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

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:37:14 -0800, John Navas
<spamfilter1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:17:00 -0500, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@xxxxxxx> wrote in
<nvlok497l8o1b3sacoam3lq89rgbp8adh3@xxxxxxx>:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:46:17 -0800, John Navas
<spamfilter1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The D40 is actually representative of dSLR performance in its normal
performance range, and still far more expensive than the FZ8, but if you
need or want to compare an even more expensive dSLR that you think is
comparable, bring it on.

The D40 clearly has better image quality than the Panasonic or any
other p&s. Even better is the D200, D300 or D700, or however much
more money you want to spend.

I'm not going to waste time on proclamations without support.

Go to any camera review and you'll see all the support you need.




When both cameras are used within their normal performance ranges, most
images are actually quite comparable. There are cases where the FZ8
will beat the D40 (thanks chiefly to the lens, but also due to handling
advantages), just as there are cases where the D40 will beat the FZ8
(primarily high ISO).

In what situations will the FZ8 "beat" the D40, and by what criteria?

As they say in court, asked and answered.

I have yet to see the evidence.




As someone with considerable Panasonic super-zoom experience, I know
that CA is almost never an issue with these cameras. (Issues with other
compact cameras are of no concern to me. Likewise issues with dSLRs.)

Yet I've seen it in some of your pictures.

Whatever you say. [sigh]


Perhaps if you actually looked at your pictures you wouldn't sigh that
away. Seeing the truth is the first step toward improvement.



I generally agree, but not in the environment I described. Consider the
race boat. I have to keep the camera in a case a lot of the time so
both hands can be free. I can't use a chest or back pack because I'm
wearing an auto-inflatable PFD (personal flotation device). I can't
wear a belt or hip pack because it tends to snag on the boat, a serious
safety issue. I can't mount the case on the topsides of the boat or it
gets in the way of racing. So it winds up below, and I miss many
shooting opportunities. The Panasonic can stay in my pocket, is
inexpensive enough for me not to worry about it, and has a better lens
for the purpose, making camera selection a no brainer for me.

And I have no argument with that. ...

Good. Topic closed. Let's move on.

I'll take that bet. Shall we make it $20 ($10 for each image)?

Here you go, both events on San Francisco Bay, put on by the St Francis
Yacht Club:
* The first image was taken at the 2007 Kiteboarding National
Championships.
* The second image was taken during Stone Cup in May of this year.
(To make it as easy for you, you can find a list of pros that work
events like this on my Sailing & Racing website.)

There are no images to see... ???

Finding your better images is your job, not mine.

It isn't my images in question. I've asked for images made by
qualified pros taken at the same event using pro gear.


But virtually any real world test of image quality shows the D40 to be
better than the Panasonic. I'm not talking numbers, I'm referring to
actual images.

Only numbers are objective -- "actual images" just means a pointless
subjective debate.

Numbers can be meaningless. Look at how many people buy audio
equipment based on numbers such as frequency response, and then when
they actually set it up find that it sounds awful compared to
equipment with the lesser numbers but is engineered to produce
superior sound in real conditions.


Get something like a D300 and the difference in quality is astounding.

Another proclamation without support.

All you need do is look without blinders. Camera reviews and sample
images are all over the net.



Just for fun, a couple more recent favorites, both shot with my FZ20:
* <http://photos.navas.us/d/2139-4/P1000294.JPG>
(Blue Angels, Fleet Week)

No offense, but this one shows some pretty bad artifacts around the
aircraft, and fringing off the pilots' helmets. ...

That's an automatic medium quality shrink. The original can't be judged
from it. If you can't see that and know that, then you're less
discriminating than you claim.

So where's the original, then?


* <http://photos.navas.us/d/7131-2/P1000501.JPG>
(Palace of Fine Arts from the Marina)

Nice picture, although the highlights on the left are blown out.

Actually not. But I'm not going to get drawn into a pointless
subjective debate, so let's move on.

If you want to look at that image with a histogram you'll see that the
highlights are objectively clipped.



Or look at this sailing picture from your website:

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

I'm not going to bother, because that's not my best work,
hasn't even been through post processing --
just kept as a courtesy for those boats.

I just chose that one at random. Perhaps you can provide a link to
your best work so we can see a full-sized example that has been
through post processing?


I can easily find much crappier images taken with dSLR.

Not at ISO 100, you can't. (Speaking of the noise and poor
resolution, not speaking of errors like being out of focus or motion
blur)



This is getting more and more repetitive. If you have something new to
add, either real data or comparable images of your own, not just more
unsupported proclamations, then I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise
I think it's about time to pack this in.

I can't provide images to compare because I wasn't at those particular
locations at the same time. It isn't about me vs. you and some ego
trip about who can take the best pictures.

But you're just ignoring the evidence that smaller sensors have some
real problems compared to larger ones.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
    ... need or want to compare an even more expensive dSLR that you think is ... There are cases where the FZ8 ... wear a belt or hip pack because it tends to snag on the boat, ... There are no images to see... ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: color calibration of microscopic images
    ... filters with a pore size of 0.025 um can be recommended as white ... tell you that I have acquired images of the grey patches of the Gretag ... I might also want to compare not color images but other properties ... (mass spectra, visible-light spectra, etc), but this will come ...
    (sci.techniques.microscopy)
  • Re: Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
    ... Botched camera tests and wasting money on camera gear that does ... The DSLR images were with a mere 300 mm lens. ... But wait, if you want to compare the super zoom at max zoom, then compare ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: choosing my first digicam: canon a520 vs olympus c-60
    ... > I'm about to buy my first digital camera, ... and the Canon A520 seems to be a favorite everywhere. ... Would do you compare it to the ... compared images between the two. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: question 35 mm vs digital
    ... That said, digital offers a flexibilty and ease of use that film can't match unless it, too, it scanned and digitized. ... You have to compare apples with apples. ... Comparing Adams' 8x10 with a digital camera is like comparing my 2-litre Nissan with a 7-litre Rolls Royce. ... Large - very large - images are being made by stitching successive digital shots together, producing Gigapixel and bigger images, which blow away even the best images ever made on film. ...
    (alt.photography)