[copied from
<http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=25725382>]
Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
> I can happily get excellent A3 prints off my 6mp SLR.
I can happily get excellent A3 prints from my 7.2 MP FZ8.
For the benefit of non-metric lurkers, A3 paper is 11.7 in × 16.5 in
(193 in²), somewhat larger than 11x14 (154 in²), quite a bit less than
16x20 (320 in²). The diagonal is 20.2 in. Normal viewing distance is 1.5
× diagonal, or 1.5 × 20.2 in = 30.3 in.
As explained in http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew/camera/resolution/,
the amount of resolution in MP needed for normal prints under ordinary
viewing conditions, given the limits of human vision, is (print area in
square inches) × 23.6 ÷ (viewing distance in inches)². For A3, that's
(193) × 23.6 ÷ (30.3)² = 5 MP (consistent with my table).
Thus both cameras are more than capable of excellent normal A3 prints,
even at less than normal viewing distance, with the FZ8 having a
significant edge.
>You cannot
> compare a smaller sensor 6mp to an APS one, far cleaner on APS.
"Far cleaner" is a vague and meaningless claim. Only visible differences
matter, and in normal A3 prints under ordinary viewing conditions at
normal viewing distance, the difference between your sensor and my
sensor isn't visible.
> For example major noise reduction smearing etc, will be noticable in
> moderate print sizes, you might get away with a small print. Minor
> artifacts tend to not be visible in prints, note the word..minor!
"Major noise reduction smearing" is equally vague and meaningless. I
normally shoot JPEG with Noise Reduction (and Contrast) turned down, and
there is no visible noise reduction smearing in normal A3 prints under
ordinary viewing conditions at normal viewing distance. Again, only
visible issues matter.
There are objective benefits to larger sensors (e.g., cleaner high ISO),
just as there are for smaller sensors (e.g., better lenses), but being
required for excellent A3 prints isn't one of them.
It's sad that some DSLR (large sensor) fans are so threatened on
equipment and technique that they feel the need to try to belittle and
put down smaller cameras and the people who use them.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:nb1dk3p9rm9ud698kvsffa5egrnanpon3a@4ax.com...
>
> It's sad that some DSLR (large sensor) fans are so threatened on
> equipment and technique that they feel the need to try to belittle and
> put down smaller cameras and the people who use them.
>
>
It's camera snobbery, pure and simple.
I have the means and wherewithal to buy a DSLR and a stack of lenses if I so
wished to, but choose not to for many reasons.
There appears to be a not insignificant number of DSLR owners who can't seem
to get their heads around the concept that many people choose *not* to buy a
DSLR, and actually *prefer* to own a more portable versatile camera. But no
they're not content with that, they have to constantly go on and on about
small sensors and noise (change the record), and how superior their DSLRs
are to our crappy P&Ss.
We all know that DSLRs can and do produce better pictures, but not all of us
want the considerable inconvenience of lugging all that gear around, and
having to swap lenses exposing the sensor to dust and dirt continually, for
Pete's sake give it a rest!
>There appears to be a not insignificant number of DSLR owners who can't seem
>to get their heads around the concept that many people choose *not* to buy a
>DSLR, and actually *prefer* to own a more portable versatile camera. But no
>they're not content with that, they have to constantly go on and on about
>small sensors and noise (change the record), and how superior their DSLRs
>are to our crappy P&Ss.
Many DSLR owners also have one or more P&S cameras. Sometimes we're not
putting down P&S cameas, merely trying to point out what the tradeoffs
are in choosing one or the other. I carry a P&S camera nearly all the
time, and only carry the DSLR at events when I want something it does
that the P&S does not. I've owned 4 or 5 P&S cameras (depending on how
low your standards are - does a Quicktake 100 count?) and only one
DSLR.
>We all know that DSLRs can and do produce better pictures, but not all of us
>want the considerable inconvenience of lugging all that gear around, and
>having to swap lenses exposing the sensor to dust and dirt continually, for
>Pete's sake give it a rest!
It seems to be the nature of Usenet to have the same arguments over and
over again. If you look carefully, you'll often find that the "P&S vs.
DSLR" arguments are not started by DSLR proponents. And whoever started
it, an argument requires participation from both sides to continue.
If you already know what the respective advantages of P&S and SLR
cameras are, and have made your decision based on that, you can safely
ignore all the arguments. I sort of feel like that now.
But during the period when I didn't own a DSLR (they used to be much
more expensive) I found the arguments quite interesting. I wanted to
know which things would be better if I had access to a DSLR, and which
things it would be worse at.
"Fred" <fredapain@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47469e11$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:nb1dk3p9rm9ud698kvsffa5egrnanpon3a@4ax.com...
> It's camera snobbery, pure and simple.
>
> I have the means and wherewithal to buy a DSLR and a stack of lenses if I
> so wished to, but choose not to for many reasons.
>
> There appears to be a not insignificant number of DSLR owners who can't
> seem to get their heads around the concept that many people choose *not*
> to buy a DSLR, and actually *prefer* to own a more portable versatile
> camera. But no they're not content with that, they have to constantly go
> on and on about small sensors and noise (change the record), and how
> superior their DSLRs are to our crappy P&Ss.
>
> We all know that DSLRs can and do produce better pictures, but not all of
> us want the considerable inconvenience of lugging all that gear around,
> and having to swap lenses exposing the sensor to dust and dirt
> continually, for Pete's sake give it a rest!
>
Seems to go both ways. There are a few P&S users that can't accept there
are DSLR users who are perfectly happy with all of their gear. I do agree,
give it a rest. This silly P&S vs. DSLR debate is a figment of only a very
few people's imaginations.
"Fred" <fredapain@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47469e11$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:nb1dk3p9rm9ud698kvsffa5egrnanpon3a@4ax.com...
>>
>> It's sad that some DSLR (large sensor) fans are so threatened on
>> equipment and technique that they feel the need to try to belittle and
>> put down smaller cameras and the people who use them.
>>
>>
> It's camera snobbery, pure and simple.
>
> I have the means and wherewithal to buy a DSLR and a stack of lenses if I
> so wished to, but choose not to for many reasons.
>
> There appears to be a not insignificant number of DSLR owners who can't
> seem to get their heads around the concept that many people choose *not*
> to buy a DSLR, and actually *prefer* to own a more portable versatile
> camera. But no they're not content with that, they have to constantly go
> on and on about small sensors and noise (change the record), and how
> superior their DSLRs are to our crappy P&Ss.
>
> We all know that DSLRs can and do produce better pictures, but not all of
> us want the considerable inconvenience of lugging all that gear around,
> and having to swap lenses exposing the sensor to dust and dirt
> continually, for Pete's sake give it a rest!
>
I wish one of the manufacturers would build a P&S with a APS sensor and a
28-70 lens. The lens would not have to be anywhere near the size of a DSLR
version since the retrofocus design is not needed and the camera can be very
small not having a mirror box or prism. I would not give up my DSLR, but I
wouldn't have to lug it everywhere I want good pix and don't need specialty
lenses.
The problem with point and shoots is that in the quest to make them
appealing to the general public, they are sacrificing image quality. Even
the 1/1.8" sensor is pushed aside for the smaller sensors so super range
zooms can be incorporated into the design without making the camera too
large. While this and high pixel counts are enticing to the general consumer
who shoots mainly 4x6 or email sized images, it detours enthusiasts or pros
who want a nice compact camera. Look what Fuji did to the F30 with its
amazing noise performance. They made it a 12mp also ran just to have the
pixel count.
JohnR66 wrote:
[]
> I wish one of the manufacturers would build a P&S with a APS sensor
> and a 28-70 lens. The lens would not have to be anywhere near the
> size of a DSLR version since the retrofocus design is not needed and
> the camera can be very small not having a mirror box or prism. I
> would not give up my DSLR, but I wouldn't have to lug it everywhere I
> want good pix and don't need specialty lenses.
[]
> John
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:36:12 GMT, "JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in
<gNV1j.46746$if6.15404@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>I wish one of the manufacturers would build a P&S with a APS sensor and a
>28-70 lens. The lens would not have to be anywhere near the size of a DSLR
>version since the retrofocus design is not needed and the camera can be very
>small not having a mirror box or prism. I would not give up my DSLR, but I
>wouldn't have to lug it everywhere I want good pix and don't need specialty
>lenses.
>
>The problem with point and shoots is that in the quest to make them
>appealing to the general public, they are sacrificing image quality. Even
>the 1/1.8" sensor is pushed aside for the smaller sensors so super range
>zooms can be incorporated into the design without making the camera too
>large. While this and high pixel counts are enticing to the general consumer
>who shoots mainly 4x6 or email sized images, it detours enthusiasts or pros
>who want a nice compact camera.
That's the kind of pejorative crap that really only serves to throw more
gasoline on the flames. Compact cameras with smaller sensors can and do
produce excellent prints much larger than 4x6. Claiming otherwise is
belittling, offensive, and provocative. If you don't want to use such
cameras, all well and good, but that's no call to put down those that do
use them.
>Look what Fuji did to the F30 with its
>amazing noise performance. They made it a 12mp also ran just to have the
>pixel count.
It presumably is giving the market what it wants. Thus your complaint
is with consumers, not manufacturers.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that,
but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." -Mark Twain
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:58:04 +0000, John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com>
wrote in <u5tfk39a10c8sj0t4bpif52ovv38sv03gh@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:49:43 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>[copied from
>><http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=25725382>]
>
>Why? Isn't it enough that you clutter the dpreview forum
>with your camera snobbery nonsense that you feel obliged to
>drag it here as well?
Defending compact cameras against attack by DSLR bigots is snobbery?
Now that's rich!
>Give it a rest, please.
I suggest you take your own advice.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote:
>
> I wish one of the manufacturers would build a P&S with a APS sensor
> and a 28-70 lens. The lens would not have to be anywhere near the size
> of a DSLR version since the retrofocus design is not needed and the
> camera can be very small not having a mirror box or prism.
I was under the impression that one of the reasons digital cameras are
not as small as you'd expect given the smaller-than-35mm sensors was
because you *do* need a retrofocus design due to the sensors being picky
about the angle at which the light hits them.
My Olympus Myu-II film camera with a 35mm lens is actually less than 35mm
deep with the lens out, whereas a Ricoh GR-D* with a 5.9mm lens is 54mm
deep with the lens out. Why isn't it only 6mm deep? Why does the lens
have to extend at all from the 31mm deep body (it's not a zoom)? I can
only assume it's the design limitations of a CCD sensor which requires
the light to hit it virtually straight on.
(*I chose this camera as an example since it doesn't have a zoom lens,
making it directly comparable with the 35mm camera.)
Excellent A3 prints from small sensors too! 
Linear Mode
