John Navas wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> > wrote in > <069d3b65-bfc3-4188-893a-75541078c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>> On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams <mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote: >>> RichA wrote: >>>> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >>>> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome. >>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=32315884 >>> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't >>> have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, >>> with its superb Leica lens? >> I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and >> inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.
> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their > cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a > super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
You're not serious are you John?
The amount of post processing that no doubt went on to arrive at a highly coloured image with minimal detail like this one just confirms that images from miniature sensor cameras only look OK because of the low resolution of a monitor.
-- D-Mac... Back from the near-dead! With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking. I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:37:04 GMT, "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in <Az65m.428302$4m1.60...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
> You may wish to notice when someone is agreeing with you.
> Unless conflict is the only tool you have. :)
I was trying to amplify, not argue -- sorry that wasn't clear.
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
>In article <chs9559id2m8ev0urik193fp6v63d4o...@4ax.com>, John Navas ><spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >> >> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >> >> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
>> >If you can't see the lack of detail in that shot, John... You need >> >glasses. ...
>> If you can't see that's a relatively low-quality JPEG (that nonetheless >> has very good detail), then you need to take the chip off your shoulder. >> ;) None of the pros working that same event with dSLR cameras managed >> to get images as good as that one. "The proof is in the pudding."
>which means they're inept.
That may be. Or it may be that they didn't have the best tool for the job. ;)
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
In article <660a55ps8c0d5mchiuss6hrrnh88r6f...@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> If you can't see that's a relatively low-quality JPEG (that nonetheless > >> has very good detail), then you need to take the chip off your shoulder. > >> ;) None of the pros working that same event with dSLR cameras managed > >> to get images as good as that one. "The proof is in the pudding."
> >which means they're inept.
> That may be. > Or it may be that they didn't have the best tool for the job. ;)
or that it's inconclusive and can't be pinned down to one thing.
>On 2009-07-08 12:26:32 -0700, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> said:
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:15:15 +1000, D-Mac <p...@news.group> wrote in >> <7bk9htF240m9...@mid.individual.net>:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >>>> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >>>> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
>>> If you can't see the lack of detail in that shot, John... You need >>> glasses. ...
>> If you can't see that's a relatively low-quality JPEG (that nonetheless >> has very good detail), then you need to take the chip off your shoulder. >> ;) None of the pros working that same event with dSLR cameras managed >> to get images as good as that one. "The proof is in the pudding."
>Actually "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting." >...and in the case of your example you have a finely presented >"pudding" which is lacking the flavor of one produced by a chef with a >good oven.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, especially since you've provided no better examples.
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:54:24 +1000, D-Mac <p...@news.group> wrote in <7bkbrbF23mco...@mid.individual.net>:
>John Navas wrote: >> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
>You're not serious are you John?
>The amount of post processing that no doubt went on to arrive at a >highly coloured image with minimal detail like this one just confirms >that images from miniature sensor cameras only look OK because of the >low resolution of a monitor.
I'm quite serious. This is just a lower-res, lower-quality sample, as should be obvious.
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> > wrote in > <069d3b65-bfc3-4188-893a-75541078c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
> >On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams <mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote: > >> RichA wrote: > >> > Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a > >> > fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
> >> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't > >> have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, > >> with its superb Leica lens?
> >I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and > >inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.
> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their > cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a > super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:45:15 -0500, Allen <all...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>jurgenhaus wrote: >> RichA wrote: >>> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >>> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:54:24 +1000, D-Mac <p...@news.group> wrote in > <7bkbrbF23mco...@mid.individual.net>:
> >John Navas wrote: > >> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their > >> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a > >> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
> >You're not serious are you John?
> >The amount of post processing that no doubt went on to arrive at a > >highly coloured image with minimal detail like this one just confirms > >that images from miniature sensor cameras only look OK because of the > >low resolution of a monitor.
> I'm quite serious. > This is just a lower-res, lower-quality sample, as should be obvious.
John, that is clearly not D-Mac, why even bother responding?
>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> >> wrote in >> <069d3b65-bfc3-4188-893a-75541078c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>>> On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams <mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> RichA wrote: >>>>> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >>>>> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
>>>> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't >>>> have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, >>>> with its superb Leica lens?
>>> I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and >>> inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.
>> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
>NavASS example: Underexposed, unbalanced and non-challenging snapshot of a >close boring subject does NOT compare with the well-composed action shot at >a great distance of man and animal at the exact moment that only Edison >could prove with his camera.
Nonsense. That photo is well-composed, in focus, and a good action shot. It's a bit muddy, but that could be corrected in post. We have no idea how challenging it was to get the shot because we don't know how far away the shooter had to be.
I disagree with John far more than I agree with him. I think he's a bit of a prat. Still, you have be objective when you critique an image no matter who took it.
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:46:31 GMT, "D. Peter Maus" > <DPeterM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in > <XX45m.428134$4m1.306...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
> >On 07/08/09 12:27, John Navas wrote: > >> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3...@gmail.com> > >> wrote in > >> <069d3b65-bfc3-4188-893a-75541078c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
> >>> On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams<mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>> RichA wrote: > >>>>> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a > >>>>> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome. > >>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=32315884 > >>>> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't > >>>> have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, > >>>> with its superb Leica lens? > >>> I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and > >>> inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.
> >> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their > >> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a > >> super-zoom.<http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
> > While you are correct about capturing this shot with a P&S, try > >capturing 5 of them in a row when there's high action with one.
> The Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (for example) can burst 5 frames at 3 fps, and > shoot 2 fps indefinitely.
> > A colleague has been shooting for UPI for 30 years. He shoots big > >Canon's. At the ball park, at crash sites, air shows, race tracks, > >political events.. you name it.
> > When we were discussing camera choices, he said you can capture > >any moment with any camera. IF you have the time. With a P$S, you > >can capture the shot, but getting it up to speed, to focus, and > >adjust all the parameters takes time. So you need to know the > >critical moment is coming well before it's here so you can make sure > >the camera has done all the things it needs to do after you push the > >release button halfway so you can snap off the shutter just advance > >of the moment enough to capture it. A good photographer will be able > >to do that. A great photographer will be able to capture that moment > >and the 3 either side of it. For THAT, you need a faster more > >responsive camera.
> For THAT, HE needs his Canons, presumably because of the way he works. > I, OTOH, need my compact digital super-zooms because of the way I work. > For me they have big handling and responsiveness advantages over a dSLR. > "Different strokes for different folks."
> > No one's saying that a P&S is not a valid camera choice. My g/f > >shoots a CoolPix and gets some impressive shots when we're shooting > >together and speed is not an issue. But at airshows her P&S is > >tucked away. It's just not the right tool for the job.
> >To put that > >in another venue, you don't need a Lotus or a Ferrari to go fast. > >If fast is all you need, can run a race with any car. After all, a > >'63 Avanti will do 180 MPH off the showroom floor. But, just TRY to > >corner with it.
> > The JOB determines the correctness of the tool.
> "If the only tool you have is a hammer, > you will see every problem as a nail." > -Abraham Maslow
So ok, I have a P&S and a DSLR, is that sort of like having a hammer and a wrench whereas someone who only has a P&S is like the guy who only has a hammer?
I have long maintained that DSLR and P&S (or compacts if you prefer) have their uses, you on the other hand seem to want to try and do everything with a P&S. I am thinking you are seeing a lot of nails.
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote in <6a3566d5-bed2-4744-8bb1-3b8d87f23...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 8, 8:44 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> "If the only tool you have is a hammer, >> you will see every problem as a nail." >> -Abraham Maslow
>So ok, I have a P&S and a DSLR, is that sort of like having a hammer >and a wrench whereas someone who only has a P&S is like the guy who >only has a hammer?
>I have long maintained that DSLR and P&S (or compacts if you prefer) >have their uses, you on the other hand seem to want to try and do >everything with a P&S. I am thinking you are seeing a lot of nails.
I'm guessing that's because you've missed posts in which I've noted that I have Canon SLRs and a wealth of high-grade Canon SLR glass, and that I've used quite a few borrowed and rented dSLRs.
When I see a dSLR that fills and unfilled need and is cost-justified, I'll buy it. I've been close to buying a Nikon dSLR a couple of times, but didn't when I found them not to be cost-justified for my needs.
As always, YMMV.
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:14:29 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in <l96a55lqhnagard1r7k6jqbtm1gg866...@4ax.com>:
>Still, you have be objective when you critique an >image no matter who took it.
Not in this newsgroup! LOL
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:36:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in <7a360812-7420-4dd0-96c5-a6a6c2a6c...@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 8, 1:27 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
>Grainy and dark, even scaled down to that size.
You might want to upgrade your email client -- your better image is missing from your post. ;)
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
>>Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >>cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >>super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
>I guess we know why you like P&S... you are BLIND as a BAT!!
>That picture is CRAP!! If it wasn't a rare shot of a surfer star, I'd delete it >before anyone noticed it.
Your comparable and superior dSLR image is ... nonexistent.
Jealousy is a bitch.
LOL
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:36:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> >wrote in ><7a360812-7420-4dd0-96c5-a6a6c2a6c...@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:
>>On Jul 8, 1:27 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >>> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >>> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
>>Grainy and dark, even scaled down to that size.
>You might want to upgrade your email client -- >your better image is missing from your post. >;)
The problem is that *you* were claiming your URL compares to the image linked to previously. Your statement that someone else did *not* post a better image is simply an outrageous falsehood. This is the original URL,
And only a crackpot would claim your image compares to it in any way shape or form. Worse than that, it clearly is not just a matter of you being "totally clueless about photography and their cameras", because it is obvious from looking at the two images that the Panasonic equipment you use is *never* going to compare, in image quality of the product, to the Nikon D3 used in the photo originally linked to.
Of course, as usual you will ignore facts and say your image is just as good, but I invite everyone to look at both images:
>>>On Jul 8, 1:27 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >>>> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >>>> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
>>>Grainy and dark, even scaled down to that size.
>>You might want to upgrade your email client -- >>your better image is missing from your post. >>;)
>The problem is that *you* were claiming your URL >compares to the image linked to previously. Your >statement that someone else did *not* post a better >image is simply an outrageous falsehood. ... >[SNIP]
So much for my offered truce. [sigh] You're exposed for the childish curmudegeon you are, [again] Pity,
-- Best regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> > wrote in > <6a3566d5-bed2-4744-8bb1-3b8d87f23...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>:
> >On Jul 8, 8:44 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> "If the only tool you have is a hammer, > >> you will see every problem as a nail." > >> -Abraham Maslow
> >So ok, I have a P&S and a DSLR, is that sort of like having a hammer > >and a wrench whereas someone who only has a P&S is like the guy who > >only has a hammer?
> >I have long maintained that DSLR and P&S (or compacts if you prefer) > >have their uses, you on the other hand seem to want to try and do > >everything with a P&S. I am thinking you are seeing a lot of nails.
> I'm guessing that's because you've missed posts in which I've noted that > I have Canon SLRs and a wealth of high-grade Canon SLR glass, and that > I've used quite a few borrowed and rented dSLRs.
> When I see a dSLR that fills and unfilled need and is cost-justified, > I'll buy it. I've been close to buying a Nikon dSLR a couple of times, > but didn't when I found them not to be cost-justified for my needs.
So what you are saying is that you have a hammer, you like your hammer and see no need for a wrench?
You have borrowed other peoples wrenches, but really did not see where they could do anything with it that you can't with your hammer?
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:58:35 -0700 (PDT), Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote in <4bbe7e79-0bb5-4b72-9c8e-f0d8eaffd...@o18g2000pra.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 8, 1:33 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> I'm guessing that's because you've missed posts in which I've noted that >> I have Canon SLRs and a wealth of high-grade Canon SLR glass, and that >> I've used quite a few borrowed and rented dSLRs.
>> When I see a dSLR that fills [an] unfilled need and is cost-justified, >> I'll buy it. I've been close to buying a Nikon dSLR a couple of times, >> but didn't when I found them not to be cost-justified for my needs.
>So what you are saying is that you have a hammer, you like your hammer >and see no need for a wrench?
What I wrote speaks for itself. Are you so desperate you need to twist what I write?
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
>And to think that this reduced size photo is hiding more noise and >corruption from the full sized camera image.
Knee-jerk technical denigration by dSLR trolls of low-res, low-quality sample images is amusing but sad, exposing them for who they are.
-- Best regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"When the superior scholar hears of Tao, he diligently practises it. When the average scholar hears of Tao, he sometimes retains it, sometimes loses it. When the inferior scholar hears of Tao, he loudly laughs at it. Were it not thus ridiculed, it would not be worthy of the name of Tao." [Lao-Tzu]
John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >eOn Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:35:14 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. >Davidson) wrote in <878wiyelrx....@apaflo.com>:
>>>>On Jul 8, 1:27 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >>>>> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >>>>> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
>>>>Grainy and dark, even scaled down to that size.
>>>You might want to upgrade your email client -- >>>your better image is missing from your post. >>>;)
>>The problem is that *you* were claiming your URL >>compares to the image linked to previously. Your >>statement that someone else did *not* post a better >>image is simply an outrageous falsehood. ... >>[SNIP]
>So much for my offered truce. [sigh] >You're exposed for the childish curmudegeon you are, [again] >Pity,
And you continue with outrageous falsehoods.
Here they are again, first your image that you say is just as good as any,
Go ahead John, tell us one more time how you are "totally clueless about photography and ... cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with" your camera using your skill set.
When are you going to post something that compares to "shots like that"! Which is lacking, your skill set or your camera?
Don't let the facts get in your way though, just post more gratuitous insults! Let everyone know who you are...
John Navas wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:52:20 -0400, Alan Browne > <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in > <haqdnaCBCJnZosjXnZ2dnUVZ_jmdn...@giganews.com>:
>> And to think that this reduced size photo is hiding more noise and >> corruption from the full sized camera image.
> Knee-jerk technical denigration by dSLR trolls of low-res, low-quality > sample images is amusing but sad, exposing them for who they are.
No knee jerking. I looked closely at the image before commenting.
The noise is all over the place from the water to the surfer's face. The colours are unmistakably muted. His face looks like he was slapped around. The edges are soft. It is not clear what the cause is for that. The splash of water is grey (210/255; 210/255; 210/255). The JPG artifacts are there and unmistakable. Whether that is camera or post process is left open (as I pointed out).
The sole way of evaluating, or comparing cameras is where all the cameras take the same subject in the same lighting conditions.
Face it John, if you're going to put up a P&S image for their QUALITIES it is best that you choose better images.
|
