differences in those "boxes" may well be very
important, even critical (as I note below).

"May" be very important, but only in terms of operating the camera
(auto focus, etc). But none of those things controls the quality of
the image. That is strictly a function of the lens and the film.



A digital camera is box, lens, film and processing
lab all in one package.

Roughly speaking. Another important part is the post processing
computer.

Yes, I mentioned the processing lab being part of the camera.



There are many more things in a digital
camera that directly affect the image quality.

True.

If that isn't true, then why did you choose the Panasonic instead of
the smallest, cheapest digital camera you could find?

The lens for starters.

As has been said several times, the quality of the lens is moot if the
camera can't take full advantage of it.

But if quality German branded lenses are important to you, just look
at some samples of pictures from the Sony A900 with one of the Carl
Zeiss lenses. The resolution and noise characteristics of that dslr
can actually take advantage of the premium optics, and the results can
be stunning.




After all, if
they are all the same it wouldn't matter, would it?

I didn't say that. If you go to straw man arguments, I'm done.

Lens is irrelevant? Likewise the rest of the camera? Really? :)

I didn't say that. Notice I said a compact with a good lens, not
just any old lens.

You said "just as good", an absolute, dismissing any and all differences
in "good" lenses. Canon makes "good" lenses, yet the lens on the FZ8
objectively outperforms lenses on comparable Canon cameras.

But with a digital camera, the lens and sensor are part of a complete
system, with one being fully dependent on the other.





The camera itself will have no bearing whatsoever
on the quality of the pictures unless one of them is defective.
Again, I'm speaking only of technical quality, not flexibility or what
you can do with the camera.

The capabilities of the camera (shutter speeds, burst speed, auto-focus
speed and accuracy, auto-exposure accuracy, white balance, noise
reduction, lens correction, processing of the image, etc, etc) will
often have a huge bearing on the technical quality of the pictures.

We were discussing a compact 35mm film camera vs. other 35mm film
cameras. Those things have nothing to do with the quality of the
pictures from a film camera. Shutter speeds, burst speed and
autofocus expand the types of subjects you can photograph
successfully, but the quality of the image very much depends only on
the lens and the film. Things like white balance and noise reduction
have no bearing on film cameras. For the example you gave of your
father's award winning picture, obviously autofocus and autoexposure
accuracy had nothing to do with the results. That's the point.




Again, I beg to differ -- what matters is suitability to the task at
hand, and often many different tools will produce equally satisfactory
results. There is no one "better".

Once again, I am speaking from the perspective of image quality.
Choosing the tool that you are most comfortable with in any given
situation is a different matter entirely.

Once again, theoretical or speculative image quality is of no interest
to me. I'm a photographer, not a lab technician.

You don't need to be a lab technician to see the limitations of p&s
cameras.


Again, I beg to differ, with the experience to back it up.

So you have dslr and p&s photos taken on the same day under identical
conditions for comparison?

Yep. We're often together after the events showing them to the
competitors.

And the results were? Are you comparing the best from the dslrs with
the best from the p&s? Are you taking into account the skill of the
photographers?



It's apparent that you have a predjudice
against dSLRS for some reason, from your choice of language in
describing the pros "fumbling" with their gear.

Hardly -- that was his word -- and if you start with ad hominem, I'm
done. I could retort that you have your own prejudices, but that would
just lead down a path of pointless and futile name calling.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you said.




If the pros didn't
come back with good images, they simply wouldn't be pros much longer.

You weren't there, so you really have no idea.

I wasn't there, but I've been to many other places. It's simple fact
that most pros who shoot digital use dslrs because they are more
capable of producing saleable images.




I know from experience that it's not, and have already explained why.

Still again, I'm speaking of image quality only.

Still again, I don't care about theoretical or speculative image
quality.

Yet you cite the theoretical resolotion of the Leica lens as evidence
that the Panasonic is just as good as even a basic dslr like the D40,
even when actual photographic evidence says otherwise.





It really isn't
debatable, ...

Of course it is, and it's a bit arrogant to claim otherwise.

The truth is not arrogant. Again, all one need do is look at images
made with both cameras of the same subject under identical conditions.
The only situation where an image from a good p&s can compete is at
low ISO in good lighting with relatively low contrast. Once you
stray from those boundaries, the differences become more and more
obvious.


The difference is that my Panasonic FZ8 is inexpensively replaced, a
conscious part of my strategy in using it. I watched a pro accidentally
drop a $5,000 rig overboard not so long ago. I can replace my camera
for less than 1/10 of that, and afford a backup camera in the bargain.
Thus I don't need to be so careful.

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the end quality of the
image,

Of course it does. I work in the real world. What I might (or might
not) be able to do with unlimited money and/or total recklessness is of
no interest to me.

Which just illustrates the truth that you get what you pay for. This
applies to cameras as much as it does most anything.





Professionals have their gear insured,

With deductibles, and insurers that would jump their premiums or even
drop them if they kept filing claims.

and they beat it up
on a regular basis.

The good pros I know treat their gear with care, and with good reason --
beat up gear has a nasty habit of letting you down at the worst possible
time. The rig that was lost overboard cost the pro more than money --
he had a backup camera, but it wasn't as capable.


As the bumper sticker says, crap happens.




It's a bit presumptuous to tell someone with experience you lack that
some other tool would be better, especially for that person.

I didn't say what would be better for you, I just said that a dslr is
capable of better images.

Now you're hedging. If it makes you feel better, I'll freely admit
(again) that under some conditions a dSLR can make better images, just
as a compact camera can make better images under some conditions. There
is no one perfect tool for all jobs.

I agree, from the standpoint that sometimes the compact camera can be
used in situations where the larger one would be inconvenient or
difficult. But that is a separate issue from the quality of the
images. A dslr can produce better images under more varied and
extreme conditions than a p&s.


If you really think you know better and can do better, then by all means
get out there and show us. Just saying you think so from the
convenience and safety of dry land isn't terribly persuasive. ;)

It's not a matter of me or you, strictly the fact that the dslr will
give you better quality pictures.

I'm out there and you're not, so it's a bit presumptuous to tell me you
know more about it than I do.


I'm only looking at your pictures. I haven't yet seen pictures from
the same event taken by qualified photographers with a dslr.

But looking at pictures from your website taken at other events with a
p&s, the limitations are very clearly evident.

Again, this doesn't reflect on you or your ability, just the
limitations of the cameras that were used.

If you aren't comfortable using
the dslr, then it's a moot point because you'll never find out.

I'm quite comfortable using a dSLR, just not for that purpose, for which
the compact super-zoom is more suited.

Do you have pictures that you have made of the same subject with each
type of camera under the same conditions?



The
real question is, how do the photos from the real pros look compared
to the amateurs with their do-everything disposable cameras? :-)

If you ever get answers to back up your claims and win your bet, then by
all means let me know. In the meantime, the only actual answers
(objective evidence, as in photographs) is what I've presented.

Yet those images just illustrate the point that p&s cameras are prone
to the well-documented kinds of problems we've been talking about.




.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: ATTN: Resident-Troll ASSAR, a.k.a. Stephen Bishop, heres your picture...
    ... so you have the only camera in existance that can meet all of your ... at least you admit you're comparing the worst that a DSLR ... quality of DSLR cameras over a P&S isn't going to cost more. ... quality images because there are so many lenses available for DSLRs ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: European trip ?s
    ... top quality modern design. ... versatile as DSLR; but that does not imply they have no ... Camera which fits in a shirt ... > and perceivable impact on image quality. ...
    (rec.travel.europe)
  • Re: The main drawback of a digital camera
    ... >>speed mechanical shutter was added, it could close very quickly just ... yet later you claim EVF users care about quality. ... So the camera manufacturers don't ignore it. ... >>that DSLR owners are not concerned with quality compared to ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: dSLR vs point and shoot
    ... architectural on trips where pictures are taken rapidly without a lot ... questioning the advantages of a dSLR in this setting. ... Certainly, the SLR wins, but by a much smaller margin than I would ... We all have different needs, and no one camera, or camera type will meet all of them. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)