• From Canon EOS 600D to a new mirror-less Canon camera body?

    From Bengt_T@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 12 12:08:41 2021
    My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.

    I am considering to invest in a new mirror less Canon camera body than can use my present set of lenses. For initial selection I kindly ask for guidance in which body, or bodies, to "investigate".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to bengt_tornqvist@hotmail.com on Wed Oct 13 09:31:51 2021
    On 2021-10-12, Bengt_T <bengt_tornqvist@hotmail.com> wrote:
    My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.

    I am considering to invest in a new mirror less Canon camera body than can use my present set of lenses. For initial selection I kindly ask for guidance in which body, or bodies, to "investigate".

    Canon's sensors are seriously lacking in dynamic range. I'd ditch the
    whole lot and go with a full frame Nikon.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to David Taylor on Wed Oct 13 12:55:17 2021
    On 2021-10-13, David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
    On 13/10/2021 10:31, Incubus wrote:
    Canon's sensors are seriously lacking in dynamic range. I'd ditch the
    whole lot and go with a full frame Nikon.

    All that full-frame kit is too big and too heavy.

    Are you a pygmy?

    When I "ditched the whole
    lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.

    I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.

    Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always have with me!

    I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
    video.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Taylor@21:1/5 to Incubus on Wed Oct 13 13:41:50 2021
    On 13/10/2021 10:31, Incubus wrote:
    Canon's sensors are seriously lacking in dynamic range. I'd ditch the
    whole lot and go with a full frame Nikon.

    All that full-frame kit is too big and too heavy. When I "ditched the whole lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.

    Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always have with me!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Taylor@21:1/5 to Incubus on Wed Oct 13 14:23:28 2021
    On 13/10/2021 13:55, Incubus wrote:
    Are you a pygmy?

    When I "ditched the whole
    lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
    quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
    I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.

    Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always >> have with me!
    I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
    video.

    Probably compared to many people I am rather small, but I don't have a car so anywhere I go (these days?) I have to carry my kit with me. Weight matters!

    You would be surprised how low a light level modern phones can shoot, certainly below naked eye visibility. Automatically takes and stacks exposures up to a minute.

    I take photos for personal interest - not for sale, and I don't have a studio setup. The micro-four-thirds is easily capable of studio-quality work, though.

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Wed Oct 13 09:21:16 2021
    In article <slrnsmdlpr.r82.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:


    I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
    video.

    there's no requirement that it be used.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RJH@21:1/5 to david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.inval on Wed Oct 13 14:36:33 2021
    On 13 Oct 2021 at 14:23:28 BST, "David Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

    On 13/10/2021 13:55, Incubus wrote:
    Are you a pygmy?

    When I "ditched the whole
    lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
    quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
    I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.

    Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always
    have with me!
    I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
    video.

    Probably compared to many people I am rather small, but I don't have a car so anywhere I go (these days?) I have to carry my kit with me. Weight matters!


    Absolutely - a DSLR and a few lenses can easily top 5kg. I'd be surprised if
    my micro 4/3 and 2 basic lenses are more than 1kg. Whatever, it's a big reason why I don't use my DSLR any more . . .

    You would be surprised how low a light level modern phones can shoot, certainly
    below naked eye visibility. Automatically takes and stacks exposures up to a minute.

    The iphone 12 takes some astonishing night time photos - picking out detail I can't see.

    --
    Cheers, Rob

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to nospam on Wed Oct 13 15:04:44 2021
    On 2021-10-13, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmdlpr.r82.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:


    I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
    video.

    there's no requirement that it be used.

    It does add extra cost and weight, though.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to nospam on Wed Oct 13 15:57:43 2021
    On 2021-10-13, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmdtci.eg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
    video.

    there's no requirement that it be used.

    It does add extra cost and weight, though.

    video capabilities in an slr adds *zero* weight or cost. it's entirely
    in firmware and nothing more than an extension of live view that saves
    to a file.

    It's a feature that requires additional testing, which has an overhead.
    The research and design also increases overheads, particularly if a
    camera manufacturer decides to use a more expensive sensor so that more resolution is available with video. Additionally, it requires a fast
    enough buffer for writing.

    for phones, there is a non-zero cost to adding a camera when there
    would otherwise not be one, but a phone without a camera would not
    sell, so it's a must-have feature. the added weight is negligible. the
    issue with recent phones is thickness.

    A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
    feature. People really are strange.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Wed Oct 13 11:24:44 2021
    In article <slrnsmdtci.eg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
    video.

    there's no requirement that it be used.

    It does add extra cost and weight, though.

    video capabilities in an slr adds *zero* weight or cost. it's entirely
    in firmware and nothing more than an extension of live view that saves
    to a file.

    for phones, there is a non-zero cost to adding a camera when there
    would otherwise not be one, but a phone without a camera would not
    sell, so it's a must-have feature. the added weight is negligible. the
    issue with recent phones is thickness.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Wed Oct 13 12:20:20 2021
    In article <slrnsme0ft.45q.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do >> >> video.

    there's no requirement that it be used.

    It does add extra cost and weight, though.

    video capabilities in an slr adds *zero* weight or cost. it's entirely
    in firmware and nothing more than an extension of live view that saves
    to a file.

    It's a feature that requires additional testing, which has an overhead.

    the overhead is negligible. live view is already there, so all they
    need to do is save the data stream to a file and add a few menu items.

    The research and design also increases overheads, particularly if a
    camera manufacturer decides to use a more expensive sensor so that more resolution is available with video. Additionally, it requires a fast
    enough buffer for writing.

    buffers are big for other purposes, namely number of stills before
    locking up.

    for phones, there is a non-zero cost to adding a camera when there
    would otherwise not be one, but a phone without a camera would not
    sell, so it's a must-have feature. the added weight is negligible. the issue with recent phones is thickness.

    A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
    feature. People really are strange.

    it's a very useful feature. just used it minutes ago, in fact.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alfred Molon@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 13 19:16:07 2021
    Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
    A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
    feature. People really are strange.

    It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.

    My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
    exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
    --
    Alfred Molon

    Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
    https://groups.io/g/myolympus
    https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From -hh@21:1/5 to RJH on Wed Oct 13 14:59:46 2021
    On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:36:36 AM UTC-4, RJH wrote:
    On 13 Oct 2021 at 14:23:28 BST, "David Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

    On 13/10/2021 13:55, Incubus wrote:
    Are you a pygmy?

    When I "ditched the whole
    lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
    quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.

    I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.

    Nah, there’s also techniques too. We did that for an ad hoc night photo taken with an iPhone5 which came out so well that we ended up using it for the 4x6 in our Christmas card that year.

    Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera
    I always have with me!

    I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
    video.

    Probably compared to many people I am rather small, but I don't have a car so
    anywhere I go (these days?) I have to carry my kit with me. Weight matters!

    Absolutely - a DSLR and a few lenses can easily top 5kg. I'd be surprised if my micro 4/3 and 2 basic lenses are more than 1kg. Whatever, it's a big reason
    why I don't use my DSLR any more . . .

    It’s invariably a capability trade-off. My long reach system is ~12lbs (5.5kg) unpacked,
    and it’s partner is +6lbs more. Another system is IIRC around 8kg unpackaged and
    when packaged for transport is a shade over 20kg…oh, and these were chosen to be
    APS systems, to not be as big/bulky/heavy as a FF.

    You would be surprised how low a light level modern phones can shoot, certainly
    below naked eye visibility. Automatically takes and stacks exposures up to a
    minute.

    The iphone 12 takes some astonishing night time photos - picking out detail I
    can't see.

    Indeed; recent developments have been pretty profound…

    …and FYI, I’m interested in the same question as the OP: what mirrorless noises would be good to compliment my pile of Canon EF glass that I’m not particularly inclined to flip to another brand without huge justification?

    -hh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Savageduck@21:1/5 to Incubus on Wed Oct 13 14:22:36 2021
    On Oct 13, 2021, Incubus wrote
    (in article<slrnsmdtci.eg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):

    On 2021-10-13, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article<slrnsmdlpr.r82.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:


    I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do video.

    there's no requirement that it be used.

    It does add extra cost and weight, though.

    Video adds extra “weight”!??

    Your understanding of added functions in modern digital cameras seems to be either distorted, or lacking. Explain yourself sir!

    --
    Regards,
    Savageduck

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From -hh@21:1/5 to Savageduck on Wed Oct 13 15:03:10 2021
    On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 5:22:44 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
    On Oct 13, 2021, Incubus wrote
    (in article<slrnsmdtci....@localhost.localdomain>):
    On 2021-10-13, nospam<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article<slrnsmdlpr....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:


    I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do video.

    there's no requirement that it be used.

    It does add extra cost and weight, though.
    Video adds extra “weight”!??

    Your understanding of added functions in modern digital cameras seems to be either distorted, or lacking. Explain yourself sir!

    Perhaps he’s referring to all of the extra widgets that one ends up buying to also do video…

    …but these are offset by the lighter wallet! <g>

    -hh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to Alfred Molon on Thu Oct 14 08:32:51 2021
    On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
    A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
    feature. People really are strange.

    It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.

    My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
    exclusively user her phone to take pictures.

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a telephone.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to -hh on Thu Oct 14 11:02:30 2021
    On 2021-10-14, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:32:54 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
    A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
    feature. People really are strange.

    It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.

    My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
    exclusively user her phone to take pictures.

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
    on a telephone.

    Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".

    The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, are a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.

    It depends on one's perspective. Personal convenience comes at a
    broader cost but most people are sheep who know nothing about
    technology.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From -hh@21:1/5 to Incubus on Thu Oct 14 03:16:15 2021
    On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:32:54 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
    A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
    feature. People really are strange.

    It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.

    My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
    exclusively user her phone to take pictures.

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
    on a telephone.

    Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".

    The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, are
    a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.


    -hh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Thu Oct 14 07:46:27 2021
    In article <slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a telephone.

    such as?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Whisky-dave@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Oct 14 05:34:10 2021
    On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 12:46:30 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    In article <slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a telephone.
    such as?

    if you're stupid or clumse you keep taking pictures of your ear while talking on the phone. ;-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From -hh@21:1/5 to Incubus on Thu Oct 14 05:34:39 2021
    On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 7:02:33 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-14, -hh wrote:
    On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:32:54 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
    A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
    feature. People really are strange.

    It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.

    My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
    exclusively user her phone to take pictures.

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
    on a telephone.

    Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".

    The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, are
    a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.

    It depends on one's perspective. Personal convenience comes at a
    broader cost but most people are sheep who know nothing about
    technology.

    Of course there's trade-offs, but the point still stands that "any" pic is better
    than "no" pic, because the very first requirement is to have a recording device.

    Thus, the "have it with you" that I mentioned, which is referring to Chase Jarvis's
    2009 book, "The Best Camera: Is the One That's With You".

    FYI, if you're not familiar with Mr. Jarvis, try reading his Wiki page: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_Jarvis#Awards_and_recognition>

    Since he said that back in 2009, the advancements in underlying technologies have enabled even smartphone cameras to reliably produce better quality images than a full frame 35mm film camera's general capability, at a fraction of the cost,
    weight, and size. It doesn't effectively matter that there's even better digital SLRs
    that have pushed the limits higher, because that's often chasing niche or edge cases: a technology only needs to be good enough for the primarily intended applications, and for this criteria, smartphones have already demonstrated that they surpass this 'good enough for the intended use' criteria for many applications.

    Is it all applications? Of course not. But then again, there's also no full frame dSLR
    camera that's able to do everything without needing hardware modifications such as changing lenses, so this is a disingenuous criteria to try to selectively apply.

    -hh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Whisky-dave@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 14 05:41:54 2021
    On Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 20:08:44 UTC+1, Bengt_T wrote:
    My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.

    I am considering to invest in a new mirror less Canon camera body than can use my present set of lenses. For initial selection I kindly ask for guidance in which body, or bodies, to "investigate".

    I bought a canon ESO M6 MkII that I'm really happy with, but you'll need EF-EOS M mount adapter to use
    the EF and EF-S, lenes.

    I bought the 'kit' which was the body + lens + electronic viewfinder that attches to the hot-shoe.
    Because of it's small size it can fit in a jacket pocket without too many issues or take the lens off which is far smaller than the one that came with the M3 I had previously.
    I was presently suprised at how good the electronic viewfinder was no noticable lag and have used it more than I
    thought I would.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Whisky-dave@21:1/5 to Incubus on Thu Oct 14 06:08:30 2021
    On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 12:02:33 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-14, -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:32:54 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
    A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
    feature. People really are strange.

    It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.

    My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
    exclusively user her phone to take pictures.

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
    on a telephone.

    Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".

    The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, are
    a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.
    It depends on one's perspective. Personal convenience comes at a
    broader cost but most people are sheep who know nothing about
    technology.

    Technology should be transparent to the user unless they have an interest in the technology.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Oct 14 13:35:08 2021
    On 2021-10-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
    telephone.

    such as?

    The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
    consumer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From -hh@21:1/5 to Incubus on Thu Oct 14 06:41:51 2021
    On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 9:35:11 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-14, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a >> telephone.

    such as?

    The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
    consumer.

    So claimed the horse buggy whip manufacturers ... /s


    -hh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Thu Oct 14 11:09:57 2021
    In article <slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a >> telephone.

    such as?

    The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
    consumer.

    what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
    before.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Savageduck@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 14 07:19:48 2021
    On Oct 14, 2021, Whisky-dave wrote
    (in article<326e928a-3060-4c7d-93f8-f77a8721c160n@googlegroups.com>):

    On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 12:46:30 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    In article<slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a telephone.
    such as?

    if you're stupid or clumse you keep taking pictures of your ear while talking on the phone. ;-)

    Worse! Shooting video in portrait orientation.

    --
    Regards,
    Savageduck

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill W@21:1/5 to Incubus on Thu Oct 14 09:59:33 2021
    On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
    (in article<slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):

    On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a telephone.

    such as?

    The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
    consumer.

    Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Whisky-dave@21:1/5 to Savageduck on Thu Oct 14 08:40:59 2021
    On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 15:19:56 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    On Oct 14, 2021, Whisky-dave wrote
    (in article<326e928a-3060-4c7d...@googlegroups.com>):
    On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 12:46:30 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    In article<slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
    telephone.
    such as?

    if you're stupid or clumse you keep taking pictures of your ear while talking on the phone. ;-)
    Worse! Shooting video in portrait orientation.

    --
    Regards,
    Savageduck

    Yeah that is bad, keep telling my facebook friends not to do it.
    There's a very few occaions when it's OK, but normally it looks crap and annoying.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to nospam on Thu Oct 14 16:29:30 2021
    On 2021-10-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a >> >> telephone.

    such as?

    The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
    consumer.

    what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
    before.

    Lack of competition from camera brands as they go bust. Emphasis on bad
    photos from camera 'phones.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to Bill W on Thu Oct 14 16:17:49 2021
    On 2021-10-14, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
    (in article<slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):

    On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a >> > > telephone.

    such as?

    The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
    consumer.

    Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.

    People don't know what they want. They love being sold to. Some people actually looked forward to digital television despite it being vastly
    inferior to PAL (even HD is a joke). People buy DAB radios where the
    quality is like an MP3 from the '90s and most of the stations broadcast
    in mono. They want to share photos of their food on Facebook and
    Instagram rather than learning photography. You respect their "choices"
    far more than I.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill W@21:1/5 to Incubus on Thu Oct 14 11:31:11 2021
    On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
    (in article<slrnsmgm1k.q22.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):

    On 2021-10-14, Bill W<nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
    (in article<slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):

    On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
    telephone.

    such as?

    The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the consumer.

    Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.

    People don't know what they want. They love being sold to. Some people actually looked forward to digital television despite it being vastly inferior to PAL (even HD is a joke). People buy DAB radios where the
    quality is like an MP3 from the '90s and most of the stations broadcast
    in mono. They want to share photos of their food on Facebook and
    Instagram rather than learning photography. You respect their "choices"
    far more than I.

    I guess I come up short in the arrogance department. We should all strive to
    be more like you, and to know what others really need and want better than
    they do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to Bill W on Thu Oct 14 16:47:22 2021
    On 2021-10-14, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
    (in article<slrnsmgm1k.q22.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):

    On 2021-10-14, Bill W<nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
    (in article<slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):

    On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
    telephone.

    such as?

    The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
    consumer.

    Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.

    People don't know what they want. They love being sold to. Some people
    actually looked forward to digital television despite it being vastly
    inferior to PAL (even HD is a joke). People buy DAB radios where the
    quality is like an MP3 from the '90s and most of the stations broadcast
    in mono. They want to share photos of their food on Facebook and
    Instagram rather than learning photography. You respect their "choices"
    far more than I.

    I guess I come up short in the arrogance department. We should all strive to be more like you, and to know what others really need and want better than they do.

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image quality.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alfred Molon@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 14 19:05:34 2021
    Am 14.10.2021 um 18:29 schrieb Incubus:
    On 2021-10-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a >>>>> telephone.

    such as?

    The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
    consumer.

    what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
    before.

    Lack of competition from camera brands as they go bust. Emphasis on bad photos from camera 'phones.

    The development of the camera market is similar to the rise and decline
    of high end audio ("high fidelity").

    For some time in the 1980s and 1990s people were spending significant
    money on high end audio systems and every household was supposed to have
    a "Hi-Fi system" in the living room.

    Nowadays all music comes from smartphones and wireless earbuds / earphones.

    It's the same for cameras. Obviously a 100MP MF camera will deliver
    superb quality, but for most people a 12MP shot from a smartphone is
    good enough.
    --
    Alfred Molon

    Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
    https://groups.io/g/myolympus
    https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Thu Oct 14 13:30:38 2021
    In article <slrnsmgmng.q22.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
    telephone.

    such as?

    The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
    consumer.

    what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
    before.

    Lack of competition from camera brands as they go bust. Emphasis on bad photos from camera 'phones.

    there's plenty of competition. nothing prevents nikon or canon from
    doing what apple and google are doing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to alfred_molon@yahoo.com on Thu Oct 14 13:30:40 2021
    In article <yrZ9J.678165$QHsf.311057@fx12.ams1>, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

    The development of the camera market is similar to the rise and decline
    of high end audio ("high fidelity").

    it's not similar at all.

    high end audio is nothing more than snake oil designed to separate
    people from their money.

    cameras just keep on getting better.

    the only 'snake oil' camera is sigma/foveon, which is pure rubbish.
    actually, that's an insult to rubbish.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill W@21:1/5 to Alfred Molon on Thu Oct 14 12:44:18 2021
    On Oct 14, 2021, Alfred Molon wrote
    (in article <yrZ9J.678165$QHsf.311057@fx12.ams1>):

    Nowadays all music comes from smartphones and wireless earbuds / earphones.

    All?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fishrrman@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 14 23:30:48 2021
    On 10/12/21 3:08 PM, Bengt_T wrote:
    My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.

    Which lenses do you have?
    Are they all EF-s?
    Or any EF's (non-s)?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bengt_T@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 15 00:39:28 2021
    fredag 15 oktober 2021 kl. 05:30:54 UTC+2 skrev Fishrrman:
    On 10/12/21 3:08 PM, Bengt_T wrote:
    My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.
    Which lenses do you have?
    Are they all EF-s?
    Or any EF's (non-s)?

    My lenses are all EF-S lenses.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Oct 15 08:32:43 2021
    On 2021-10-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmgnp1.r2c.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:


    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
    quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to Bill W on Fri Oct 15 08:33:19 2021
    On 2021-10-14, Bill W <nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On Oct 14, 2021, Alfred Molon wrote
    (in article <yrZ9J.678165$QHsf.311057@fx12.ams1>):

    Nowadays all music comes from smartphones and wireless earbuds / earphones.

    All?

    I use a Sony Discman with professional wired headphones.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Fri Oct 15 04:36:53 2021
    In article <slrnsmif5h.3bg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image >> quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    broadcast tv isn't the only source.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Oct 15 09:20:01 2021
    On 2021-10-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmif5h.3bg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image >> >> quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    broadcast tv isn't the only source.

    It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
    and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
    the appalling standard of broadcast television.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Whisky-dave@21:1/5 to Incubus on Fri Oct 15 05:11:21 2021
    On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
    quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    broadcast tv isn't the only source.
    It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
    and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
    the appalling standard of broadcast television.

    And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
    pay for it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Fri Oct 15 09:29:19 2021
    In article <slrnsmihu7.4sm.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and
    image
    quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    broadcast tv isn't the only source.

    It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
    and soon 8K

    bluray is obsolete.

    buy/rent movies or create your own 4k/8k hdr content, including via a
    phone.

    but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
    the appalling standard of broadcast television.

    again, broadcast tv is not the only source, and it will change to
    support higher quality anyway.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to nospam on Fri Oct 15 14:23:34 2021
    On 2021-10-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmihu7.4sm.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and
    image
    quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    broadcast tv isn't the only source.

    It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
    and soon 8K

    bluray is obsolete.

    Really? There are shelves full of BluRay films in HMV.

    buy/rent movies or create your own 4k/8k hdr content, including via a
    phone.

    but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
    the appalling standard of broadcast television.

    again, broadcast tv is not the only source, and it will change to
    support higher quality anyway.

    It's ironic that moving to digital has put us years behind in terms of broadcast quality. It didn't have to be that way.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to Whisky-dave on Fri Oct 15 14:22:06 2021
    On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
    quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    broadcast tv isn't the only source.
    It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
    and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
    the appalling standard of broadcast television.

    And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
    pay for it.

    We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
    of the content you fucking div.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Fri Oct 15 10:35:43 2021
    In article <slrnsmj3nc.52f.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and >> >> >> image
    quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    broadcast tv isn't the only source.

    It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
    and soon 8K

    bluray is obsolete.

    Really?

    really.

    There are shelves full of BluRay films in HMV.

    they aren't selling very many.

    very few people want to fuss with discs versus a couple of taps to
    stream just about any movie ever made, especially for movies they only
    want to watch once.

    <https://fm-static.cnbc.com/awsmedia/chart/2019/11/08/VIDEO%20MARKET.157 3232240621.png>

    buy/rent movies or create your own 4k/8k hdr content, including via a phone.

    but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
    the appalling standard of broadcast television.

    again, broadcast tv is not the only source, and it will change to
    support higher quality anyway.

    It's ironic that moving to digital has put us years behind in terms of broadcast quality. It didn't have to be that way.

    broadcast tv is yet another thing that's obsolete.

    most people watch cable tv or more commonly, via the internet.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fishrrman@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 17 13:19:33 2021
    On 10/15/21 3:39 AM, Bengt_T wrote:
    My lenses are all EF-S lenses.

    They will work on an R-series camera with the Canon
    adapters... BUT...

    ... the images will be "cropped" automatically. This will
    result in a loss of pixels.

    For example, the EOS R (which I have) is nominally 30mp, but
    when I use one of my EF-s lenses, the resulting cropped
    image is about 10mp.

    Still usable, but definitely "less to work with".

    If you were to get the EOS R5, however, the resulting images
    would be around 18mp in size. However, if one is going to
    spend the $$$$ for the R5, I would think one might also buy
    either R-series lenses or trade in the EF-s glass for EF
    (non "s") glass...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Whisky-dave@21:1/5 to Incubus on Mon Oct 18 05:19:50 2021
    On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:22:11 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
    quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    broadcast tv isn't the only source.
    It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
    and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
    the appalling standard of broadcast television.

    And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
    pay for it.
    We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
    of the content you fucking div.

    And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.
    If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to Whisky-dave on Mon Oct 18 12:46:34 2021
    On 2021-10-18, Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:22:11 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
    quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.

    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    broadcast tv isn't the only source.
    It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
    and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
    the appalling standard of broadcast television.

    And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
    pay for it.
    We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
    of the content you fucking div.

    And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.
    If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.

    We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Whisky-dave@21:1/5 to Incubus on Tue Oct 19 05:13:36 2021
    On Monday, 18 October 2021 at 13:46:39 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-18, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:22:11 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
    quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve. >> >> >>
    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    broadcast tv isn't the only source.
    It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K >> >> and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
    the appalling standard of broadcast television.

    And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
    pay for it.
    We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
    of the content you fucking div.

    And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.
    If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
    We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.


    So you want to go back to 405 lines why.

    I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
    If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and everything worked.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to Whisky-dave on Tue Oct 19 12:41:17 2021
    On 2021-10-19, Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, 18 October 2021 at 13:46:39 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-18, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:22:11 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:

    We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
    quality.

    top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve. >> >> >> >>
    It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.

    broadcast tv isn't the only source.
    It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K >> >> >> and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
    the appalling standard of broadcast television.

    And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
    pay for it.
    We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
    of the content you fucking div.

    And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.
    If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
    We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
    implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.


    So you want to go back to 405 lines why.

    I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
    If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and everything worked.

    405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
    terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Tue Oct 19 08:46:35 2021
    In article <slrnsmtf7j.p2f.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
    We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
    implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.


    So you want to go back to 405 lines why.

    I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
    If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and everything worked.

    405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.

    nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
    better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
    resolution.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to nospam on Tue Oct 19 12:59:40 2021
    On 2021-10-19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmtf7j.p2f.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
    We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
    implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.


    So you want to go back to 405 lines why.

    I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
    If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
    everything worked.

    405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
    terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.

    nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
    better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any resolution.

    Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Tue Oct 19 09:05:36 2021
    In article <slrnsmtga3.1qh.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
    We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
    implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.


    So you want to go back to 405 lines why.

    I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
    If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
    everything worked.

    405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
    terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.

    nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
    better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any resolution.

    Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.

    did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?

    pal/ntsc is significantly inferior. it's not even close.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to nospam on Tue Oct 19 13:09:19 2021
    On 2021-10-19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmtga3.1qh.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
    We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
    implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.


    So you want to go back to 405 lines why.

    I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
    If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
    everything worked.

    405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
    terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.

    nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
    better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
    resolution.

    Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.

    did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?

    Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL. BluRay looks
    nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
    discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.

    pal/ntsc is significantly inferior. it's not even close.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Tue Oct 19 10:15:08 2021
    In article <slrnsmtiou.5j9.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

    Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.

    did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?

    Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.

    you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.

    Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression.

    no it isn't.




    BluRay looks
    nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
    discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.

    broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.

    I'm not measuring the quality of a display. I'm measuring the quality
    of broadcast.

    digital broadcast tv is much better than ntsc/pal, which are close
    enough to be considered the same, especially when compared to the newer
    and higher quality standards.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to u9536612@gmail.com on Tue Oct 19 09:27:41 2021
    In article <slrnsmtgs6.33h.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:


    If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
    We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
    implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.


    So you want to go back to 405 lines why.

    I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
    If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
    everything worked.

    405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks >> >> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.

    nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
    better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
    resolution.

    Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.

    did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?

    Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.

    you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.

    BluRay looks
    nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
    discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.

    broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Whisky-dave@21:1/5 to Incubus on Tue Oct 19 06:53:24 2021
    On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 14:41:48 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-10-19, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmtgs6....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:


    If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker. >> >> >> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard >> >> >> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.


    So you want to go back to 405 lines why.

    I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
    If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and >> >> >> > everything worked.

    405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
    terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare. >> >> >
    nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
    better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
    resolution.

    Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.

    did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?

    Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.

    you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.
    Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression.

    BluRay looks
    nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
    discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.

    broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.
    I'm not measuring the quality of a display. I'm measuring the quality
    of broadcast.

    Make up your mind, if you have one.
    "Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression."
    but what exactly do you mean by "the quality of broadcast"

    sre you refering to showing shakespeare and comparing that to 2 1/2 men ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to nospam on Tue Oct 19 13:41:43 2021
    On 2021-10-19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    In article <slrnsmtgs6.33h.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
    <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:


    If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
    We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard >> >> >> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.


    So you want to go back to 405 lines why.

    I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
    If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
    everything worked.

    405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks >> >> >> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.

    nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
    better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
    resolution.

    Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.

    did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?

    Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.

    you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.

    Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression.


    BluRay looks
    nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
    discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.

    broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.

    I'm not measuring the quality of a display. I'm measuring the quality
    of broadcast.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)