A New Large Sensor PowerShot Coming [CR1]

[RLPhoto]

" will all produce the same image, with different DOFs and noise levels"

Therein lies the difficulty in any kind of meaningful discussion.

If it has a different dof, or noise characteristics, it is not the same image. We might attach different importance to the various metrics, but it seems all P&S proponents decide they mean nothing just so long as they have a camera with them, I don't. Which is, in actual fact, much more in line with the majority of threads here that go on for ever about the miniscule differences between, for instance, an f2 vs f2.8 at different subject distances. I don't have selective myopia and I don't change my standards just because a camera is small. The output is either up to my personal standard or it is not, I have never seen a smaller than 135 format digital sensor that is though I will be very interested in the next generation of APS-C cameras.

I could only imagine hanging out with PBD.

RLPhoto - OMG! a once in a lifetime photo of a shark riding a dragon through the air, shooting flames out its mouth! *immediately pulls out g15 and get's some good frames.

PBD - I rather not take the photo as I don't have the optimum equipment to capture this moment. I'd rather just remember with my brain and tell others about it some other time.

RLPhoto - *Hangs up Phone. Hey PBD, I sold the grainy but decent pic for a million to NYTimes and Will be published this month on TIME magazine

PBD - ..........

Edit: I don't see a 800x600px output PBD?

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm very happy with my RX100 with its zeiss 1.8 zoom thanks.

That would be a 28mm-100mm f4.9-f13.2 equivalent, hardly anything to get very excited about.

Me:100mm f13.2; You: "oh-so-trendy paper-thin DOF" Hmm, methinks we have different ideas completely with regards dof.

You can't change horses in the middle of the stream You are the one who said "That would be a 28mm-100mm f4.9-f13.2 equivalent, ..." The implication was that you thought that f/1.8 was only exciting on a DSLR, NOT on a RX100.

Besides, if low light is your muse, why use a camera with a 2.6 times worse noise factor?

Depends on what you mean by low light. Are you talking about shooting in a broom closet (with the door closed ) or in a living room lit by several table lamps, or maybe on a urban street at night (like Time Square or the Ginza).

BTW 2.6 times more noise mean little when the photo will be posted on FaceSpace or showm to friends on an iDevice. You have to remember that not everyone is a Very Serious Photo Enthusiast like yourself

I don't understand where you see a contradiction in my comments.

As to your second point, I agree, and have said the same repeatedly during my posts! To me a 600x800px output has so little value as to be inconsequential.

Having said that, my last editorial newspaper image was under 300kB and ran across four columns, it earned me $15 (basically inconsequential).

 

[privatebydesign]

Saying that, I don't use 3200iso on a FF camera either for exactly the same reasons. The 5D MkIII and 1DX might be workable for me there, but I don't own either of them.

I come from a 25/50/80 iso slide background, I also shot Pan F for thirty years, I probably print bigger than most more often than most and I have a built in abhorrence to noise.

Then why are you even here? Clearly nothing physically possibly will mean your demands (especially something not medium format).

No, I shoot 1Ds MkIII's at 400 iso and under, basically the same as when I shot 1VHS's with 400iso or under film.

 

[c.d.embrey]

I come from a 25/50/80 iso slide background, I also shot Pan F for thirty years ...

Did you shoot any Tech Pan ??? You seem like the type who would've

 

[privatebydesign]

" will all produce the same image, with different DOFs and noise levels"

Therein lies the difficulty in any kind of meaningful discussion.

If it has a different dof, or noise characteristics, it is not the same image. We might attach different importance to the various metrics, but it seems all P&S proponents decide they mean nothing just so long as they have a camera with them, I don't. Which is, in actual fact, much more in line with the majority of threads here that go on for ever about the miniscule differences between, for instance, an f2 vs f2.8 at different subject distances. I don't have selective myopia and I don't change my standards just because a camera is small. The output is either up to my personal standard or it is not, I have never seen a smaller than 135 format digital sensor that is though I will be very interested in the next generation of APS-C cameras.

I could only imagine hanging out with PBD.

RLPhoto - OMG! a once in a lifetime photo of a shark riding a dragon through the air, shooting flames out its mouth! *immediately pulls out g15 and get's some good frames.

PBD - I rather not take the photo as I don't have the optimum equipment to capture this moment. I'd rather just remember with my brain and tell others about it some other time.

RLPhoto - *Hangs up Phone. Hey PBD, I sold the grainy but decent pic for a million to NYTimes and Will be published this month on TIME magazine

PBD - ..........

Edit: I don't see a 800x600px output PBD?

No, I would have taken the picture of the dragon instantly with my phone whilst you waited in vain for your G15 to power up and then fail to achieve AF. Still on my phone I would email the images to a publicist who could maximise the return. You would be searching for a power outlet for your laptop and my images would be on CNN. I would have the scoop, you would have slightly less grainy crap images.

 

[RLPhoto]

" will all produce the same image, with different DOFs and noise levels"

Therein lies the difficulty in any kind of meaningful discussion.

If it has a different dof, or noise characteristics, it is not the same image. We might attach different importance to the various metrics, but it seems all P&S proponents decide they mean nothing just so long as they have a camera with them, I don't. Which is, in actual fact, much more in line with the majority of threads here that go on for ever about the miniscule differences between, for instance, an f2 vs f2.8 at different subject distances. I don't have selective myopia and I don't change my standards just because a camera is small. The output is either up to my personal standard or it is not, I have never seen a smaller than 135 format digital sensor that is though I will be very interested in the next generation of APS-C cameras.

I could only imagine hanging out with PBD.

RLPhoto - OMG! a once in a lifetime photo of a shark riding a dragon through the air, shooting flames out its mouth! *immediately pulls out g15 and get's some good frames.

PBD - I rather not take the photo as I don't have the optimum equipment to capture this moment. I'd rather just remember with my brain and tell others about it some other time.

RLPhoto - *Hangs up Phone. Hey PBD, I sold the grainy but decent pic for a million to NYTimes and Will be published this month on TIME magazine

PBD - ..........

Edit: I don't see a 800x600px output PBD?

No, I would have taken the picture of the dragon instantly with my phone whilst you waited in vain for your G15 to power up and then fail to achieve AF. Still on my phone I would email the images to a publicist who could maximise the return. You would be searching for a power outlet for your laptop and my images would be on CNN. I would have the scoop, you would have slightly less grainy crap images.

Lol, wrong your crappy phone would set the shutter speed too slow and your photos would be a garbled mess and my g15 photos would be crisp because I have a Expo Comp dial and a zoom lens. Your crappy phone doesn't zoom and said subject would be flying.

Oh and It's called an Eye-fi card to my phone.

Game Over PBD.

 

[privatebydesign]

I come from a 25/50/80 iso slide background, I also shot Pan F for thirty years ...

Did you shoot any Tech Pan ??? You seem like the type who would've

No, never did. Used to buy Pan F in tin rolls by the 400ft though and roll my own

I don't quite understand the irritation I have caused here. I said I have a G10, I linked to an article that shows when a P&S can vastly out perform most peoples expectation of it, and I 100% agree with that article. But I also well understand the inherent limitations of P&S cameras and as a personal opinion I find them very limited in actual use. Many millions of people agree with me too, P&S sales, despite the options and innovation in the market, are declining, rapidly.

 

[privatebydesign]

Eye Fi card to what network? You walk around with your laptop constantly powered up in case of flying dragons with shark riders? Well now just find a network and upload it. Or you mean to Eye-Fi's proprietary storage? Well all you need to do now, if you were connected to a network that EyeFi worked with and was registered to, is go online, log in to your EyeFi account, find the folder and image and then forward it. All assuming the EyeFi card didn't flatten your G15 battery hours ago trying to upload crappy images via a non existant connection. I have EyeFi cards! Meanwhile I ordered us up some cappuccinos and paid for it with my utility belt phone.

Look, this has all gotten silly, and is a bit of fun, but my original point was P&S cameras have inherent limitations that some people can work with, some people can't or don't want to and most, going by sales numbers, just ignore and use their phone.

 

[RLPhoto]

Eye Fi card to what network? You walk around with your laptop constantly powered up in case of flying dragons with shark riders? Well now just find a network and upload it. Or you mean to Eye-Fi's proprietary storage? Well all you need to do now, if you were connected to a network that EyeFi worked with and was registered to, is go online, log in to your EyeFi account, find the folder and image and then forward it. All assuming the EyeFi card didn't flatten your G15 battery hours ago trying to upload crappy images via a non existant connection. I have EyeFi cards! Meanwhile I ordered us up some cappuccinos and paid for it with my utility belt phone.

Look, this has all gotten silly, and is a bit of fun, but my original point was P&S cameras have inherent limitations that some people can work with, some people can't or don't want to and most, going by sales numbers, just ignore and use their phone.

http://support.eye.fi/features/direct/direct-mode-faq/

It's called Direct Mode. Your incredibly naive and presumptious to even think that a phone camera will do better than a Good P&S .

Yes, you would have your grainy, slow shutter speed blurred, badly composed images on your phone with un-recognizable subjects and I would have Press Gold. 8)

 

[privatebydesign]

"It's called Direct Mode."

And that is what I described above, clearly you haven't used the device about which you preach. I have.

"Your [sic] incredibly naive and presumptious [sic] to even think that a phone camera will do better than a Good P&S ."

I didn't, what I said was given your pathetic excuse for an imaginary scenario I would get the scoop, CNN, NYT, etc wouldn't give a damn if the dragon riding shark was shot with an iPhone or a G15, the first one to get the images to them would be the one. Similarly, if I unexpectedly bump into some long missed friend in a cafe in BKK completely by coincidence (true story), I wouldn't care if the image to remember the event was a bad grainy phone image or a slightly less grainy P&S image, for ShitFace and MyBlog they are both equally adaquate.

 

[hgraf]

No, I would have taken the picture of the dragon instantly with my phone whilst you waited in vain for your G15 to power up and then fail to achieve AF. Still on my phone I would email the images to a publicist who could maximise the return. You would be searching for a power outlet for your laptop and my images would be on CNN. I would have the scoop, you would have slightly less grainy crap images.

Now I really wondering if you're just trolling.

My P&S (and it's a cheap one) powers up easily as fast, if not faster then any cell phone I've used.

The pictures it produces are VASTLY better in lower light then ANY cell phone. Physics can't be escaped from here, the cell phone sensor is smaller then pretty much any P&S.

As a result, your picture will very likely not be in focus, have tons of motion blur, and will be monster grainy. I'm not sure if you've used modern P&S cameras, but focus speed and accuracy is actually quite good. Yes, not as good as a DSLR, but VASTLY better then any smartphone camera.

 

[hgraf]

Eye Fi card to what network? You walk around with your laptop constantly powered up in case of flying dragons with shark riders? Well now just find a network and upload it. Or you mean to Eye-Fi's proprietary storage? Well all you need to do now, if you were connected to a network that EyeFi worked with and was registered to, is go online, log in to your EyeFi account, find the folder and image and then forward it. All assuming the EyeFi card didn't flatten your G15 battery hours ago trying to upload crappy images via a non existant connection.

No laptop needed. My eyefi is tethered to my smartphone. Moment I take a picture it's transferred to my phone. It's as easy as a photo take with the cell phone camera?

You say you have eyefi cards? You obviously not researched what these cards can do. You are missing out.

As for battery life? I think something is wrong with your setup. My eyefi card vs. any other SD card I've used has had pretty much zero impact on my battery life.

 

[RLPhoto]

"It's called Direct Mode."

And that is what I described above, clearly you haven't used the device about which you preach. I have.

"Your [sic] incredibly naive and presumptious [sic] to even think that a phone camera will do better than a Good P&S ."

I didn't, what I said was given your pathetic excuse for an imaginary scenario I would get the scoop, CNN, NYT, etc wouldn't give a damn if the dragon riding shark was shot with an iPhone or a G15, the first one to get the images to them would be the one. Similarly, if I unexpectedly bump into some long missed friend in a cafe in BKK completely by coincidence (true story), I wouldn't care if the image to remember the event was a bad grainy phone image or a slightly less grainy P&S image, for ShitFace and MyBlog they are both equally adaquate.

U mad Bro? It's apparent that I'm not the only one here who's factually disputed your arguments in this hypothetical scenario.

 

[privatebydesign]

No, I would have taken the picture of the dragon instantly with my phone whilst you waited in vain for your G15 to power up and then fail to achieve AF. Still on my phone I would email the images to a publicist who could maximise the return. You would be searching for a power outlet for your laptop and my images would be on CNN. I would have the scoop, you would have slightly less grainy crap images.

Now I really wondering if you're just trolling.

My P&S (and it's a cheap one) powers up easily as fast, if not faster then any cell phone I've used.

The pictures it produces are VASTLY better in lower light then ANY cell phone. Physics can't be escaped from here, the cell phone sensor is smaller then pretty much any P&S.

As a result, your picture will very likely not be in focus, have tons of motion blur, and will be monster grainy. I'm not sure if you've used modern P&S cameras, but focus speed and accuracy is actually quite good. Yes, not as good as a DSLR, but VASTLY better then any smartphone camera.

It might power up faster from off, but when is a cellphone off? Taking a picture with one is much quicker than using a P&S if you are confronted with a dragon riding shark.

It is funny though because now you are raising the exact same points for your argument in support of a P&S vs a cellphone that you are lambasting me for daring to mention about P&S's vs DSLR's.

Take a moment to formulate your thoughts, then get back to me.

 

[privatebydesign]

Eye Fi card to what network? You walk around with your laptop constantly powered up in case of flying dragons with shark riders? Well now just find a network and upload it. Or you mean to Eye-Fi's proprietary storage? Well all you need to do now, if you were connected to a network that EyeFi worked with and was registered to, is go online, log in to your EyeFi account, find the folder and image and then forward it. All assuming the EyeFi card didn't flatten your G15 battery hours ago trying to upload crappy images via a non existant connection.

No laptop needed. My eyefi is tethered to my smartphone. Moment I take a picture it's transferred to my phone. It's as easy as a photo take with the cell phone camera?

You say you have eyefi cards? You obviously not researched what these cards can do. You are missing out.

As for battery life? I think something is wrong with your setup. My eyefi card vs. any other SD card I've used has had pretty much zero impact on my battery life.

Well you have a magic EyeFi, my battery drainage, and as reported by many others, is pretty high. I am not missing anything at all. I used the EyeFi for a good while, decided it didn't work for me and don't use it anymore. I shoot RAW, EyeFi RAW transfer speeds are pathetic.

But you are piling side distraction upon side distraction. EyeFi cards to transmit the images of a dragon riding shark to your phone so you have better IQ for CNN and NYT than me! Is that really the best defense you can put up for a P&S?

As I said, take a moment to gather your thoughts, then get back to me, but try to come up with something insightful and practical, I have had enough of dragon riding sharks.

This all started because I pointed out a 100mm f13 equivalent lens wasn't anything to get too excited about; is it? Really?

 

[privatebydesign]

"It's called Direct Mode."

And that is what I described above, clearly you haven't used the device about which you preach. I have.

"Your [sic] incredibly naive and presumptious [sic] to even think that a phone camera will do better than a Good P&S ."

I didn't, what I said was given your pathetic excuse for an imaginary scenario I would get the scoop, CNN, NYT, etc wouldn't give a damn if the dragon riding shark was shot with an iPhone or a G15, the first one to get the images to them would be the one. Similarly, if I unexpectedly bump into some long missed friend in a cafe in BKK completely by coincidence (true story), I wouldn't care if the image to remember the event was a bad grainy phone image or a slightly less grainy P&S image, for ShitFace and MyBlog they are both equally adaquate.

U mad Bro? It's apparent that I'm not the only one here who's factually disputed your arguments in this hypothetical scenario.

Sorry in this factual discussion about dragon riding sharks I missed something! Duh!

Like I have said, this is all beyond silly, I fail to see how anybody who regularly extols the dramatic benefits of a 135 f1.8 over a 135 f2 or 100 f2.8 can possibly stand up against my opening comment, "a 100mm f13 is nothing too exciting", but like your other threads, you believe if you shout loud enough and long enough you are right.

Whatever. You guys enjoy your 100mm f13 with noise like its shot through a sieve, I have better things to do than point out your contradictions.

 

[RLPhoto]

"It's called Direct Mode."

And that is what I described above, clearly you haven't used the device about which you preach. I have.

"Your [sic] incredibly naive and presumptious [sic] to even think that a phone camera will do better than a Good P&S ."

I didn't, what I said was given your pathetic excuse for an imaginary scenario I would get the scoop, CNN, NYT, etc wouldn't give a damn if the dragon riding shark was shot with an iPhone or a G15, the first one to get the images to them would be the one. Similarly, if I unexpectedly bump into some long missed friend in a cafe in BKK completely by coincidence (true story), I wouldn't care if the image to remember the event was a bad grainy phone image or a slightly less grainy P&S image, for ShitFace and MyBlog they are both equally adaquate.

U mad Bro? It's apparent that I'm not the only one here who's factually disputed your arguments in this hypothetical scenario.

Sorry in this factual discussion about dragon riding sharks I missed something! Duh!

Like I have said, this is all beyond silly, I fail to see how anybody who regularly extols the dramatic benefits of a 135 f1.8 over a 135 f2 or 100 f2.8 can possibly stand up against my opening comment, "a 100mm f13 is nothing too exciting", but like your other threads, you believe if you shout loud enough and long enough you are right.

Whatever. You guys enjoy your 100mm f13 with noise like its shot through a sieve, I have better things to do than point out your contradictions.

I fail to see how anyone as stubborn as yourself, who not only refuses to understand the point made by not only myself but several other users, continues to strive on about 1000% magnification and how the gear is the most important to getting an image. Its strange how you'll never use a P&S but yet, continue to post on about them in a thread about P&S.

I rest my case, other users can clearly discern enough from these posts who is really using the equipment.

 

[hgraf]

It might power up faster from off, but when is a cellphone off? Taking a picture with one is much quicker than using a P&S if you are confronted with a dragon riding shark.

OMG, seriously? Fine, I'll feed this last piece of troll food just to make you happy:

by "off", I meant standby. To take my phone, press the power button, swipe it to activate the "camera" app EASILY takes as long, if not longer then pressing the actual "power" button on my P&S and waiting for it to be ready to take a picture.

I can do both in about the same amount of time. I just tried it. My P&S was ready to take a picture in about 1.5 seconds (hard to time more accurately then that). My smartphone took about 2 seconds. Both pretty meaningless it total time and IMHO equivalent.

With a response like what you just gave me, I've decided that you are trolling. As such, I will no longer "debate" with you. To others: please don't feed the trolls.

 

[privatebydesign]

And once again both of you fall into the trap of worrying about irrelevant side issues that you yourselves raised.

Which of you disputes my original point, "a 100mm f13 equivalent lens is nothing to get too excited about" , and why?

@hgraf,

You don't see the paradox of you extolling the virtues of a P&S over a phone using exactly the same metrics, faster, more responsive, better IQ etc, that I used to dismiss the P&S output most of the time, for my use, when compared to a DSLR? Comical.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Back to original post, I think that sounds great. I would love an upgrade for my S100. Pocketable, faster AF and higher resolution then I am likely to ask my wife get me one for Christmas.