Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Take a look at the 1600 ISO shots.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?g [...] 1_preview/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:
> Take a look at the 1600 ISO shots.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?g [...] 1_preview/

Ummm... that is ISO 160 not 1600.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:33:50 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Take a look at the 1600 ISO shots.
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=sonydscr1_preview/

They look pretty good compared to a point & shoot! Ever see a Dimage at ISO 800?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bob wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:33:50 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Take a look at the 1600 ISO shots.
>>
>>http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=sonydscr1_preview/
>
>
> They look pretty good compared to a point & shoot! Ever see a Dimage at ISO 800?

I went back and scrolled through the images to get to the 1600 shots and
while not up to DSLR standards they weren't completely unusable.
Definitely, better than any other high mp P&S I have seen yet.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:53bci1p892mhkagqcd6o49uf9n7gd949f4@4ax.com...
> Take a look at the 1600 ISO shots.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?g [...] 1_preview/

It would have made more sense to link to a comparison with the 20D.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscr1/page10.asp

still not bad for a P&S.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:10:39 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
<cds@erols.com> wrote:

>Bob wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:33:50 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Take a look at the 1600 ISO shots.
>>>
>>>http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=sonydscr1_preview/
>>
>>
>> They look pretty good compared to a point & shoot! Ever see a Dimage at ISO 800?
>
>I went back and scrolled through the images to get to the 1600 shots and
>while not up to DSLR standards they weren't completely unusable.
>Definitely, better than any other high mp P&S I have seen yet.

It's all so idiotic. If the camera companies hadn't catered to the
basest instincts of the buying public (pixel madness) they could have
(by now) brought out 4-5 meg P&S's with little noise.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:53:31 -0400, Bob <BobFlintsTone@spam.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:33:50 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Take a look at the 1600 ISO shots.
>>
>>http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=sonydscr1_preview/
>
>They look pretty good compared to a point & shoot! Ever see a Dimage at ISO 800?

I didn't even know the Dimages went that high. If the idea of high
ISO is simply to produce the same exposure as a lower ISO, and retain
the detail, then you can "fake" it with P&S's with 400ISO limitations.
You work with the underexposed image to wring out the same detail you
saw as at the lower iso. In some instances, it works better than
using something like the Sony, where the electron charges from the CCD
are simply being amplified with all the attendent problems that
causes.
Here are some ISO tests done with a P&S with a 400 ISO limit. Detail
was retained, mottling and grain was supressed. What does suffer is
colour saturation, accuracy and dynamic range.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/iso_tests

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:34:51 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:53:31 -0400, Bob <BobFlintsTone@spam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:33:50 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Take a look at the 1600 ISO shots.
>>>
>>>http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=sonydscr1_preview/
>>
>>They look pretty good compared to a point & shoot! Ever see a Dimage at ISO 800?
>
>I didn't even know the Dimages went that high.

Mine does... but it's unusable!

> If the idea of high
>ISO is simply to produce the same exposure as a lower ISO, and retain
>the detail, then you can "fake" it with P&S's with 400ISO limitations.
>You work with the underexposed image to wring out the same detail you
>saw as at the lower iso. In some instances, it works better than
>using something like the Sony, where the electron charges from the CCD
>are simply being amplified with all the attendent problems that
>causes.
>Here are some ISO tests done with a P&S with a 400 ISO limit. Detail
>was retained, mottling and grain was supressed. What does suffer is
>colour saturation, accuracy and dynamic range.
>
>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/iso_tests

I'll go check it out...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:10:39 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Bob wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:33:50 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Take a look at the 1600 ISO shots.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=sonydscr1_preview/
>>>
>>>
>>>They look pretty good compared to a point & shoot! Ever see a Dimage at ISO 800?
>>
>>I went back and scrolled through the images to get to the 1600 shots and
>>while not up to DSLR standards they weren't completely unusable.
>>Definitely, better than any other high mp P&S I have seen yet.
>
>
> It's all so idiotic. If the camera companies hadn't catered to the
> basest instincts of the buying public (pixel madness) they could have
> (by now) brought out 4-5 meg P&S's with little noise.

What are you saying? Camera companies shouldn't give the consumer what
they want and instead manufacture cameras that won't sell? Then they
can go bankrupt?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:20:28 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
<cds@erols.com> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:10:39 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>> <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:33:50 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Take a look at the 1600 ISO shots.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=sonydscr1_preview/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They look pretty good compared to a point & shoot! Ever see a Dimage at ISO 800?
>>>
>>>I went back and scrolled through the images to get to the 1600 shots and
>>>while not up to DSLR standards they weren't completely unusable.
>>>Definitely, better than any other high mp P&S I have seen yet.
>>
>>
>> It's all so idiotic. If the camera companies hadn't catered to the
>> basest instincts of the buying public (pixel madness) they could have
>> (by now) brought out 4-5 meg P&S's with little noise.
>
>What are you saying? Camera companies shouldn't give the consumer what
>they want and instead manufacture cameras that won't sell? Then they
>can go bankrupt?

It's within their control (it's called marketing) to
see what gets disseminated and what becomes popular.
They launched the megapixel wars (probably because it
was cheaper to produce sensors with more of them than
bigger sensors with low noise).
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:20:28 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Rich wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:10:39 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>>><cds@erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:33:50 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Take a look at the 1600 ISO shots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=sonydscr1_preview/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>They look pretty good compared to a point & shoot! Ever see a Dimage at ISO 800?
>>>>
>>>>I went back and scrolled through the images to get to the 1600 shots and
>>>>while not up to DSLR standards they weren't completely unusable.
>>>>Definitely, better than any other high mp P&S I have seen yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's all so idiotic. If the camera companies hadn't catered to the
>>>basest instincts of the buying public (pixel madness) they could have
>>>(by now) brought out 4-5 meg P&S's with little noise.
>>
>>What are you saying? Camera companies shouldn't give the consumer what
>>they want and instead manufacture cameras that won't sell? Then they
>>can go bankrupt?
>
>
> It's within their control (it's called marketing) to
> see what gets disseminated and what becomes popular.
> They launched the megapixel wars (probably because it
> was cheaper to produce sensors with more of them than
> bigger sensors with low noise).

Or maybe that is what the consumer wanted. If I didn't have a need for
a low noise, high ISO P&S I would buy the one with the highest
resolution that met my budget, feature list and quality requirements.
My guess is the pixel race will slow down before long for P&S cameras.
Then feature, high ISO performance etc. will get more emphasis. Also, I
look for still and video cameras to merge into one unit and will be the
next big push by manufacturers once the pixel war is over. I doubt
DSLR's will follow suit. IMO, manufacturers will continue to increase
resolution for these cameras for some time to come.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:

> It's within their control (it's called marketing) to
> see what gets disseminated and what becomes popular.
> They launched the megapixel wars (probably because it
> was cheaper to produce sensors with more of them than
> bigger sensors with low noise).

Rich, it's about marketing. The public has a short attention span, and
a maker has got to be able to highlight the latest and greatest in a
matter of seconds.

Any CompuUSA sales moron can explain the difference between 3
megapixels and 8. I don't think they'd even understand the terminology
used to quantify lower noise. ;-)

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting