 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2007Holy! DSLR versus P&S look at this result!
Not the usual outcome. Take a look at the detail in the in the white bottle neck label. Moire for the DSLR, none (and sharper) for the P&S. Most of those miserable 1/2.5" sensored P&S cameras aren't fit for anything, but Fuji has done a good job here. In-case anyone needs a DSLR pocketable back-up camera. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/page15.asp >Not the usual outcome. Take a look at the detail in the in the white >bottle neck label. Moire for the DSLR, none (and sharper) for the >P&S. Most of those miserable 1/2.5" sensored P&S cameras aren't fit >for anything, but Fuji has done a good job here. >In-case anyone needs a DSLR pocketable back-up camera. >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/page15.asp The Fuji Fxx doesn't have a 1/2.5" sensor so it isn't one "of those miserable 1/2.5" sensored P&S cameras" in the first place.  SignatureJohn Bean >>Not the usual outcome. Take a look at the detail in the in the white >>bottle neck label. Moire for the DSLR, none (and sharper) for the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "of those miserable 1/2.5" sensored P&S cameras" in the > first place. RichA, a well-known catamite, doesn't own a camera. "Phil K" <bjharding23@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:t6fTh.7892$u03.4781 @newssvr21.news.prodigy.net: >>>Not the usual outcome. Take a look at the detail in the in the white >>>bottle neck label. Moire for the DSLR, none (and sharper) for the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > RichA, a well-known catamite, doesn't own a camera. And wouldn't know how to use one if he did. Though I suppose he's *posed* often enough for his "uncle." SignatureTerry Austin Your worst inhibitions tend to psych you out in the end. On Apr 12, 12:11 am, Terry Austin <terry.notaniceper...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Phil K" <bjhardin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:t6fTh.7892$u03.4781 > @newssvr21.news.prodigy.net: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > And wouldn't know how to use one if he did. Though I suppose he's *posed* > often enough for his "uncle." Oh the projection from you too is papable! > On Apr 12, 12:11 am, Terry Austin > <terry.notaniceper...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Oh the projection from you too is papable! I know you are, but what am I? Signature"What is the first law?" "To Protect." "And the second?" "Ourselves." Terry Austin >> Oh the projection from you too is papable! >> > I know you are, but what am I? Papable: proper behaviour for a papal appointee (so a bishop or cardinal). > On 11 Apr 2007 14:57:03 -0700, "RichA" > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > John Bean I know. I mentioned 1/2.5" because it has become the most-used sensor in those near useless long zoom P&Ss. There are still a few P&S using larger sensors, not many though. > On 11 Apr 2007 14:57:03 -0700, "RichA" [something undigested] > The Fuji Fxx doesn't have a 1/2.5" sensor so it isn't one > "of those miserable 1/2.5" sensored P&S cameras" in the > first place. That's using facts! That's discriminatory to use against fact-challenged people like RichA! -Wolfgang >> On 11 Apr 2007 14:57:03 -0700, "RichA" >[something undigested] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That's using facts! That's discriminatory to use against >fact-challenged people like RichA! Sorry Wolfgang, I'll try harder to stay PC in future ;-) SignatureJohn Bean > Not the usual outcome. Take a look at the detail in the in the white > bottle neck label. Moire for the DSLR, none (and sharper) for the > P&S. Most of those miserable 1/2.5" sensored P&S cameras aren't fit > for anything, but Fuji has done a good job here. > In-case anyone needs a DSLR pocketable back-up camera. > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/page15.asp Well, of course--the Fuji has a metal body and the Nikon is made of >yecch!<...plastic... Toby > > Not the usual outcome. Take a look at the detail in the in the white > > bottle neck label. Moire for the DSLR, none (and sharper) for the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Toby The Fuji is a metal-plastic combo. > Not the usual outcome. Take a look at the detail in the in the white > bottle neck label. Moire for the DSLR, none (and sharper) for the > P&S. Most of those miserable 1/2.5" sensored P&S cameras aren't fit > for anything, but Fuji has done a good job here. > In-case anyone needs a DSLR pocketable back-up camera.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/page15.asp But high-contrast detail (like in the bottle neck label) easily survives heavy noise reduction. Looking at the images, it is obvious that a lot of smoothing and then sharpening was applied to the fuji image. For example, look at the texture on the camera leather (or whatever it is): in the D50 image, it is visible, while in the fuji image, it's not, and it looks like it was smoothed and then sharpened (the remaining artifacts are characteristic of this). > Not the usual outcome. Take a look at the detail in the in the white > bottle neck label. Moire for the DSLR, none (and sharper) for the > P&S. Most of those miserable 1/2.5" sensored P&S cameras aren't fit > for anything, but Fuji has done a good job here. > In-case anyone needs a DSLR pocketable back-up camera. > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/page15.asp Reminds me of the comparison a mag here made a few years ago of the Tamron 28-200 (first generation) and the 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S + 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor combo. They concluded the Tamron was superior everywhere. Cheaper, lighter, smaller, and you don't have to change lenses anymore. Of course the only thing that really matters, image quality, was never mentioned. The images illustrating the article didn't mention the lens or camera used to make them, nor the film. |
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
|
©2009 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.