Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on November 05, 2008, 06:09:02 pm
-
http://www.bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm (http://www.bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just finished reading that. The g10 get's more and more interesting.
-
It does look interesting, but it's approaching the smallest DSLRs in size and weight, and those are much better in almost every way. Especially sensor size, where IMO, it really counts.
-
For those interested in technical details:
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtop...21&start=22 (http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=141021&start=22)
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtop...21&start=32 (http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=141021&start=32)
These are analyses of sensor capabilities using raw data from the G10 and LX3. I did not determine aspects of the cameras covered in Thom's review or the DPReview of the LX3 such as lens distortion, or resolution.
One thing to remember also with these photon-challenged small sensor cameras, the extra stop in speed of the LX3 lens is nothing to be sneezed at.
-
It does look interesting, but it's approaching the smallest DSLRs in size and weight, and those are much better in almost every way. Especially sensor size, where IMO, it really counts.
I've got a G7 but instead of upgrading to the G9 I picked up a Nikon D40x. I use it climbing so pick up a suitable Nikon prime or occasionally the relatively compact Nikon 12-24 f/4 DX. The size is actually quite similar to a Canon Gx and the wideangle lens attachment.
-
One thing to remember also with these photon-challenged small sensor cameras, the extra stop in speed of the LX3 lens is nothing to be sneezed at.
Indeed! The ability of the small P&S to take usable shots in low light without flash, yet still retain a good DoF, is one of its main advantages.
As one who spends much time fussing over noise and resolution factors, I find I'm psychologically unprepared to show much interest in a camera which, in the final analysis, is almost always going to produce technically inferior results to even a slightly heavier and bulkier system.
Whislt recognising that the main purpose of the P&S as a second camera is its portability, I'd feel a lot more comfortable about buying one if I were convinced that under certain conditions it could actually take better images than the DSLR. I wonder if the LX-3 makes it into this category.
Dpreview's comparison of the LX-3 with the G10 seems to demonstrate that at ISO 800 the LX-3 is clearly better by a fairly wide margin. Most P&S cameras, and perhaps all until now, are not really usable above ISO 400, except for very small prints. Is the LX-3 the first exception?
I get the impression, for images that are exposed to retain highlight detail, the LX-3's base ISO, like that of the G10, is closer to ISO 125 than ISO 80. Could we say that ISO 800 on the LX-3 is actually around ISO 1250? I'm thinking of the usefulness of a camera that, at F2 and ISO 1250, has the same DoF as a FF DSLR at F9, and the same shutter speed of that DSLR at F9, set at ISO 30,000 equivalent, approximately. I'd like to see a comparison .
Edit; Oops! I see that Dpreview omitted the ISO 800 comparison of the LX3 with the G10. What they show are comparisons at ISO 400 and 1600. The ISO 800 comparison was between the LX2 and LX3, with the LX3 being clearly better. Nevertheless, Dpreview seem to think the LX3 is noticeably better than the G10 at ISO 400 and at ISO 1600, and therefore by implication also better at ISO 800. These results seem to differ from Thom's conclusions, so maybe it's not a big deal one way or the other. However, that faster lens of the LX3 would allow one to use ISO 400 in circumstance where one would need to use ISO 800 with the G10 to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed.
-
.....I'd feel a lot more comfortable about buying one if I were convinced that under certain conditions it could actually take better images than the DSLR. I wonder if the LX-3 makes it into this category.....
There are no conditions under which an LX3 can match a DSLR in low light. Lens-wise, yes, but the pixel smear becomes embarrassing very quickly.
-
Dpreview's comparison of the LX-3 with the G10 seems to demonstrate that at ISO 800 the LX-3 is clearly better by a fairly wide margin. Most P&S cameras, and perhaps all until now, are not really usable above ISO 400, except for very small prints. Is the LX-3 the first exception?
No. The Fuji models are far better technology for higher ISO sensitivity. but it's exactly like film. Remember those crummy little 110 pocket cameras? Right. That's a typical compact/travel digital camera's sensor. It's just not good for anything other than maybe 5*7 prints. There's just not enough actual area to capture information on compared to a bigger sensor.
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor+sizes (http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor+sizes)
That something like the E420 or even the Rebel XS is only 8-10 ounces(with the lens!) more than these pocket cameras is amazing, given the vast improvement in sensor size.
1/2 a pound difference for 2-3x better quality in less than optimal light is moot, IMO. Shoot, compared to the big film SLRs of a decade ago, these new DSLRs feel almost like kid's toys when it comes to size and weight. 1.5 pounds with lens is amazing, really. I remember when the average camera body weighed at least 2 lbs.
-
No. The Fuji models are far better technology for higher ISO sensitivity. but it's exactly like film. Remember those crummy little 110 pocket cameras? Right. That's a typical compact/travel digital camera's sensor. It's just not good for anything other than maybe 5*7 prints. There's just not enough actual area to capture information on compared to a bigger sensor.
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor+sizes (http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor+sizes)
That something like the E420 or even the Rebel XS is only 8-10 ounces(with the lens!) more than these pocket cameras is amazing, given the vast improvement in sensor size.
1/2 a pound difference for 2-3x better quality in less than optimal light is moot, IMO. Shoot, compared to the big film SLRs of a decade ago, these new DSLRs feel almost like kid's toys when it comes to size and weight. 1.5 pounds with lens is amazing, really. I remember when the average camera body weighed at least 2 lbs.
Hopefully we can forget about this once the truly compact micro4/3 and microAPS cameras start hitting the market, the ones sized like that mock-up Olympus showed.
-
A much better performance than the Nikon ...
Meanwhile, the Nikon has the huge drawback of excessive chromatic aberration ...
To put it bluntly: the G10 is visibly and significantly better ...
Nikon: missed it by thaaat much ...
Conclusion: hands down, the Canon
Looks like Canon wins again, and all this from a Nikon guy.
Jack
.
-
Thom Hogan has always had a reputation for speaking his mind irrespective of brand.
-
Looks like Canon wins again, and all this from a Nikon guy.
Jack,
How is the brand of a compact camera relevant?
I can somehow understand that a DSLR owner is happy that the manufacturer of the lenses he owns releases bodies helping him tapping into the potential of the lenses, but I just cannot understand the relevance as far as compact cameras go.
How does that affect you?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For those interested in technical details:
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtop...21&start=22 (http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=141021&start=22)
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtop...21&start=32 (http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=141021&start=32)
These are analyses of sensor capabilities using raw data from the G10 and LX3. I did not determine aspects of the cameras covered in Thom's review or the DPReview of the LX3 such as lens distortion, or resolution.
One thing to remember also with these photon-challenged small sensor cameras, the extra stop in speed of the LX3 lens is nothing to be sneezed at.
That's pretty amazing - also keeping in mind that ISO 80 is most likely not the same as on a DSLR due to different meter calibration (at least that used to be the case for most digital compacts).
Thom seems to consider the lens of the LX3 quite good as well (smallest zoom range among those tested of course so one should not be too harsh against the others). The macro capabilities don't seem to be so great though - not sure about the image quality but having to choose between poking the lens right into your subject at the wide end and having very limited magnification at the long end appears unsatisfactory - anyone who knows how the G10 compares in this aspect?
-
Indeed! The ability of the small P&S to take usable shots in low light without flash, yet still retain a good DoF, is one of its main advantages.
As one who spends much time fussing over noise and resolution factors, I find I'm psychologically unprepared to show much interest in a camera which, in the final analysis, is almost always going to produce technically inferior results to even a slightly heavier and bulkier system.
Whislt recognising that the main purpose of the P&S as a second camera is its portability, I'd feel a lot more comfortable about buying one if I were convinced that under certain conditions it could actually take better images than the DSLR. I wonder if the LX-3 makes it into this category.
Dpreview's comparison of the LX-3 with the G10 seems to demonstrate that at ISO 800 the LX-3 is clearly better by a fairly wide margin. Most P&S cameras, and perhaps all until now, are not really usable above ISO 400, except for very small prints. Is the LX-3 the first exception?
I get the impression, for images that are exposed to retain highlight detail, the LX-3's base ISO, like that of the G10, is closer to ISO 125 than ISO 80. Could we say that ISO 800 on the LX-3 is actually around ISO 1250? I'm thinking of the usefulness of a camera that, at F2 and ISO 1250, has the same DoF as a FF DSLR at F9, and the same shutter speed of that DSLR at F9, set at ISO 30,000 equivalent, approximately. I'd like to see a comparison .
Edit; Oops! I see that Dpreview omitted the ISO 800 comparison of the LX3 with the G10. What they show are comparisons at ISO 400 and 1600. The ISO 800 comparison was between the LX2 and LX3, with the LX3 being clearly better. Nevertheless, Dpreview seem to think the LX3 is noticeably better than the G10 at ISO 400 and at ISO 1600, and therefore by implication also better at ISO 800. These results seem to differ from Thom's conclusions, so maybe it's not a big deal one way or the other. However, that faster lens of the LX3 would allow one to use ISO 400 in circumstance where one would need to use ISO 800 with the G10 to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed.
To be honest, I think comparing these cameras on the basis of IQ doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you're used to DSLR noise levels at 400 and above, all of them are pathetic. It's simple (well, not so simple) physics. Luminance noise you can live with (maybe) but chroma noise is plain ugly. If IQ is essential to you in low light, then forget a G10, LX-3 or whatever, because you'll only be disappointed.
Most photogs want a small camera they can carry around without needing a mule in tow. It's gotta be small; it gotta be discrete; it has to perform well within the limitations imposed by a $~500 price tag, and maybe most of all, it has to have a UI designed by a photographer, not by an electronics engineer. For street photography - which is why you opt for a small packable camera, right? - , you have to be able to prime it so that you can get the shot.. Who the hell cares about minor IQ diffs at 400 or 800 (when they're both lousy?)if you fumble for the shot with one camera and get the shot with another? They're tools to make good pictures, realizing that they aren't full-blown DLSRs with big price tags. In fact, I'd like to see a street test burnout between the Nikon, Canon and Panasonic by someone who knows how to use them on the street. If only Winogrand were still alive... The test is this: the photog carries each camera around for a day, He (or she) has to come back with five decent shots of people on the street. That would differentiate the cameras, for sure.
-
It's gotta be small; it gotta be discrete; it has to perform well within the limitations imposed by a $~500 price tag, and maybe most of all, it has to have a UI designed by a photographer...
Well, designed for a photographer. What you are describing is exactly what I'm looking for too. I just don't think these current small sensor cameras accomplish that; in addition to the sensor, lens and UI limitations, their bodies are still not small enough for what I would want to use it for.
-
There are no conditions under which an LX3 can match a DSLR in low light. Lens-wise, yes, but the pixel smear becomes embarrassing very quickly.
I think you might have overlooked the DoF factor. Typically, in low light without flash, and where long exposures on a tripod are not suitable due to subject movement, one has to sacrifice DoF and use the widest aperture. If a shallow DoF is what's desired in any case, then that's fine. There'd be no contest between the DSLR and the P&S. But supposing you want to retain a reasonable DoF, say F5.6 on the cropped format, or F9 on FF 35mm? How does the DSLR then compare, bearing in mind that F2 on the LX3 is equivalent to F9 on FF 35mm?
-
.....Dpreview's comparison of the LX-3 with the G10 seems to demonstrate that at ISO 800 the LX-3 is clearly better by a fairly wide margin. Most P&S cameras, and perhaps all until now, are not really usable above ISO 400, except for very small prints. Is the LX-3 the first exception?.....
The Dpreview tests do make sense, however in the real world the actual results are hard to predict. I posted several photos a while back showing superior noise suppression with the LX3 in shadow areas, where the remainder of the image was in good daylight. OTOH, comparing images in good daylight without shadows showed the same pixel smearing as occurred with an inferior camera (1/2.33 sensor). In low light where the subject is evenly lighted, the LX3 seems to descend into mud, i.e. large-scale smearing. If at least some decent percentage of the image has adequate lighting (as far as the LX3 is concerned), then the image may at least be usable. There may be a way around some of that with extra RAW processing - all I did was default conversions to JPEG. Here's an example - the darker areas look pretty ugly - just before sunset.
-
Almost all of my photography is done in good natural light, so noise at ISO 400 and above doesn't mean a thing to me. I never print bigger than 13x19" either. I never shoot sports (these days -- I did several millenia ago), so shutter lag is no problem (for me).
I got a G10 a couple of weeks ago and for me it's absolutely great. I like carrying it around and making decent images while photographers with "serious" cameras ignore me, because I'm "obviously" just a tourist.
I'm not going to sell my 5D or L glass any time soon, but for me the G10 fills a very important niche. I will have it with me lots of times when I won't have the 5D along. And it's a great update to my 5MP Powershot S60. Obviously it's not the right camera for everybody, but it suits me just fine.
And yes, I did take several comparison landscapes with the G10 and the 5D and printed each pair to 13x19", and it is very difficult to tell which is which. The main visible differences seem to result from the fact that I'm much more familiar with DxO than with DPP. I'll have to go back and process the 5D raws in DPP also to make the comparisons fairer.
Having gotten exhibit quality prints from the S60, I find the G10 a substantial improvement.
Just my 2 øres worth.
Eric M.
-
I think you might have overlooked the DoF factor. Typically, in low light without flash, and where long exposures on a tripod are not suitable due to subject movement, one has to sacrifice DoF and use the widest aperture. If a shallow DoF is what's desired in any case, then that's fine. There'd be no contest between the DSLR and the P&S. But supposing you want to retain a reasonable DoF, say F5.6 on the cropped format, or F9 on FF 35mm? How does the DSLR then compare, bearing in mind that F2 on the LX3 is equivalent to F9 on FF 35mm?
That's the trouble with these reviews. The more professional they are, the more like CNN and FOX they are, that's to say that when they get out to the edges of the topic, like minimum and maximum aperture, min and max (useful) ISO, they cloud the dissertation with professional euphemisms, as though (nudge nudge wink wink) we know what they mean. With a $2,000 lens they may cover the distortions at either end very well, but they don't say much about small digicams, even when they cost $500. And noise is complicated by the in-camera software, which may do a good job in one scene and not in another - just because the image info did or didn't cross some interpretation threshold that trips a particular software action.
-
Jack,
How is the brand of a compact camera relevant?
I can somehow understand that a DSLR owner is happy that the manufacturer of the lenses he owns releases bodies helping him tapping into the potential of the lenses, but I just cannot understand the relevance as far as compact cameras go.
How does that affect you?
Cheers,
Bernard
???
I am not sure I follow. The brand of camera is relevant for identification. Same as the model #.
I suppose I could ask you the same question about your thread topic: how are the models G10, LX3, and P6000 relevant?
Are you suggesting that when we discuss P&S cameras, rather than identify the make/model, we all speak in the generic? Should we say "the camera" did this?, or I found "the camera" to perform well within x limitations? It would seem to me that, unless we identified the make and the model we are talking about, that our discussions about cameras might become confusing after awhile
In short, I actually put up the quotes that I did, because of the decisive language. It simply appears to me that the Canon G10 is getting an enormous positive reaction from the people who use it, time and again. There doesn't seem to be the usual wishy-washy response. It is this enormous reaction that I thought was worthy of quoting, but unless the brand and model are first identified, as that particular kind which is receiving said reaction (as you yourself identified in your own thread topic), I am afraid to say that discussing cameras would become meaningless.
I honestly don't see any other way to discuss the merits of cameras, than by first identifying which make/model we are talking about, do you?
Jack
.
-
Looks like Canon wins again, and all this from a Nikon guy.
Wins what again?
Thom Hogan primarily earns his living writing guides for Nikon DSLRs. His reviews are fair and he does not have some sort of pro-Nikon bias that makes his praise of a non-Nikon camera particularly noteworthy.
-
Wins what again?
By far, the most favorable remarks of the reviewer overall.
Thom Hogan primarily earns his living writing guides for Nikon DSLRs. His reviews are fair and he does not have some sort of pro-Nikon bias that makes his praise of a non-Nikon camera particularly noteworthy.
I agree, and that's what I in fact found so noteworthy of the review.
.
-
By far, the most favorable remarks of the reviewer overall.
Again? Another review in favor of the G10? If so, then the problem is you weren't specific and it looks more like a general "Canon wins again."
I agree, and that's what I in fact found so noteworthy of the review.
What is the relevance of his being "a Nikon guy?" I think some of us would assume you are implying some kind of bias from Thom against Canon.
-
Again? Another review in favor of the G10? If so, then the problem is you weren't specific and it looks more like a general "Canon wins again."
Tony, I don't see how my comments affect you. The only "problem" is the one you are trying so hard to create, by policing my posts, as if you are in some sort of authority here. I can be as specific, or as general, as I so choose. I merely quoted the man's words and expressed what I have seen as a resounding enthusiasm for the G10, even over the G9. I remember when the G7 came out, most people thought it stunk and wasn't even as good as the G6 (because of RAW). The G9 came out and most people were happy, but a few still grumbled. The Canon G10 might appropriately be called the "G-Spot" ( ) as it appears to be the most lauded P&S by professional standards that I personally have read about.
What is the relevance of his being "a Nikon guy?" I think some of us would assume you are implying some kind of bias from Thom against Canon.
Geeze, your a sensitive fella, aren't you? I am implying exactly that. Thom expresses his very clear "bias" for Nikon by writing for them, about them, and by his having tens of thousands of dollars of his own money invested into their equipment. The fact that he is so clearly biased (meaning is so clearly sold on Nikon), and yet that he makes such statements about the new G10, just strikes me as much more credible testimony to the quality of the camera than if some 40-year Canon employee said so.
I don't see what is so hard to follow here. I don't see why you are making such a big deal over what I said.
Perhaps a glass of beer and some mellow music will help you relax
Have a nice evening,
Jack
.
-
Tony, I don't see how my comments affect you. The only "problem" is the one you are trying so hard to create, by policing my posts, as if you are in some sort of authority here. I can be as specific, or as general, as I so choose. I merely quoted the man's words and expressed what I have seen as a resounding enthusiasm for the G10, even over the G9
Initially I ignored your remarks, but since you seem to be dissembling them I decided to respond.
. I remember when the G7 came out, most people thought it stunk and wasn't even as good as the G6 (because of RAW). The G9 came out and most people were happy, but a few still grumbled. The Canon G10 might appropriately be called the "G-Spot" ( ) as it appears to be the most lauded P&S by professional standards that I personally have read about.
So much for "again" then.
I am implying exactly that [Thom Hogan is biased against Canon].
You have demonstrated how little you really know about Thom Hogan, and about what it means to be biased or not biased.
Enjoy your beer; I prefer to stay sober.
-
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....mp;#entry237230 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29490&st=0&#entry237230)
-
Initially I ignored your remarks, but since you seem to be dissembling them I decided to respond.
You ignored my remarks? LOL, what did my remarks ever have to do with you?
You are insane. You labor under the self-invented idea that my remarks had anything whatsoever to do with you, or that "you" are in any way a governor of my remarks.
So much for "again" then.
I said the G10.
You have demonstrated how little you really know about Thom Hogan, and about what it means to be biased or not biased.
You clearly have demonstrated your own boundary disorder.
There are actually many levels of bias, from personal preference to having an unfair bias, and I was only implying the former. The simple fact is, any man who makes a purchase decision expresses some form of bias in so doing, does he not? Therefore it is you who fails to understand the meaning of the word.
Enjoy your beer; I prefer to stay sober.
I myself would prefer if you would stay silent
Jack
.
-
You are insane.
I said the G10.
You clearly have demonstrated your own boundary disorder.
There are actually many levels of bias, from personal preference to having an unfair bias, and I was only implying the former. The simple fact is, any man who makes a purchase decision expresses some form of bias in so doing, does he not? Therefore it is you who fails to understand the meaning of the word.
Right. Thom Hogan has a bias for Canon then since he buys lots of Canon gear and currently chooses to use the G10 along with the LX3. Fact is that Thom finds these P&S cameras compromises and has argued for some time now for something better, and he (as well as many of us) do not care a whit what brand it is. Now you did not write the G10 in your initial post, you wrote Canon, that's what makes many of us question why you would write that. Anyway, usually the person who starts a debate should let those that reply to it have the last word as that is a fair approach (equal time as it were), but by now everyone should realizes that you can never let anyone have the last word -- prove me wrong if you are capable; if not, then I will demonstrate (once again) that I can live with your compulsion to post the last word.
-
???
I am not sure I follow. The brand of camera is relevant for identification. Same as the model #.
The point is that your "Canon wins again" sentence re-inforces your image as a person who is interested in engaging in an activity often referred to as "fanboyism".
Most folks around here are more interested in creating photographs and less about discussing what brand is better than the other. Notice that I am not saying that people are not interested in discussing what camera is best for a given task.
Put it in other words:
Using your terminology, I - "a Nikon guy" has bought a "Canon G10" from the "company that wins again".
My view on the situation is more, I - "a photographer looking for suitable tools who happens to own Nikon cameras and like some of their attributes" has bought a "Canon G10" from "another company making tools for photographers".
Last comment from me on this.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Right. Thom Hogan has a bias for Canon then since he buys lots of Canon gear and currently chooses to use the G10 along with the LX3. Fact is that Thom finds these P&S cameras compromises and has argued for some time now for something better, and he (as well as many of us) do not care a whit what brand it is.
What does this have to do with the subject of the thread? The reality is, I care not one whit for "your opinion," nor did I solicit one from you. Honestly Tony, I notice that in virtually every post you make, you act like you are some kind of "praise patrol" for Canon (especially), and that you are always attempting to throw a bucket of water on any growing fires
Now you did not write the G10 in your initial post, you wrote Canon, that's what makes many of us question why you would write that.
I do believe the real question is, "Why do you care so much?" Have you ever asked yourself this question? Have you sought psychiatric counsel for this problem of yours, this boundary disorder, whereby you feel the need to control what other people think, feel, and write?
Anyway, usually the person who starts a debate should let those that reply to it have the last word as that is a fair approach (equal time as it were), but by now everyone should realizes that you can never let anyone have the last word -- prove me wrong if you are capable; if not, then I will demonstrate (once again) that I can live with your compulsion to post the last word.
Well, let's see if you can live up to your own words. Because I never "started a debate" with you, Tony, I merely quoted passages from Thom's article and didn't address you (or anyone in particular) at all. It was in point of fact you who sought to debate with me, over something rather silly I might add. So not only do you suffer from a boundary disorder, and a control freak disorder, but you are a hypocrite as well. I guess you think you can launch into me, make several comments, and then tie my hands so I can't respond ... this is truly unbelievable
Are you sure you're a man Tony? If you are, you are a very sensitive one. I really think you need a drink, my friend, as you need to relax and let other people enjoy their own opinions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The point is that your "Canon wins again" sentence re-inforces your image as a person who is interested in engaging in an activity often referred to as "fanboyism".
Boy, I guess I am a Canon fan Bernard
Since you stepped forward to make a critique of what you "noticed about me," let me return the favor. First, let me say that I have truly enjoyed most of your posts actually, so thank you. You actually seem like a pretty good guy, whereas I think Tony is wayyy too uptight and he either needs to drink a cold one ... or he needs a good left hook to the liver
Anyway, what I notice is that many of you photo buffs try to put up this facade as if you don't pay attention to (or, God forbid, become partial to) brand names and models. I notice that many of you act like you you are in some sort of elitist, impartial club of holier-than-thous for your impartialism, and yet here you are leading the deck in cutting-n-pasting a brand comparison article. In fact, it seems to me like the sum and substance of most (if not all) of these photographic websites are centered around some sort of brand/model comparativism. Yet, at the same time, each "true pro" tries to act as impartial and "non-fanboyist" as possible, as I take it this is considered to be "uncool" to do
(As a side note, I also notice many of you like to use the word "whilst" )
Anyway, if we can arrive at a little honesty here, in truth everyone pays attention to brand names and model numbers, and everyone tends to become a little partial to certain examples of each. I just have the honesty to admit it
We become partial to almost everything really: baseball teams, football teams, boxers, you name it, and yes that includes camera makes and models ...
Most folks around here are more interested in creating photographs and less about discussing what brand is better than the other. Notice that I am not saying that people are not interested in discussing what camera is best for a given task.
There is merit in this. I do believe that clearly stating "which" camera does "what" particular job(s) better than another is critical to help the consumer decide which camera is best for his own unique, personal needs.
Put it in other words:
Using your terminology, I - "a Nikon guy" has bought a "Canon G10" from the "company that wins again".
My view on the situation is more, I - "a photographer looking for suitable tools who happens to own Nikon cameras and like some of their attributes" has bought a "Canon G10" from "another company making tools for photographers".
Last comment from me on this.
Cheers,
Bernard
Like I said, I understand this is the facade. The professional must apear before his peers as if he is trying to emotionally distance himself from being excited about a new product. I understand that the general consensus is that such "lowly behavior" might be interpreted by one's peers as (heaven forbid) the dreaded "fanboyism," which is a label to be avoided at all costs
But you see, I am not a professional, I am just a guy who is interested in cameras ... so I am not ashamed to get excited that a new camera looks to be something pretty neat. I know it's not cool and all, and I know all you pros have to hide your emotions in front of each other, LOL, but (to me) that is the funniest thing of all ... this facade yall wear ... when truly, everyone gets excited when new and improved models come out. That's the whole fun of the new year.
So relax, Bernard, and enjoy --- as no harm and no foul were meant --- just having fun is all
Try it sometime, and have a nice night,
Jack
.
-
"Canon guy", "Nikon guy" ! Oh please, they are manufacturers, not football clubs! Me, I'm a "whoever gives me the best deal guy".
-
For my two cents, I should feel elation at having another 500 - 1000 dollars to spend on a shiny new camera, expecting great new photos with incredible detail, vibrant colors, etc. etc. Unfortunately, I generally feel real dread at that point, depending on the review(s) I'm depending on.
OTOH, if I had the patience to wait 5 or 6 months after the gizmo is generally available, I would have a better sense of its actual potential as a photographic device, given the user reviews that stack up during that time. But today, if you wait that long, there's really nothing to discuss by the time you get the new camera. Instead of What You See Is What You Get, it's What You Asked For Is What You Got.
-
"Canon guy", "Nikon guy" ! Oh please, they are manufacturers, not football clubs! Me, I'm a "whoever gives me the best deal guy".
And your point is?
Do you not think there is such a thing as "fans" or "enthusiasts" of manufacturers and their products too?
I guess you never heard a person say, "I'm a Chevy man and would never buy a Ford," or vise versa, then right? The simple fact is, there are devoted enthusiasts/antagonists of the auto manufacturers Chevy, Ford, and Dodge every bit as much as there are about Nikon, Canon, and Pentax
And it works the same way with the foreign auto manufacturers Nissan/Toyota as well as their upscale Infinity/Lexus dress-ups ... there are enthusiasts/antagonists of each of these too
And lest we delude ourselves into thinking the affluent and wealthy are not affected, take a moment to realize that you have equally-fervent enthusiasts/antagonists of BMW/Mercedes as well as Ferrari/Lamborghini/Maserati, etc., etc.
This is why I get such a hearty chuckle out of the term "fanboy" that is tossed around here by the austere members of this forum ... where these members actually delude themselves to believe that what is perfectly natural (to be enthusiastically-partial to certain products) is something "incorrect" to think or believe. In fact, perhaps the biggest fanboy of this forum is a Nikon enthusiast, we all know and love (LOL), who even uses the word "fanboy" alot, all the while remaining blithely unaware that he himself is our forum's greatest fanboy of his brand of choice
It is a literal crock of $#!^ for anyone to act as if he is not partial to certain brands, and to me the biggest joke of all is the self-denial of this fact that some people try to pass-off. The idea that any person passionately-interested in taking photographs would somehow be "impartial" or dispassionate toward the very tools of his trade is simply laughable. As if one's "photgraphic tools" were merely hammers or saws. (Oops! But, here again, we even have diehard fans of DeWalt power tools, Makita powertools, etc. ) Let us not act as if the man who just bought a brand new convertible Porsche just bought himself "a tool" ... to go from Point A to Point B ... when we all know that he is very much looking to enjoy the ride. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking "any" tool will do, when we're talking top of the line in their class. Top brand names will always matter, and the most revered model numbers will always matter.
In short, please, let's cut the BS okay? Let us not pretend like anyone here is "dispassionate" about the brand new cameras that are coming out by our industry's top manufacturers, because the simple fact is everyone is keenly interested in them and in seeing what they can do.
Now, with that said, maybe we can get back to the subject at hand ... the new P&S cameras and their performance comparisons ... without this everyone trying to wear this big facade like it's uncool to be geeked-up and interested in which brand is offering the best or most versatile model for their needs.
It's okay to be exited about who's making the best new toys children ... even if you're old, highly-educated children ... it's still okay to be excited about new toys and to have fun using them
Jack
.
-
And your point is?
Do you not think there is such a thing as "fans" or "enthusiasts" of manufacturers and their products too?
I guess you never heard a person say, "I'm a Chevy man and would never buy a Ford," or vise versa, then right? The simple fact is, there are devoted enthusiasts/antagonists of the auto manufacturers Chevy, Ford, and Dodge every bit as much as there are about Nikon, Canon, and Pentax
And it works the same way with the foreign auto manufacturers Nissan/Toyota as well as their upscale Infinity/Lexus dress-ups ... there are enthusiasts/antagonists of each of these too
And lest we delude ourselves into thinking the affluent and wealthy are not affected, take a moment to realize that you have equally-fervent enthusiasts/antagonists of BMW/Mercedes as well as Ferrari/Lamborghini/Maserati, etc., etc.
This is why I get such a hearty chuckle out of the term "fanboy" that is tossed around here by the austere members of this forum ... where these members actually delude themselves to believe that what is perfectly natural (to be enthusiastically-partial to certain products) is something "incorrect" to think or believe. In fact, perhaps the biggest fanboy of this forum is a Nikon enthusiast, we all know and love (LOL), who even uses the word "fanboy" alot, all the while remaining blithely unaware that he himself is our forum's greatest fanboy of his brand of choice
It is a literal crock of $#!^ for anyone to act as if he is not partial to certain brands, and to me the biggest joke of all is the self-denial of this fact that some people try to pass-off. The idea that any person passionately-interested in taking photographs would somehow be "impartial" or dispassionate toward the very tools of his trade is simply laughable. As if one's "photgraphic tools" were merely hammers or saws. (Oops! But, here again, we even have diehard fans of DeWalt power tools, Makita powertools, etc. ) Let us not act as if the man who just bought a brand new convertible Porsche just bought himself "a tool" ... to go from Point A to Point B ... when we all know that he is very much looking to enjoy the ride. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking "any" tool will do, when we're talking top of the line in their class. Top brand names will always matter, and the most revered model numbers will always matter.
In short, please, let's cut the BS okay? Let us not pretend like anyone here is "dispassionate" about the brand new cameras that are coming out by our industry's top manufacturers, because the simple fact is everyone is keenly interested in them and in seeing what they can do.
Now, with that said, maybe we can get back to the subject at hand ... the new P&S cameras and their performance comparisons ... without this everyone trying to wear this big facade like it's uncool to be geeked-up and interested in which brand is offering the best or most versatile model for their needs.
It's okay to be exited about who's making the best new toys children ... even if you're old, highly-educated children ... it's still okay to be excited about new toys and to have fun using them
Jack
Yawn
.