: : >"The Truth" <thetr...@prophotography.org> wrote in message : >news:alfud5hbgjj9drj1cllhj33p9m41o5vcgf@4ax.com... : > : >> : >> The desire for very high ISOs is the desire of a pure amateur. Pro's have : >> gotten by just fine on ASA25 to ASA64 all their lives. Rarely will I find : >> a : >> need for ISO200. Even in fast-action sports settings or capturing birds on : >> the wing. Nothing more than that is needed in the hands of someone with : >> talent and expertise. Only base amateurs need high ISOs because they don't : >> know how to use a camera properly in the first place. It's just one more : >> setting they can add to their auto-everything Point and Shoot DSLR's : >> arsenal of mediocrity so that the camera will hopefully compensate for : >> their lack of skill and talent. That's all it is and will ever be. : >> : > : >I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that. Try shooting a single seater : >racing car through dark tree covered track on an overcast day at ISO 200. : >You'll have the drivers eyes in focus if you're lucky but everything else : >will be out of focus, or the shot will be full of lateral blur. : > : >Personally I welcome higher, useable ISO's that will let me get my aperture : >down. : : What a shame that you have to suffer with such shallow DOF to try to get : the shot properly. First they pride themselves on their useless shallow : DOF, now they condemn it. What hypocrites. I'm SO glad I no longer have : your limitations and problems with my chosen camera gear.
On Oct 21, 1:08 pm, The Truth <thetr...@prophotography.org> wrote:
> The desire for very high ISOs is the desire of a pure amateur. Pro's have > gotten by just fine on ASA25 to ASA64 all their lives. Rarely will I find a > need for ISO200. Even in fast-action sports settings or capturing birds on > the wing. Nothing more than that is needed in the hands of someone with > talent and expertise.
Is this the point in the game when we ask to see your pics and you run away?
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:39:51 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote: >"Richard Sloman" <rich...@richardsloman.com> writes: >>> Your post is quite right. >>> I wonder why you even responded to such an obvious troll.
>> What can I say Peter, I'm new!
>The P&S troll's propensity for silly names like "The Truth" does give a >bit of a hint tho...
>[I also made the mistake of responding to him seriously when I first >joined... but in retrospect I dunno what I was thinking!]
>-Miles
Dear Resident, Pretend-Photographer, DSLR-Trolls,
Your replies are completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that befit these newsgroups. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
If nothing else, be sure to read reason number 26. What fun! :-)
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop): http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res... When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations. Causing
...
Annika1980 wrote: > On Oct 21, 1:08 pm, The Truth <thetr...@prophotography.org> wrote: >> The desire for very high ISOs is the desire of a pure amateur. Pro's have >> gotten by just fine on ASA25 to ASA64 all their lives. Rarely will I find a >> need for ISO200. Even in fast-action sports settings or capturing birds on >> the wing. Nothing more than that is needed in the hands of someone with >> talent and expertise.
> Is this the point in the game when we ask to see your pics and you run > away?
The Truth <thetr...@morethanprophotography.org> wrote:
Ah, "The /Liar/" is back.
> And yes, I have often taken some spectacular photographs of birds in flight > during dusk (sun below horizon), morning or evening. Still no need for high > ISOs.
Black on black is so *very*, *very* spectacular, if you are into the Goth subculture. And of course no high ISO -- P&S are terribly noisy with anything over ISO 50 or 64.
Of course, you will now give us no-longer-functioning links to some of "your" fabulous images which where taken by someone else with a DSLR and high ISO (which looks still better than your P&S at any ISO) ...
> Peter wrote: >> "Bob Larter" <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4ae04f99$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au... >>> John McWilliams wrote: >>>> Bob Larter wrote: >>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> Yeah, just shoot RAW. I am guessing it takes one exposure and then >>>> converts it into several JPEGs with different color temps? Anyone know?
>>> That'd be my guess too. Most likely auto, plus/minus a couple of hundred >>> degrees K.
>> Assuming there is a good reason to shoot jpeg, and there will be few >> artifacts on the save, why not open the file in Adobe Raw and adjust the >> color temp.
>>>> The desire for very high ISOs is the desire of a pure amateur. Pro's >>>> have >>>> gotten by just fine on ASA25 to ASA64 all their lives. Rarely will I >>>> find >>>> a >>>> need for ISO200. Even in fast-action sports settings or capturing birds >>>> on >>>> the wing. Nothing more than that is needed in the hands of someone with >>>> talent and expertise. Only base amateurs need high ISOs because they >>>> don't >>>> know how to use a camera properly in the first place. It's just one >>>> more >>>> setting they can add to their auto-everything Point and Shoot DSLR's >>>> arsenal of mediocrity so that the camera will hopefully compensate for >>>> their lack of skill and talent. That's all it is and will ever be.
>>>I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that. Try shooting a single seater >>>racing car through dark tree covered track on an overcast day at ISO 200. >>>You'll have the drivers eyes in focus if you're lucky but everything else >>>will be out of focus, or the shot will be full of lateral blur.
>>>Personally I welcome higher, useable ISO's that will let me get my >>>aperture >>>down.
>> What a shame that you have to suffer with such shallow DOF to try to get >> the shot properly. First they pride themselves on their useless shallow >> DOF, now they condemn it. What hypocrites. I'm SO glad I no longer have >> your limitations and problems with my chosen camera gear.
> Well, judging by your website the only solution you found to the problem > was to shoot things that barely move. If that's what floats your boat then > the best of luck to you. Shooting moving subjects in poor light is clearly > something you don't have any experience of as better people than you or I > are afflicted by the issues I've already mentioned.
Right you arer, Richard! Moving subjects, indeed, but how about taking photos in a building where a tripod is not allowed, such as a museum or a church? Take a look at these taken in different museums in Paris last Sept. (attention, 105 pics): http://flickr.com/gp/cosmar/04861F This would have been impossible at ISO 100, no matter how great a photographer "The Truth is" ;-))) Cheer, Marcel
>>>>> The desire for very high ISOs is the desire of a pure amateur. Pro's >>>>> have >>>>> gotten by just fine on ASA25 to ASA64 all their lives. Rarely will I >>>>> find >>>>> a >>>>> need for ISO200. Even in fast-action sports settings or capturing birds >>>>> on >>>>> the wing. Nothing more than that is needed in the hands of someone with >>>>> talent and expertise. Only base amateurs need high ISOs because they >>>>> don't >>>>> know how to use a camera properly in the first place. It's just one >>>>> more >>>>> setting they can add to their auto-everything Point and Shoot DSLR's >>>>> arsenal of mediocrity so that the camera will hopefully compensate for >>>>> their lack of skill and talent. That's all it is and will ever be.
>>>>I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that. Try shooting a single seater >>>>racing car through dark tree covered track on an overcast day at ISO 200. >>>>You'll have the drivers eyes in focus if you're lucky but everything else >>>>will be out of focus, or the shot will be full of lateral blur.
>>>>Personally I welcome higher, useable ISO's that will let me get my >>>>aperture >>>>down.
>>> What a shame that you have to suffer with such shallow DOF to try to get >>> the shot properly. First they pride themselves on their useless shallow >>> DOF, now they condemn it. What hypocrites. I'm SO glad I no longer have >>> your limitations and problems with my chosen camera gear.
>> Well, judging by your website the only solution you found to the problem >> was to shoot things that barely move. If that's what floats your boat then >> the best of luck to you. Shooting moving subjects in poor light is clearly >> something you don't have any experience of as better people than you or I >> are afflicted by the issues I've already mentioned.
>Right you arer, Richard! >Moving subjects, indeed, but how about taking photos in a building where a >tripod is not allowed, such as a museum or a church? Take a look at these >taken in different museums in Paris last Sept. (attention, 105 pics): >http://flickr.com/gp/cosmar/04861F >This would have been impossible at ISO 100, no matter how great a >photographer "The Truth is" ;-))) >Cheer, >Marcel
Just because you are a piss-poor snapshooter with less than zero hand-held-camera skills is zero proof that everyone else is as inept as you are.
Here's an example of an image taken at 330mm focal length at 1/10th second hand-held, ISO200 with a P&S camera, ~10 minutes after sunset in an overgrown and remote cypress-swamp. No image-stabilization in camera, nor lens.
I thought it might be nice for you to see some proof of just what a piss-poor snapshooter that you really are. Then you'll realize just how much you have yet to learn.
p.s. Richard went to the wrong website. Ergo: The fools abound!
Two snapshooting trolls down with one image ... this is like shooting fish in a barrel.
> Here's an example of an image taken at 330mm focal length at 1/10th second > hand-held, ISO200 with a P&S camera, ~10 minutes after sunset in an > overgrown and remote cypress-swamp. No image-stabilization in camera, nor > lens. > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/4075539835_e91b811770_o.jpg
[tiny image, no exif, no owner visible]
Yo, slime known as "the P&S troll", that's a shot done with a 400mm IS lens at ISO 1600 with a Canon Crop DSLR at 1/120s, anyone can see that! You didn't shoot that one, either, you stole it.
|
