 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / September 2007Canon compared to Panasonic $4200 compared to a $650 wonder bug.
When you pay $4200 for a 20D and 70 ~ 200 F2.8 "L" series zoom lens, should you expect a $650 Panasonic FZ50 to out perform it in shadow detail and long range image clarity? One day while out with Margie spotting planes as she loves to do, we stood side by side and took identical pictures... Her's were in JPEG mode ("I don't understand all that RAW mumbo jumbo") and mine in that hugely over rated RAW format which requires endless time in post processing to get a usable image... http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/POD/07-09-07 Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Doug > When you pay $4200 for a 20D and 70 ~ 200 F2.8 "L" series zoom lens, > should you expect a $650 Panasonic FZ50 to out perform it in shadow [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Nuh, not with your credibility. >> When you pay $4200 for a 20D and 70 ~ 200 F2.8 "L" series zoom lens, >> should you expect a $650 Panasonic FZ50 to out perform it in shadow [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Nuh, not with your credibility. ask him to post the EXIF data :-)  SignatureWe are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. Richard Dawkins (1941 - ), "The Root of All Evil", UK Channel 4, 2006 OOPs, haven't set up this news server properly yet, but all corrected now, D-Mac has been caught in the past being less that forthright with "comparison" photos so I wouldn't believe the little weasel unless he took the photos and then handed the memory cards directly to an impartial arbiter for a full and proper examination. I noticed that Doug has not included any EXIF information with the photo's but then that's par for the course for Doug :-) SignatureWe are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. Richard Dawkins (1941 - ), "The Root of All Evil", UK Channel 4, 2006 >>> When you pay $4200 for a 20D and 70 ~ 200 F2.8 "L" series zoom lens, >>> should you expect a $650 Panasonic FZ50 to out perform it in shadow [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > ask him to post the EXIF data :-) > When you pay $4200 for a 20D and 70 ~ 200 F2.8 "L" series zoom lens, > should you expect a $650 Panasonic FZ50 to out perform it in shadow [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Makes you wonder, doesn't it? You are actually advertising the fact that is the best you can manage with a 20D and L series zoom? Certainly makes *me* wonder why you'd bother! MrT. > "D_Mac" <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/POD/07-09-07 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > MrT. Exactly. How could a 'photographer' end up shooting at 1/140 sec with an f2.8 lens in bright sunshine on a large sensor camera? Gee, just as well he used RAW to keep the inevitable resulting quality intact.. But I'm sure Douglas will be back to tell us it was really a joke and that he just meant to troll. He's such a humorous wag, is our Doug. (I wonder if he has noticed that every response here questions his credibility and skill... (O: Ah, 'tis a grand and well-deserved reputation to have, to be sure!) >> "D_Mac" <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/POD/07-09-07 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >credibility and skill... (O: Ah, 'tis a grand and well-deserved >reputation to have, to be sure!) Gee Mark, are you still here? I thought that Dougs' appeals to the Queensland Police/Federal Police/Asio/FBI/ KGB/SS/Stazi/RSPCA/RAOOB would have had you locked up and disposed of by now. Maybe Dougie messed up the paperwork... again. Off topic.. > .. > >Exactly. How could a 'photographer' end up shooting at 1/140 sec with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Maybe Dougie messed up the paperwork... again. Yep, probably the same paperwork he used back in March 2006 (iirc), and on earlier occasions.. Don't know how I survive the onslaught.. (O: PS - I just had to look up 'raoob'.. dang it. You a member? Can I get a t-shirt? >Off topic.. >> .. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >PS - I just had to look up 'raoob'.. dang it. You a member? Can I >get a t-shirt? I think I still have a card in my wallet. Haven't been a part of it for some years. I must make some calls... >> Off topic.. >>> .. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I think I still have a card in my wallet. Haven't been a part of it > for some years. I must make some calls... Well i'll be... That one went right past me till Mark brought it out! Just checked my card, became a member in 1980. Still have all my original bits & pieces tucked away somewhere too! Welcome Brother! Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< >>> Off topic.. >>>> .. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Well i'll be... That one went right past me till Mark brought it out! > Just checked my card, became a member in 1980. Oops, my bad. That should be 1989. Still have all my > original bits & pieces tucked away somewhere too! > > Welcome Brother! Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< >>>> Off topic.. >>>>> .. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >> Welcome Brother! I can't find my card. My shout I guess. >>> "D_Mac" <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> >http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/POD/07-09-07 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Maybe Dougie messed up the paperwork... again. No mess up Avery. http://www.julianabbot.com/legalactions/ Just as soon as the Police are finished their investigations I'll post their results right along with a picture of the process server delivering his summons. Doug > When you pay $4200 for a 20D and 70 ~ 200 F2.8 "L" series zoom lens, > should you expect a $650 Panasonic FZ50 to out perform it in shadow [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Doug Then go ahead and wonder and shoot with the Panasonic who gives a flying .... If you knew photography then you wouldn't post and waste space with dribble so tell someone who cares. > http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/POD/07-09-07 > > Makes you wonder, doesn't it? > > Doug Makes me wonder why you used Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight command on the pano pic and then tried to paint it back in where it made the sky too light around the plane. Also, can we assume the dark blob underneath the right wing of the 20D pic is sensor dust? Shoulda got the 40D! Now please post the RAW file from the 20D and an unprocessed JPG straight from the Panasonic so that we may do a fair comparison. I won't hold my breath. >> http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/POD/07-09-07 >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > straight from the Panasonic so that we may do a fair comparison. I > won't hold my breath. There is very little "Fair" in anything you post, why then do you expect me the do what you don't? No hope of getting your wish... But you knew that before you posted your drivel, didn't you? Your assumptions about the Photoshop tools are wrong too. I don't use the shadow/highlight tool. It's way too damaging to the images it's applied on. The fact is simply that these are two pictures taken at the same time (or within seconds of each other) at the same place but with two entirely different cameras. That the JPEG from the Panasonic is a technically better quality image, is not just surprising but a shocking damnation of Canon's 1.6 crop sensors. Weren't you the one who accused me of trickery when I posted a pic from a 1.6 crop Canon and a different one from the Panasonic demonstrating the God awful way Canon handle shadow detail? So now when I post shots of an identical subject, it's not good enough for you? You must be a terrible worry to your mother, child. I expect this sort of disbelieving from disciples of EOS. Be happy with your "more of the same crap" new toy. I've got my eyes open. Your problem is that you believe the spin doctors. Your loss baby! All my Canon gear is starting to sell. A few gullible disciples are getting some cheap stuff. The Nikon speedlites that arrived yesterday really ought to be marketed by Canon instead of the sh.t they sell. The lenses should be here in a day or so and the new bodies next month. It's Canon bye bye time for me. The planes are just one example of the weak spots Canon 1.6 crop DSLRs have. They have way too many faults in way too areas to be considered anything but a slight improvement over cameras that cost just a little more than the infamous Canon camera "grip" that only uses one of it's batteries! Doug > > Now please post the RAW file from the 20D and an unprocessed JPG > > straight from the Panasonic so that we may do a fair comparison. I > > won't hold my breath. > > No hope of getting your wish... But you knew that > before you posted your drivel, didn't you? Of course I knew you were too chickenshit to post the originals. It would just prove you to be a charlatan and a liar. > Your assumptions about the Photoshop tools are wrong too. I don't use the > shadow/highlight tool. Bullshit. That one has S/H written all over it. Now you just need the I/T filter. Then you'd really have some S/H/I/T. Call me when you can post a meaningful comparison. Until then, you're wasting everyone's time with your deluded nonsense. >> > Now please post the RAW file from the 20D and an unprocessed JPG >> > straight from the Panasonic so that we may do a fair comparison. I [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Call me when you can post a meaningful comparison. Until then, you're > wasting everyone's time with your deluded nonsense. Well now... in reply to my intended offer to help you sell some of your pictures, when I enquired if they were full frame shots... "consider all my pics are cropped" Who wrote that gem of understatement? Not you by any chance? I seriously doubt you could create a picture without cropping it and using Photoshop to make the colours so un natural even Dolly magazine would ask you to tone it down.. Why is it that you think full on, in your face saturation of colour is the ticket to fame? I'm afraid child, you are the one deluding yourself. Put me down for one of your first "coffee table" books too. We could use a good laugh around here. The ones we get to print are all way to serious from real perfectionists who demand natural looking photographs in their publications... And have sell out launch parties. But then Mr know it all wouldn't want to put himself in their class for fear of failure... Hmmm? Doug |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.