On Mar 29, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Olin Lathrop wrote:

> What they mean under "normal viewing conditions" is a totally =20
> different
> matter.  First, what are "normal viewing conditions"?  Does that =20
> mean a
> picture in a web page where it probably gets 1000 pixels accross or =20
> less?

Well, that was what you were mentioning on your test photo page.  And =20
they were "artistic" rather than technical photos, so perhaps it would =20
be difficult to tell the noise from the leaves in any case.  It was =20
sort of a "if I'm publishing this sort of photo on a web page, I have =20
proven that I can leave the ISO setting up in the stratosphere", and I =20
was thinking that if you're going to publish that sort of photo on a =20
web page, you could have used a $200 P&S...  For the sort of technical =20
photography someone else was mentioning, the quality improvements you =20
get from a solid tripod and good lighting setup are probably more =20
significant than what you get from going from a $1000 to a $5000 =20
camera.  Maybe...

My own photophile leanings have been strongly challenged by the whole =20
"convenience vs quality" debate.  The last three times I've made the =20
SLR vs All-in-1 decision, I've come down on the latter side.  And I've =20
started carrying around one of those flattish P&S cameras in my waist =20
pack...

BillW

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.