Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

On Oct 4, 8:03 am, "Kinon O'Cann" wrote:
You actually read that crap? Has anyone with a functioning brain ever
suggested that a P&S is a replacement for an SLR?

Lay off my boy, Rockwell.
Ever since I posted my tribute pic to him and he linked to it from his
site I get a steady stream of hits on it (30-40 per day).

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71055999

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
My buddy, Ken Rockwell, did a recent comparison of high-ISO
performance between DSLRs that can be found he
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comp...7-10/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 ****ters !!!"


As it turns out most of the real advancements in camera technology are going
on in the P&S and CameraPhone areas. Here Size Matters in camera and lens
technology. Sure there will always be a market for large format cameras and
sensors and they will always have an advantage just like the old 8x10 view
camera still has an advantage over most everything else today.

I recently bought a new Canon SX100is which is definitely at the leading
edge of P&S technology. Its speed, sensitivity, and resolution are not
comparable to some DSLRs or an 8x10 view camera. But, when it comes to Bang
for the Buck and Ergonomics there is no comparison, it is the
State-of-the-Art in photographic technology.

NM

On Oct 4, 2:05 pm, Annika1980 wrote:


LOL! Even Ken Rockwell says, "Sucks to be you, Point and ****ters !!!"

actually, that is one thing he most definitely
does NOT say. But no one like you to invent
another lie, isn't it?

"David J Taylor" wrote in message news:iE%Mi.25500

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.

David

Well, nearly as good, anyway...;-) Having shot the same detailed
infinity-targets (a "busy" horizon line, including a bit of sky along
the image top) with a couple of different dSLRs (including a D1X)
and also with a Sony 707, I was surprised to find that the only
real difference was in edge effects (the larger sensor cameras didn't
show ringing on high contrast edges), but not in tonality or detail.
While I like my 707, the Fuji S7000 shows much less ringing while
also being sharp. As you say, *if* you have enough light (and can
deal with the occasional artifact that may not appear in dSLR
photos), and if you are not using high pixel count dSLRs to make
VERY large prints, a top-class smaller camera may suffice...
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:35 am, Bob Williams wrote:
Unfortunately, in this post, Rockwell does not SHOW any comparisons
between P/S and DSLRs.
I suspect the difference in
image quality between a P/S and a DSLR at ISO 80 would be minuscule.


Roger Clark has posted a good comparison pic on his site.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...l.size.matter/

No fair! You said there'd be no math, and no facts in this thread.

--
john mcwilliam s

~~NoMad~~ wrote:
As it turns out most of the real advancements in camera technology are going
on in the P&S and CameraPhone areas. Here Size Matters in camera and lens
technology. Sure there will always be a market for large format cameras and
sensors and they will always have an advantage just like the old 8x10 view
camera still has an advantage over most everything else today.

I recently bought a new Canon SX100is which is definitely at the leading
edge of P&S technology. Its speed, sensitivity, and resolution are not
comparable to some DSLRs or an 8x10 view camera. But, when it comes to Bang
for the Buck and Ergonomics there is no comparison, it is the
State-of-the-Art in photographic technology.

For you! And millions of others, as far as bang for the buck goes, and
for technological development in P+S currently, it's tops.

But as you point out, other formats have distinct advantages, and I'd
add that there are always trade offs.

It's those who want to foist their choices off on others and make
ridiculous posts about them that get to be a waste of space.

--
john mcwilliams

David Ruether wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message news:iE%Mi.25500
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. David

Well, nearly as good, anyway...;-) Having shot the same detailed
infinity-targets (a "busy" horizon line, including a bit of sky along
the image top) with a couple of different dSLRs (including a D1X)
and also with a Sony 707, I was surprised to find that the only
real difference was in edge effects (the larger sensor cameras didn't
show ringing on high contrast edges), but not in tonality or detail.
While I like my 707, the Fuji S7000 shows much less ringing while
also being sharp. As you say, *if* you have enough light (and can
deal with the occasional artifact that may not appear in dSLR
photos), and if you are not using high pixel count dSLRs to make
VERY large prints, a top-class smaller camera may suffice...

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. I also find the operation faster -
the focus is so much quicker that taking several shots in quick succession
is easy - getting the very moment of the action, and the ability to zoom
by twisting a ring on the lens is again much faster than push-buttons -
handy when photographing an air display with rapid changes in aircraft
position. On the other hand, with the DSLR focussing is /much/ more
critical, it's a little bigger and heavier, changing lenses takes time,
and dust can be an issue.

No, I don't do large prints - A4 (~10 x 8 inches) maximum, mainly display
on the computer or HDTV screen.

Cheers,
David

In rec.photo.digital frederick wrote:

LOL! Even Ken Rockwell says, "Sucks to be you, Point and ****ters !!!"

No he doesn't!
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5...lar-camera.htm

You've got to hand it to Ken for being consistent.

We've got to hand it to you for being ironic.

If Ken Rockwell had used a better downsampling algorithm,
rather than Photoshop bicubic (I'm assuming), maybe just maybe
the DSLR image would look better than the P&S digicam image.

In rec.photo.digital frederick 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.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:05:54 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

My buddy, Ken Rockwell, did a recent comparison of high-ISO
performance between DSLRs that can be found he
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comp...7-10/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 ****ters !!!"

Possibly, but I can easily stick my Kodak P850 in my backpack and be off
on a 5 mile hike. Or snowshoeing. Or bicycling. All I need in one compact,
lightweight unit. Still use my film SLR for some other work. I may
consider a DSLR when the price comes down.