Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

In rec.photo.digital frederick <lost.DeleteThis@sea.com> wrote:
>
> For the best advice from a true professional see:
> http://www.proshooter.homestead.com/
> I'm sure that's from the guy with numerous nicks and
> numerous posts in here - fighting the good fight for the P&S lobby.

ROFL.

Thanks for the link, which has been around since 2003,
but I hadn't seen it. Too bad there are only 3 pages.
Additionally, I appreciate the pointless use of Javascript.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:20:51 -0400, "David Ruether" <rpn1 RemoveThis @no-junk.cornell.edu>
wrote:

>
>
>"David Ruether" <rpn1 RemoveThis @no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:fe3qgr$lgq$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote in message news:kddNi.154923$Mu5.25689@newsfe15.phx...
>
>>> What I'd like to see.....Maybe Roger can do this for us.....Is to shoot two identical subjects under BRIGHT conditions where both
>>> cameras capture an image at about f=4.0 - 5.6, ISO = 80-100, speed 1/250-1/400 sec.
>>> These conditions are fairly typical of outdoor lighting on a partly cloudy day and utilize a camera parameters where BOTH cameras
>>> are operating near their optimum conditions.
>>> Bob
>
>> I should have this up in an hour or so, but I will put up comparison
>> photos at www.doughicksphotography.com/comparison.htm.
>> of a D1x with an 18-70mm at 18mm and f4 and a Sony 707 at
>> 10mm and f4.5 (about the same angle of view). The files will be
>> very large...
>> --
>> David Ruether
>
>The photos are now up (dull, and it would have been nice to have
>had the sharpening at normal on the Sony, and/or to have used the
>Fuji S700, but anyway...). I will remove this page soon...

Ouch! (saying that on behalf of all dSLR owners out there)

Yet again the P&S camera clearly wins, over a Nikon dSLR no less.

Not even a contest.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

Walter Hancock wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:20:51 -0400, "David Ruether" <rpn1 DeleteThis @no-junk.cornell.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "David Ruether" <rpn1 DeleteThis @no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:fe3qgr$lgq$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message news:kddNi.154923$Mu5.25689@newsfe15.phx...
>>>> What I'd like to see.....Maybe Roger can do this for us.....Is to shoot two identical subjects under BRIGHT conditions where both
>>>> cameras capture an image at about f=4.0 - 5.6, ISO = 80-100, speed 1/250-1/400 sec.
>>>> These conditions are fairly typical of outdoor lighting on a partly cloudy day and utilize a camera parameters where BOTH cameras
>>>> are operating near their optimum conditions.
>>>> Bob
>>> I should have this up in an hour or so, but I will put up comparison
>>> photos at www.doughicksphotography.com/comparison.htm.
>>> of a D1x with an 18-70mm at 18mm and f4 and a Sony 707 at
>>> 10mm and f4.5 (about the same angle of view). The files will be
>>> very large...
>>> --
>>> David Ruether
>> The photos are now up (dull, and it would have been nice to have
>> had the sharpening at normal on the Sony, and/or to have used the
>> Fuji S700, but anyway...). I will remove this page soon...
>
> Ouch! (saying that on behalf of all dSLR owners out there)
>
> Yet again the P&S camera clearly wins, over a Nikon dSLR no less.
>
> Not even a contest.
>
What I see are halos around all edges in the Sony image, which to the
untrained eye gives the impression of sharpness. To others it looks like
horrible artifacts. The advantage of the Nikon image is not shown.
It should be processed through a raw converter, where it would show
sharper edges and even less noise.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

David J Taylor wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote:
>> My buddy, Ken Rockwell, did a recent comparison of high-ISO
>> performance between DSLRs that can be found here:
>> http://kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comparisons/2007-10/index.htm
>>
>> Note what he says about the Point & Shoots near the end of the
>> article:
>>
>> "I was too lazy to include a compact camera, which as I showed last
>> year, is abysmal compared to any DSLR. A typical compact camera, like
>> the Canon SD700 I use all the time, is ten times worse than any DSLR.
>> My SD700 at its lowest ISO 80 looks about the same as any of these
>> DSLRs at ISO 800! "
>>
>> LOL! Even Ken Rockwell says, "Sucks to be you, Point and Shitters
>> !!!"
>
> I read it differently - where you have enough light for ISO 80 you may be
> able to get as good a picture with a more compact and cheaper camera.

That's one way of looking at it I guess, though the disadvantages of
point and shoots go way beyond the need for more light to be able to
have a low enough ISO setting to have acceptable noise levels.

The reason for the increasing rate of SLR sales and the flat P&S sales
is not noise. The users I see abandoning point and shoot (or at least
relegating it to situations where a very small camera is of paramount
importance) are going the SLR route for two reasons: 1) they are going
crazy with the long shutter lag of even the point and shoot with the
shortest shutter lag, 2) they want a more powerful flash for indoor
shots (then they find that with the D-SLR they can often take good
indoor shots without a flash at all).

It's interesting that with digital photography, the point and shoots are
so much worse than the SLRs, with seemingly no hope of ever closing the
gap, while with film there were many excellent point and shoot 35mm
models, both at the mid-range and high-end price points. There's
something to be said for buying your sensors on a roll, being able to
use different sensors for different applications, and being able to use
higher quality sensors even in the lower-end cameras. If you want low
shutter lag and low noise in a compact point and shoot camera, buy a
film camera and have the film scanned in a high resolution scanner when
its processed.

In any case, I'd be very careful about using anything Ken Rockwell says
to support a position I agree with. I generally view his statements like
I view many political endorsements...if so and so endorses a
candidate, I must be against that candidate. Remember Sigma digital
SLRs? They had a fan base as strange and misinformed as the current
group of anti-digital SLR trolls. I have a whole list of people similar
to Ken Rockwell, who's statements on any subject now are suspect.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

On 4 Oct 2007 17:27:50 -0700, Bill Tuthill <ccreekin RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital David Ruether <rpn1 RemoveThis @no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I should have this up in an hour or so, but I will put up comparison
>> photos at www.doughicksphotography.com/comparison.htm.
>> of a D1x with an 18-70mm at 18mm and f4 and a Sony 707 at
>> 10mm and f4.5 (about the same angle of view). The files will be
>> very large...
>
>Certainly not more than $10 to $50 worth of difference between these.
>Isn't the Sony 707 a really old camera?
>
>I like the Sony 707 picture better because of the kid with a red shirt
>riding a scooter. That's the main difference for me. The Nikon D1x
>with 18-70 has less purple fringing in the corners, but fuzzy infinity
>and less saturated greens. So it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

I guess you missed all the detail in the foliage. The missing texture from the
yellow lines in the road, important detail that shows what they really are. How
the dSLR sensor could miss detailing that much information and that large of a
texture about a subject is beyond me. If you took a photograph of someone in a
yellow cable-knit sweater with that dSLR it would look like they are wearing a
yellow t-shirt. The number of things missing from the dSLR image compared to the
P&S camera would take too long to point out. The least of which being the image
of the kid in a red shirt. There's at least half the detail and textures missing
in the dSLR image compared to the P&S image. It's as if the dSLR image was put
through too high of jpg compression but the file-sizes say the reverse is true.
The Sony applied more compression yet provided twice the detail.

It's not 6 of one, half-dozen of the other. It's more like 1 of 144, and 99.3%
of a gross.

Maybe you need a new monitor, or glasses. That's the only possible explanation
for your reply.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:17:30 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username DeleteThis @qwest.net> wrote:

>Walter Hancock wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:20:51 -0400, "David Ruether" <rpn1 DeleteThis @no-junk.cornell.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "David Ruether" <rpn1 DeleteThis @no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:fe3qgr$lgq$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> "Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message news:kddNi.154923$Mu5.25689@newsfe15.phx...
>>>>> What I'd like to see.....Maybe Roger can do this for us.....Is to shoot two identical subjects under BRIGHT conditions where both
>>>>> cameras capture an image at about f=4.0 - 5.6, ISO = 80-100, speed 1/250-1/400 sec.
>>>>> These conditions are fairly typical of outdoor lighting on a partly cloudy day and utilize a camera parameters where BOTH cameras
>>>>> are operating near their optimum conditions.
>>>>> Bob
>>>> I should have this up in an hour or so, but I will put up comparison
>>>> photos at www.doughicksphotography.com/comparison.htm.
>>>> of a D1x with an 18-70mm at 18mm and f4 and a Sony 707 at
>>>> 10mm and f4.5 (about the same angle of view). The files will be
>>>> very large...
>>>> --
>>>> David Ruether
>>> The photos are now up (dull, and it would have been nice to have
>>> had the sharpening at normal on the Sony, and/or to have used the
>>> Fuji S700, but anyway...). I will remove this page soon...
>>
>> Ouch! (saying that on behalf of all dSLR owners out there)
>>
>> Yet again the P&S camera clearly wins, over a Nikon dSLR no less.
>>
>> Not even a contest.
>>
>What I see are halos around all edges in the Sony image, which to the
>untrained eye gives the impression of sharpness. To others it looks like
>horrible artifacts. The advantage of the Nikon image is not shown.
>It should be processed through a raw converter, where it would show
>sharper edges and even less noise.
>
>Roger

Keep putting those self-made blinders on Roger. Maybe you'll take them off one
day to see what the rest of us see.

Interestingly the D1x originally sold at $6000 (body only) Feb. 2001, the F707
sold at $1000 Aug. 2001. So it's not a matter of what technology was available
when they were made. I doubt many would pay $5000 (+$lenses) more for half the
resolution and detail. But I know some that do even today. Then they try to
justify it any way they can--while loudly and proudly making fools of themselves
on the internet.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

The difference between a quality professional photographer and just another
useless internet spammer trying to make a quick buck off of the less informed:

The worthwhile professional photographer doesn't have to try to convince people
to come see his photography. They will seek him/her out and pay whatever he or
she asks without even questioning it.

On the other hand, the spammer has to desperately try to get people to look at
his photography because everyone else already knows it's not worth it. It's all
they can do because their photography already failed to stand on its own merit.
They will buy more expensive cameras, thinking that was the problem and the
reason nobody is beating a path to their door. Yet they will always fail to look
in the mirror to see what the problem really was all along.

Your behavior is self-evident, Roger.


On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:40:15 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username.DeleteThis@qwest.net> wrote:

>GetAClue wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:54:04 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The benefits I find with the DSLR include faster operation, and much
>>> better low-light performance. I can shoot at ISO 1600 and have almost
>>> noise-free pictures, whereas with the compact camera I needed to stick
>>> with ISO 100 to keep the noise down.
>>
>> You wouldn't have this problem if you had a smaller sensor for which it is much
>> easier to make larger aperture lenses. How is shooting at ISO1600 better than
>> shooting at lower noise-free ISOs if your lens provides more light? You can pay
>> $500 for a Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-f/5.6, just the lens alone, and only get 112mm
>> to 480mm focal length range, which forces you to use ISO1600 under many lighting
>> situations. Or pay $300 for a whole camera plus lens and use ISO 200 at f/2.8
>> with 36mm to 432mm focal lengths for the same lighting situations.
>
>You forgot some critical facts. The DSLR is 12 to 16x more sensitive
>than the small pixel P&S so an f/5.6 lens on a DSLR is like an
>f/1.4 to f/1.8 lens on a P&S regarding light gathered.
>Then buy an f/2.8 lens for your DSLR, and its like having
>an f/0.7 on the small pixel P&S.
>
>> Some P&S
>> cameras providing even larger apertures and wider zoom ranges than that.
>
>Faster than f/2? Faster than f/1?
>
>
>> Sure, you can get wider apertures for that DSLR, then you are faced with having
>> to change them to compose each shot for the maximum resolution needed for that
>> subject. If you don't change that 50mm f1.2 lens for the 500mm f/4.0, then that
>> bird further away is going to have to be cropped to less than the resolution of
>> a cell-phone camera. Wait, you won't even get that. It already flew away while
>> your camera forced you to change lenses.
>
>You mean like this:
>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lilac-breasted.roller.c01.24.2007.JZ3F1277c-700.html
>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/eagle.c09.11.2004.JZ3F4717.b-700.html
>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.14.2003.img_5113.egret-flight.f-600.html
>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/black-shouldered.kite.c01.21.2007.JZ3F8715b-700.html
>
>Let's see your P&S get images like that. Oh, and by the way, those
>make impressively sharp 16x24-inch prints (the last one I've only sold
>in galleries up to 16x18 inches).
>
>
>> Do the math. You actually get more by paying for less using a P&S camera.
>
>No, you get less with a P&S, not more. But you do get great
>technology, relatively speaking, and can take very nice pictures
>of certain things under good conditions. I actually carry a
>P&S more hours per month than a DSLR. But I know the difference
>between P&S and DSLR and use the best tool for the job.
>
>> Your
>> high ISOs are needed because of the larger sensor.
>
>No. High ISO are enabled ny the large sensor. You can still
>use low ISOs and get images with 4x lower noise (or better) than
>small pixel cameras.
>
>> It all averages out where
>> there is absolutely no gain by using a larger sensor for lower noise. I take
>> that back, there is a gain. The DSLR and lens makers' bank accounts. That's the
>> only gain that I've ever found in buying a DSLR.
>
>Absolutely incorrect.
>>
>> As we've recently seen by a comparison of moon photos between Roger Clark's
>> $7000 MkII and someone else with a $400 Lumix FZ18, his DSLR and $1,200 L-glass
>> lens couldn't even provide as much resolution as a P&S camera with a 28mm-504mm
>> f/2.8 zoom lens, the P&S being hand-held at that. (Thanks for posting your
>> photos Roger, what a wonderful source for comparisons to show how much better
>> the P&S cameras are these days!)
>
>Again incorrect.
>
>Lets see any P&S camera with CAMERA LENSES do this good:
>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/moon-JZ3F3658-60-c-5x-700.html
>
>
>> I appears that DSLR owners take pride in trying to outdo each other in displays
>> of ignorance and stupidity. On the plus side they are more than ready to provide
>> examples for the rest of us to see (i.e. Roger Clark for example). Those that
>> can see through their smoke-screen that they keep displaying, to justify why
>> they spent so much have no other clear choice but to run and buy the best P&S
>> cameras.
>
>Your lies are getting old.
>>
>> All this arguing about it boils down to just one thing: People who didn't do
>> their homework because they blindly followed some self-appointed authority and
>> self-proclaimed "pro" are now trying to justify why they spent so much money to
>> get a decent picture.
>>
>Absolutely false.
>
>Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

GetAClue wrote:
> The difference between a quality professional photographer and just another
> useless internet spammer trying to make a quick buck off of the less informed:
>
> The worthwhile professional photographer doesn't have to try to convince people
> to come see his photography. They will seek him/her out and pay whatever he or
> she asks without even questioning it.
>
> On the other hand, the spammer has to desperately try to get people to look at
> his photography because everyone else already knows it's not worth it. It's all
> they can do because their photography already failed to stand on its own merit.
> They will buy more expensive cameras, thinking that was the problem and the
> reason nobody is beating a path to their door. Yet they will always fail to look
> in the mirror to see what the problem really was all along.
>
> Your behavior is self-evident, Roger.
>
>
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:40:15 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark)" <username.DeleteThis@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>> GetAClue wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:54:04 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>>> <david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The benefits I find with the DSLR include faster operation, and much
>>>> better low-light performance. I can shoot at ISO 1600 and have almost
>>>> noise-free pictures, whereas with the compact camera I needed to stick
>>>> with ISO 100 to keep the noise down.
>>> You wouldn't have this problem if you had a smaller sensor for which it is much
>>> easier to make larger aperture lenses. How is shooting at ISO1600 better than
>>> shooting at lower noise-free ISOs if your lens provides more light? You can pay
>>> $500 for a Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-f/5.6, just the lens alone, and only get 112mm
>>> to 480mm focal length range, which forces you to use ISO1600 under many lighting
>>> situations. Or pay $300 for a whole camera plus lens and use ISO 200 at f/2.8
>>> with 36mm to 432mm focal lengths for the same lighting situations.
>> You forgot some critical facts. The DSLR is 12 to 16x more sensitive
>> than the small pixel P&S so an f/5.6 lens on a DSLR is like an
>> f/1.4 to f/1.8 lens on a P&S regarding light gathered.
>> Then buy an f/2.8 lens for your DSLR, and its like having
>> an f/0.7 on the small pixel P&S.
>>
>>> Some P&S
>>> cameras providing even larger apertures and wider zoom ranges than that.
>> Faster than f/2? Faster than f/1?
>>
>>
>>> Sure, you can get wider apertures for that DSLR, then you are faced with having
>>> to change them to compose each shot for the maximum resolution needed for that
>>> subject. If you don't change that 50mm f1.2 lens for the 500mm f/4.0, then that
>>> bird further away is going to have to be cropped to less than the resolution of
>>> a cell-phone camera. Wait, you won't even get that. It already flew away while
>>> your camera forced you to change lenses.
>> You mean like this:
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lilac-breasted.r...er.c01.
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/eagle.c09.11.200...Z3F4717
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.14.2003.img_...3.egret
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/black-shouldered...te.c01.
>>
>> Let's see your P&S get images like that. Oh, and by the way, those
>> make impressively sharp 16x24-inch prints (the last one I've only sold
>> in galleries up to 16x18 inches).
>>
>>
>>> Do the math. You actually get more by paying for less using a P&S camera.
>> No, you get less with a P&S, not more. But you do get great
>> technology, relatively speaking, and can take very nice pictures
>> of certain things under good conditions. I actually carry a
>> P&S more hours per month than a DSLR. But I know the difference
>> between P&S and DSLR and use the best tool for the job.
>>
>>> Your
>>> high ISOs are needed because of the larger sensor.
>> No. High ISO are enabled ny the large sensor. You can still
>> use low ISOs and get images with 4x lower noise (or better) than
>> small pixel cameras.
>>
>>> It all averages out where
>>> there is absolutely no gain by using a larger sensor for lower noise. I take
>>> that back, there is a gain. The DSLR and lens makers' bank accounts. That's the
>>> only gain that I've ever found in buying a DSLR.
>> Absolutely incorrect.
>>> As we've recently seen by a comparison of moon photos between Roger Clark's
>>> $7000 MkII and someone else with a $400 Lumix FZ18, his DSLR and $1,200 L-glass
>>> lens couldn't even provide as much resolution as a P&S camera with a 28mm-504mm
>>> f/2.8 zoom lens, the P&S being hand-held at that. (Thanks for posting your
>>> photos Roger, what a wonderful source for comparisons to show how much better
>>> the P&S cameras are these days!)
>> Again incorrect.
>>
>> Lets see any P&S camera with CAMERA LENSES do this good:
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/moon-JZ3...58-60-c
>>
>>
>>> I appears that DSLR owners take pride in trying to outdo each other in displays
>>> of ignorance and stupidity. On the plus side they are more than ready to provide
>>> examples for the rest of us to see (i.e. Roger Clark for example). Those that
>>> can see through their smoke-screen that they keep displaying, to justify why
>>> they spent so much have no other clear choice but to run and buy the best P&S
>>> cameras.
>> Your lies are getting old.
>>> All this arguing about it boils down to just one thing: People who didn't do
>>> their homework because they blindly followed some self-appointed authority and
>>> self-proclaimed "pro" are now trying to justify why they spent so much money to
>>> get a decent picture.
>>>
>> Absolutely false.
>>
>> Roger

Ignore the troll. It is very jealous and full of hate.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote:
>Each camera should be tested under as close to the same
>conditions as possible under bright lighting where each
>camera can "show its stuff".

But that does *not* mean setting the two cameras to the
same settings! The scene is what should stay the same.
Each camera should be configured to produce its best
results of that same scene.

Another point is that the Nikon lens used was not a top
line lens to match the pro model body, and it was used
absolutely at the extreme of its zoom range. The Sony
only has one lense, but it was not used at the extreme
of its range (though granted it appears to have been
close enough that the image suffered greatly by even
being close).

A better test of the two camera's would have been to set
the Sony to about 19.1mm (equivalent to 75mm on a 35mm
camera), which would probably be about where it would
perform best. The Nikon could mount a 50mm f/1.8 AFD
lense or the 28-70mm AFD zoom set to 50mm if you insist
on a zoom. (After all one of the *primary* advantages
that an SLR camera has is being able to choose the best
glass for a given job!)

Otherwise, the comparison is *not* letting the camera
"show its stuff".

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

"Fred" <fredapain.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What the DSLR crowd don't and will NEVER, EVER get, is that not everyone
>wants their shoulder weighed down lugging a big bag full of camera gear
>around. YES WE ALL KNOW that DSLRs produce better pictures, NOBODY is
>disputing that. There are however, believe it or not, people who simply want
>good quality pictures (not the ULTIMATE quality), and are quite happy to
>make that slight sacrifice for the sake of owning a camera that will slip
>unobtrusively in a coat or trouser pocket.
>
>Try telling that to the DSLR owners of today and they won't believe you!

DSLR owners are well aware of *exactly* what you are
saying. The range of options extends well below *and*
well above what either the average P&S user or the the
average DSLR user actually does own. Almost everyone
compromised in some way.

The _average_ DSLR owner may well have opted to go for
the added functionality, and *obviously* at the expense
of the disadvantages you've mentioned; yet very few DSLR
owners go all the way up that particular ladder. I
don't know what the figures will be, but for example I
expect that Nikon in the next year will sell more D40x
models than D300 models, which will also sell better
than the D3. Yet there is no question the tradeoffs
you've mentioned that exist between a typical P&S and a
DSLR are in fact the same differences between a D40x and
a D3. Yet not every DSLR owner is going to buy a D3.

Regardless of whether you own a $50 digital camera or a
$5000 digital camera... it *is* possible to spend more
money on a camera that is both heavier and can produce
an image with more megapixels. We all know it's a
tradeoff. _Everyone_ chooses the minimum image quality
they can live with, and goes for the most functionality
they can get within whatever characteristic (cost, size,
size, etc.) it is that limits the upper end for them.

Just don't whine if:

1) You saved on money/size/weight but can't get less
noise or enough megapixels..., or

2) You get more megapixels with less noise, but your
clunky camera is always at home on the shelf.

Pick what works for *you* and stop worrying about what
works for anyone else.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:09:37 -0700, the SMS shill wrote:

>> LOL! Even Ken Rockwell says, "Sucks to be you, Point and Shitters !!!"
>
> I put Ken Rockwell right up there with ASAAR in terms of providing
> accurate information, but even Rockwell gets it right occasionally.

Ha! I'm happy to note that the many corrections of your gross
misstatements and lies evidently smarts enough for you to care so
much. If Rockwell was wrong 1/10th as often as you, you wouldn't be
aware of his website or who he is.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

Bill Tuthill wrote:
[]
> I like the Sony 707 picture better because of the kid with a red shirt
> riding a scooter. That's the main difference for me. The Nikon D1x
> with 18-70 has less purple fringing in the corners, but fuzzy infinity
> and less saturated greens. So it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

Yes, quite, suggesting that the photographer, rather than the equipment,
makes the photo! At least, given a good, working camera. When displayed
at a full-screen zoom, or when printed at A4 (10 x 8 inch) size, it would
be a lot more difficult to see the difference.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> Roger N. Clark wrote:
>
>>What I see are halos around all edges in the Sony image, which to the
>>untrained eye gives the impression of sharpness. To others it looks like
>>horrible artifacts. The advantage of the Nikon image is not shown.
>>It should be processed through a raw converter, where it would show
>>sharper edges and even less noise.
>
>
> In addition to that, the D1x image is overexposed.
> E.g., the lack of detail in the yellow lines compared to
> the Sony image is because either the R or G channel is
> blown out in almost every pixel. (I'd also expect the
> RAW file from the D1x was a Compressed NEF, which does
> indeed lose some detail in the highlights.) And that is
> not to mention that the "detail" seen in the Sony image
> appears to be more artifact than scene detail.

Yep.

> I don't understand the idea that there is more detail in
> the Sony image. That "detail" appears to mostly be the
> artifacts, as you point out. It isn't just at the edges
> of the image either. The parked cars aren't in the
> center, but they have horrible fringing on them.

Yep.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S