by Joe White » Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:19 pm
by radson » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:29 pm
by Damien Gildea » Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:03 pm
FortMental wrote:... you could get full-sensor resolution and performance in a P&S sized body.
There is simply no comparing a large-sensor image to a P&S sized image. It's as simple as that. Even when looking at images on a computer screen, the difference in the level of detail is astounding.
by radson » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:50 pm
by Kai » Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:44 pm
ncst wrote:Kai wrote:Canon S95 Small, good image quality
Lumix LX5 Not quite as small, great image quality, faster lens.
Thanks for all the input. I've been reading some reviews and I might get the Lumix LX5 in the end. Albanberg, I see you took it with you high up in the Andes, so I guess
it handles the cold pretty well.
I currently have a Lumix. I got some weird green lines criss cross over my display earlier this year summittingCotopaxi, although they disappeared some days later. It seemed to me it was rather the display than the battery that got affected by the cold. But I was glad it didn't give in.
by hatidua » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:28 am
by hatidua » Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:22 am
by Kai » Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:24 pm
FortMental wrote:It's a misconception to think that a P&S can do much of what a DSLR can do. A P&S will excel at only ONE thing: fitting into your shirt pocket. Sure, that's a huge plus, but not the main selling point, unless you're James Bond.
by radson » Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:43 pm
In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests