Want to see how bad P&S's really are?

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:47:07 -0500, nospam wrote
in :

In article , SMS
wrote:

At a banquet I was at last night we were doing the traditional banging
on the glasses with spoons to get the newlyweds to kiss. It was rather
amusing to look at the photos from the P&S cameras since none of them
were fast enough to capture the scene.

or maybe they were lousy photographers.

Ya think? Nah ... they were SMS fantasies, making them superheroes.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

Charles added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

In article , John
Navas wrote:

Better compact digital cameras have no AF lag, and perform very
well in normal indoor lighting.

Which ones? I have yet to find any like that. When you are used
to a DSLR the AF lag on compact digital cameras is excruciating.
As far as normal indoor lighting to me that means ASA 800 with
little noise. I think such are coming, and in the next couple
of years, but from what I have found compact digital cameras
that have no AF lag and acceptable low light capabilities don't
exist yet.

Personally, Charles, I have never seen ANY digital with zero AF
lag. The question really is: how much is too much? And, besides the
obvious differences in camera type and the sophistication of the
algorithm(s) used, exactly where the AF point(s) are aimed and the
type of lighting plays a big part in whether there is a fast,
accurate lock or a lot of hunting around.

Just my opinion, YMMV.


--
Jerry, aka HP

"If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
Florida billboard

In article , John Navas
wrote:

As always, YMMV -- I find the f/2.8 lens speed and optical image
stabilization of the FZ8 able to handle normal indoor lighting quite
well -- typically 1/30 sec exposure at ISO 200. Noise is pretty good
out of camera, and very low after processing with Neat Image.

That would not cut it for me. I need ASA 400 or 800 with a f/2.8 lens
speed. If the camera companies stop the megapixel race in the next two
years I think we will see that in the compact cameras.

--
Charles

HEMI - Powered wrote:
Charles added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

In article , John
Navas wrote:

Better compact digital cameras have no AF lag, and perform very
well in normal indoor lighting.
Which ones? I have yet to find any like that. When you are used
to a DSLR the AF lag on compact digital cameras is excruciating.
As far as normal indoor lighting to me that means ASA 800 with
little noise. I think such are coming, and in the next couple
of years, but from what I have found compact digital cameras
that have no AF lag and acceptable low light capabilities don't
exist yet.

Personally, Charles, I have never seen ANY digital with zero AF
lag.

This is true, though for all intents and purposes, the AF lag on a D-SLR
is so short that it's essentially zero.

The question really is: how much is too much? And, besides the
obvious differences in camera type and the sophistication of the
algorithm(s) used, exactly where the AF point(s) are aimed and the
type of lighting plays a big part in whether there is a fast,
accurate lock or a lot of hunting around.

The difference between phase detection auto-focus and contrast detection
auto-focus is the key issue. Ricoh did put phase detection auto-focus on
a couple of P&S models, but dropped it due to the expense.

Of course there are no compact digital cameras with no AF lag, I don't
know where anyone got that idea.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:56:57 -0800, SMS
wrote in :

Of course there are no compact digital cameras with no AF lag, I don't
know where anyone got that idea.

Reality.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

SMS added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

Personally, Charles, I have never seen ANY digital with zero AF
lag.

This is true, though for all intents and purposes, the AF lag on
a D-SLR is so short that it's essentially zero.

I can only speak accurately of my older Canon Rebel XT and newer
Rebel XSi. Depending on the lighting, subject matter, and lens, the
time to do an AF lock varies from almost zero to an agonizingly
long time even with just one AF point defined. If for no other
reason, if the mechanism cannot easily find point(s) to use for the
AF calculation it WILL hunt around until it does.

So, I'm curious how you can be so certain as to say "for all
intents and purposes" without actually trying a statistically valid
sample of major DSLRs under varying lighting and subject
conditions.

The question really is: how much is too much? And, besides the
obvious differences in camera type and the sophistication of
the algorithm(s) used, exactly where the AF point(s) are aimed
and the type of lighting plays a big part in whether there is a
fast, accurate lock or a lot of hunting around.

The difference between phase detection auto-focus and contrast
detection auto-focus is the key issue. Ricoh did put phase
detection auto-focus on a couple of P&S models, but dropped it
due to the expense.

Of course there are no compact digital cameras with no AF lag, I
don't know where anyone got that idea.

As the quote above hypothesizes, it isn't that any given design of
camera has NO AF lag, but just how much there is. And, the
corollary issue is how much is too much for the photographer?

Cheers!

--
Jerry, aka HP

"If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
Florida billboard

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:04:35 -0600, "HEMI - Powered"
wrote in
:

SMS added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

This is true, though for all intents and purposes, the AF lag on
a D-SLR is so short that it's essentially zero.

I can only speak accurately of my older Canon Rebel XT and newer
Rebel XSi. Depending on the lighting, subject matter, and lens, the
time to do an AF lock varies from almost zero to an agonizingly
long time even with just one AF point defined. If for no other
reason, if the mechanism cannot easily find point(s) to use for the
AF calculation it WILL hunt around until it does.

So, I'm curious how you can be so certain as to say "for all
intents and purposes" without actually trying a statistically valid
sample of major DSLRs under varying lighting and subject
conditions.

That's an easy one -- lacking experience, he just makes it up.

The difference between phase detection auto-focus and contrast
detection auto-focus is the key issue. Ricoh did put phase
detection auto-focus on a couple of P&S models, but dropped it
due to the expense.

Of course there are no compact digital cameras with no AF lag, I
don't know where anyone got that idea.

As the quote above hypothesizes, it isn't that any given design of
camera has NO AF lag, but just how much there is. And, the
corollary issue is how much is too much for the photographer?

Correct.

Both phase detection and contrast measurement have pros and cons.

Phase detection can only be very fast when predictive focus is used with
a fast focusing motor, but that inevitably introduces some focus error.
To reduce focus error, phase detection can be used again to fine tune
focus, but that slows it down.

Contrast measurement can be very fast if the lens is close to focus
point, as it often is when more than one picture is being taken.

Both systems are now capable of very fast focusing.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

John Navas wrote in

The funny thing here, Rich, is that P&S sales will continue to go
through the roof regardless of your opinion simply because P&S's fit
in your pocket...

And because they consistently produce good to very good images, with
the best consistently producing excellent images.


Only to those more driven by convenience than quality.

tony cooper wrote in
:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:20:03 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:15:42 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote in it86l.1239$z%.642
@edtnps82:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...

That has more to do with the market being saturated with inexpensive
P&S cameras and the fact that the P&S was the first inexpensive way
for the average snapshot-taker to shoot digital and make their own
prints at home. That market was bound to level off.

Many of the early buyers of P&S cameras have become more interested
in, and proficient in, photography because of P&S cameras. They're
now upgrading to dslrs.

Saying "upgrading" is not intended to denigrate the P&S. The

Saying "P&S" is denigrating to better compact cameras, intended or not.

That's nonsense, John. "P&S" is the accepted and recognizable term to
describe a particular style of camera. It carries no baggage.
"Compact" is not an accepted and recognizable term.

I understand that you are particularly sensitive to perceived slurs
about P&S cameras, but trying to extend your perception to the world
in general is silly.



P&S is perfectly apt. It implies a lazy attitude toward the hobby of
photography and that is what P&S'ers are. They are no different than snap
shooters of long ago with their Kodak X-15s and 25s. "Look, honey, only
4 out of 24 shots are sharp or properly framed, but we don't care,
because we are lazy SLOBS!"

nospam wrote in news:291220081547077402%
lid:

In article , SMS
wrote:

At a banquet I was at last night we were doing the traditional banging
on the glasses with spoons to get the newlyweds to kiss. It was rather
amusing to look at the photos from the P&S cameras since none of them
were fast enough to capture the scene.

or maybe they were lousy photographers.


I've seen this before. The major complaint about P&Ss is responsivity,
second is image quality. Maybe they can make a psychic model that will
automatically point to a pre-determined spot that won't have to rely on its
DOG SLOW shutter and focus times?