Best Camera for NIght Shots?

-hh wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphun... RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote:
>> All those, with the exception of signal/noise ratio are 'patience
>> factors', and have no bearing on the quality of the image, but on the
>> quality of patience of the photographer... isn't really important in night
>> shots as very rarely is there ...
>
> Agreed, for the specific application of night photography. However,
> by the same token, all of John's claims about the desirability of a
> 'superzoom' are also moot, for there's also plenty of time to swap
> lenses, etc.
>
> Similarly, John also did not his advocacy of this hardware to just
> night photography, but also talked about taking action photos of
> sailboats, etc. That's where I noticed (in his own blessed photos!)
> examples of compositions missed because of what I'll aggregate as
> "slow camera responsiveness".
>
>
>> I am sure that John isn't going to claim that ANY P&S camera has as
>> good a low light performance as a DSLR with a nice large sensor, and
>> good lens.
>
> No, he's just claimed that "his" P&S is equal/better.
>
>
>> But good enough, is good enough.
>
> Sure. The issue here is that trade-offs must always exist. I'm very
> happy that P&S's have gotten very good over the past decade, but I
> also recognize that all of the technologies that has made them better
> are 100% transferable to all other digital camera form factors, which
> means that the only thing really unique about a P&S is its compact
> size and the specific trade-offs that had to occur to manifest that
> particular design set. This design set will be exellent for some
> applications and good enough for others, but nothing - including dSLRs
> - is excellent at absolutely everything.
>
>
> -hh
>
But for those of us with less stringent requirements, and who can't, or
won't, carry a heavy, bulky camera, and an assortment of specialized
lenses, filters, tripods, etc., the advancements in P&S cameras mean we
can get shots you won't, just because you couldn't be bothered by a
camera that can double as a boat-anchor.
In the end, ALL cameras must make design compromises, and the most
telling design compromise, for my needs, is the size factor. If it is
too big, and/or too heavy, I WON'T carry it.
A camera sitting in the car, or on a shelf at home, doesn't get nearly
as good a picture as the one I carried to the bottom of Niagara Falls.
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

Allen <al....DeleteThis@nothere.net> wrote:
>
> -hh, I can't verify your specific reaction times, but relatively they
> match my own experience.

One place that they're in is the legal papers for federal regulations
regarding how to calcuate the Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance (NOHD)
for eyesafe lasers.


-hh
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

John Navas <spamfilt....TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>... I'm not going to waste time on a direct response,

But John does somehow feel compelled to waste his time on an indirect
response. Telling.


-hh
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

Anonymous Coward RealityBytes <realityby... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Wow, you really are an ignorant DSLR proponent aren't you.
> ALL my P&S cameras have several zoom speeds.

No, I'm just an out-of-date P&S consumer, since my P&S is pretty old
and it only has a single speed.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to list actual brand names and models
of these (clearly newer than mine) P&Ss that have said variable zoom
speeds.

Please note that I'm not looking for a P&S that has a setting that you
can change, but one that's dynamically available right off the zoom
control. By your descriptions, it sounds like at least one of your
unidentified products probably do qualify...although I really have my
doubts about it being truely stepless, but a well designed stepped
system can be pragmatically good enough.


-hh
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

Yet another "one shot" anonymous sockpuppet coward, this one under the
pseduonym of ' RealityBytes' <realityby....DeleteThis@yahoo.com>.

He was the "Dave Davidson" sockpuppet yesterday.


> It's not even a matter of "patience", it's just downright lies.

Sorry, but the data's from dpreview. If its wrong, go blame them.

> My latest P&S camera has a "shutter lag"(?) of 0.05 seconds.
> That's less than human reaction time.

Fortunately, hardware latency times have improved significantly for
many P&S's. Unfortunately, the specific P&S in question was not one
of them.

However, I am glad that you mentioned the human reaction time factor,
for it feeds into your next grand claim:

> Zoom speed? My P&S camera goes from 36mm to 432mm
> in less than 1 second.

The accepted average human reaction speed for is ~250 milliseconds
(simple task).

With a zoom rate of ~400mm/sec, when you hit your desired focal
length, its going to take you time to recognize that, plus then an
additional 250 milliseconds (simple task) to let go of the button to
stop zooming. Congratulations: you've just overshot your desired
focal length by ~100mm.


> If you need faster than that you're only needing it for some
> meaningless record to bolster some damaged ego.

Don't want merely "faster": there's two fundimentally *divergent*
performance requirements: gross control and fine control, so what's
desired is to be both fast and slow, which means the optimal
technology solution is a fully stepless nonlinear control. SLRs
already have this. Perhaps a few P&Ss do too, but no specific models
come offhand to mind.

In the meantime, go take some classes on Human Engineering design.


-hh
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

-hh wrote:
<snip>
> However, I am glad that you mentioned the human reaction time factor,
> for it feeds into your next grand claim:
>
>> Zoom speed? My P&S camera goes from 36mm to 432mm
>> in less than 1 second.
>
> The accepted average human reaction speed for is ~250 milliseconds
> (simple task).
>
> With a zoom rate of ~400mm/sec, when you hit your desired focal
> length, its going to take you time to recognize that, plus then an
> additional 250 milliseconds (simple task) to let go of the button to
> stop zooming. Congratulations: you've just overshot your desired
> focal length by ~100mm.
>
>
>> If you need faster than that you're only needing it for some
>> meaningless record to bolster some damaged ego.
>
Captain Easy (or whatever its nom du moment is) is correct about zoom
time; that sounds like my S3IS. For him to call it a "feature" is like
calling a broken leg a feature. Incidentally, I won't be seeing any
further posts from him until a few hours from now when he goes through
his endless chameleon routine; if what he says has any value he
shouldn't have a problem with using the same posing name permanently.
-hh, I can't verify your specific reaction times, but relatively they
match my own experience. That is the single biggest complaint I have
with my S3IS; I will say that the zoom speed can be slowed down somewhat
by barely nudging zoom control. And please don't think I'm an anti-DSLR
nut; I used film SLRs from the early 1960s, but they are out of my price
range right now, thanks to medical expenses, Some day....
Allen
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:35:24 -0000, -hh <recscuba_google.RemoveThis@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>
>With a zoom rate of ~400mm/sec, when you hit your desired focal
>length, its going to take you time to recognize that, plus then an
>additional 250 milliseconds (simple task) to let go of the button to
>stop zooming. Congratulations: you've just overshot your desired
>focal length by ~100mm.
>
>
>> If you need faster than that you're only needing it for some
>> meaningless record to bolster some damaged ego.
>
>Don't want merely "faster": there's two fundimentally *divergent*
>performance requirements: gross control and fine control, so what's
>desired is to be both fast and slow, which means the optimal
>technology solution is a fully stepless nonlinear control. SLRs
>already have this. Perhaps a few P&Ss do too, but no specific models
>come offhand to mind.
>
>In the meantime, go take some classes on Human Engineering design.
>

Wow, you really are an ignorant DSLR proponent aren't you. ALL my P&S cameras
have several zoom speeds. One having the zoom as variable rate zoom-ring on the
lens (stepless zoom control), another with a variable rate toggle-ring by the
shutter, with 129 reproducible zoom steps so that I may choose any one of them
to recreate an exact setting needed. For doing such things as investigative
nature and science research or something more mundane like reproducible framings
for animations and time-lapse sequences.

In the meantime, go take some classes on more than how to keep your head stuck
up your *HIGHLY* ignorant DSLR ass.
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:17:56 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter.TakeThisOut@charter.net>
wrote in <VcCdnWh4UKfbSa_anZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d.TakeThisOut@giganews.com>:

>-hh wrote:

>> Your beloved Panasonic DMC-FZ8 gets outperformed in all of the
>> following performance categories by a now-discontinued 3 year old
>> dSLR:
>>
>> - Signal/Noise ratio
>> - Startup time
>> - Shutoff time
>> - Focus Speed
>> - Shutter Lag
>> - Zoom speed
>> - Frames/sec
>> - Buffer Depth
>>
>(Snip)
>
>All those, with the exception of signal/noise ratio are 'patience
>factors', and have no bearing on the quality of the image, but on the
>quality of patience of the photographer. Perhaps John just has more
>patience than you. Frankly, the difference in startup time between 2.3
>seconds, and .3 seconds is pretty immaterial to me, given that it takes
>me that long to move the camera from the turn-on position to the
>photo-taking position. And shutoff time isn't really something I ever
>thought about as important. Shutter lag isn't really important in night
>shots as very rarely is there any attempt to catch motion anyway.
>I am sure that John isn't going to claim that ANY P&S camera has as good
>a low light performance as a DSLR with a nice large sensor, and good
>lens. But good enough, is good enough.

He's just trolling, so I'm not going to waste time on a direct response,
and many of his claims are either meaningless (like silly anatomy size
boasting) or just plain wrong. Case in point is shutter lag. When
configured for action shots, the FZ8 actually has very good performance
in terms of shutter lag, shot-to-shot performance, and burst/continuous
shooting. To quote Digital Photography Review on the FZ8, "the actual
delay between pressing the button and the shot being taken is almost
instantaneous".

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:18:30 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net>
wrote in <xPSdna0dGclKq67anZ2dnUVZ_r2nnZ2d RemoveThis @giganews.com>:

>-hh wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <rphun... RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote:
>>> All those, with the exception of signal/noise ratio are 'patience
>>> factors', and have no bearing on the quality of the image, but on the
>>> quality of patience of the photographer... isn't really important in night
>>> shots as very rarely is there ...
>>
>> Agreed, for the specific application of night photography. However,
>> by the same token, all of John's claims about the desirability of a
>> 'superzoom' are also moot, for there's also plenty of time to swap
>> lenses, etc.

In many cases that's simply not true, as any working pro knows, which is
part of why they typically use multiple bodies. Another part is that
changing lenses in conditions like blowing spray is a very bad idea.

>> Similarly, John also did not his advocacy of this hardware to just
>> night photography, but also talked about taking action photos of
>> sailboats, etc. That's where I noticed (in his own blessed photos!)
>> examples of compositions missed because of what I'll aggregate as
>> "slow camera responsiveness".

Still trolling I see. In fact I recently shot a sailing regatta against
pros working with multiple DSLRs, and I frequently got the better shot
simply because I was always ready, as well as having a faster lens.

>>> I am sure that John isn't going to claim that ANY P&S camera has as
>>> good a low light performance as a DSLR with a nice large sensor, and
>>> good lens.
>>
>> No, he's just claimed that "his" P&S is equal/better.

Still trolling I see. What I've actually said is "different strokes for
different folks, and if SLRs better facilitate the way you work, then
more power to you, and that's what you should use."

>>> But good enough, is good enough.
>>
>> Sure. The issue here is that trade-offs must always exist. I'm very
>> happy that P&S's have gotten very good over the past decade, but I
>> also recognize that all of the technologies that has made them better
>> are 100% transferable to all other digital camera form factors, which
>> means that the only thing really unique about a P&S is its compact
>> size and the specific trade-offs that had to occur to manifest that
>> particular design set.

In fact there are unique advantages other than smaller size, notably
faster higher-quality wider-range zooms -- nothing in 35 mm measures up
to the Leica lenses on Panasonic super-zoom bridge cameras, which match
the optical quality of even the best prime fixed focal length lenses on
comparable DSLRs (proven by published test results).

>> This design set will be exellent for some
>> applications and good enough for others, but nothing - including dSLRs
>> - is excellent at absolutely everything.

Of course not. I never said that. Straw man argument.

>But for those of us with less stringent requirements, and who can't, or
>won't, carry a heavy, bulky camera, and an assortment of specialized
>lenses, filters, tripods, etc., the advancements in P&S cameras mean we
>can get shots you won't, just because you couldn't be bothered by a
>camera that can double as a boat-anchor.

Yep. Not to mention cost.

>In the end, ALL cameras must make design compromises, and the most
>telling design compromise, for my needs, is the size factor. If it is
>too big, and/or too heavy, I WON'T carry it.
>A camera sitting in the car, or on a shelf at home, doesn't get nearly
>as good a picture as the one I carried to the bottom of Niagara Falls.

"The best camera is the one you actually have with you."

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

Ron Hunter <rphun....RemoveThis@charter.net> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > This design set will be exellent for some applications
> > and good enough for others, but nothing - including dSLRs
> > - is excellent at absolutely everything.
>
> But for those of us with less stringent requirements, and who can't, or
> won't, carry a heavy, bulky camera, and an assortment of specialized
> lenses, filters, tripods, etc., the advancements in P&S cameras mean we
> can get shots you won't, just because you couldn't be bothered by a
> camera that can double as a boat-anchor.

Why why why...does it seem that everyone constantly assumes that this
all utterly must be an "Either - Or" proposition?

Why is it so inconceivable that someone can simply own both a P&S and
an SLR and then choose whichever tool is most appropriate for the
occasion?

I own both. I use whichever suits the purposes.
Who has a big problem with that?


-hh
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:42:54 -0000, -hh <recscuba_google.DeleteThis@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>Ron Hunter <rphun....DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>> > This design set will be exellent for some applications
>> > and good enough for others, but nothing - including dSLRs
>> > - is excellent at absolutely everything.
>>
>> But for those of us with less stringent requirements, and who can't, or
>> won't, carry a heavy, bulky camera, and an assortment of specialized
>> lenses, filters, tripods, etc., the advancements in P&S cameras mean we
>> can get shots you won't, just because you couldn't be bothered by a
>> camera that can double as a boat-anchor.
>
>Why why why...does it seem that everyone constantly assumes that this
>all utterly must be an "Either - Or" proposition?
>
>Why is it so inconceivable that someone can simply own both a P&S and
>an SLR and then choose whichever tool is most appropriate for the
>occasion?
>
>I own both. I use whichever suits the purposes.
>Who has a big problem with that?
>
>

Apparently you do. Or you wouldn't waste everyone's time showing everyone how
insecure you are about your DSLR purchases with trying to justify them all the
time. But then its easy to see why you have your doubts, with so many P&S
cameras easily beating DSLRs in the last 3 years.
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On 8 Nov 2007 11:57:17 -0800, -hh <recscuba_google RemoveThis @huntzinger.com> wrote
in <1194544161.291992.37290 RemoveThis @i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

>Anonymous Coward RealityBytes <realityby... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wow, you really are an ignorant DSLR proponent aren't you.
>> ALL my P&S cameras have several zoom speeds.
>
>No, I'm just an out-of-date P&S consumer, since my P&S is pretty old
>and it only has a single speed.
>
>Perhaps you would be so kind as to list actual brand names and models
>of these (clearly newer than mine) P&Ss that have said variable zoom
>speeds.
>
>Please note that I'm not looking for a P&S that has a setting that you
>can change, but one that's dynamically available right off the zoom
>control. By your descriptions, it sounds like at least one of your
>unidentified products probably do qualify...although I really have my
>doubts about it being truely stepless, but a well designed stepped
>system can be pragmatically good enough.

Panasonic DMC-FZ8 and DMC-FZ18: 2-speed almost stepless power zoom
Panasonic DMC-FZ30 and DMC-FZ50: fluid damped mechanical zoom

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:32:59 GMT, GetAGrip <blocked.RemoveThis@antispam.net> wrote
in <hr67j3dkg3mm4t65ueqo6f0526pm83cfpv.RemoveThis@4ax.com>:

>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:42:54 -0000, -hh <recscuba_google.RemoveThis@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>>Why why why...does it seem that everyone constantly assumes that this
>>all utterly must be an "Either - Or" proposition?
>>
>>Why is it so inconceivable that someone can simply own both a P&S and
>>an SLR and then choose whichever tool is most appropriate for the
>>occasion?
>>
>>I own both. I use whichever suits the purposes.
>>Who has a big problem with that?
>
>Apparently you do. Or you wouldn't waste everyone's time showing everyone how
>insecure you are about your DSLR purchases with trying to justify them all the
>time. But then its easy to see why you have your doubts, with so many P&S
>cameras easily beating DSLRs in the last 3 years.

He's now admitted that his P&S is "pretty old" so that probably has
something to do with it.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots?