I think no one can say what 99% of users really do with their pics - except we can find a quoteable study about that.
Nictita...of course I can say that. It's common sense and we don't need some survey. We buy a camera to view images....no? So how
do we view images? Two ways (mostly). You can either view them on
print or on a
monitor. That would equate for 99% of people useage, no problem.
And for the smallest common print (6x4) and for viewing on a small monitor, you will need a image with 1600 pixels wide....which is exactly what I asked Dave to produce or else I don't see the point of his thread.
Thinking about my relatives I would say they do small prints maybe for greeting cards. Or sending the pics via email, but then downsized to reduce the volumina.
There you go. You just supported my claim with that example. You will need at least an image of 1600 pixels wide for a small print or to share with friends for them to view properly. You relatives fall under my 99% estimation.
Most of the persons I know would say at a LCD-TV-show "what a nice flower" and would not notice any difference between a noisy 800 shot and a clear 100 one. How many people have a well balanced screen - or photographers eyes?
But
you will know. That is what matters. It's
you who spent the money on the camera....not your friends. And it is mostly
you who will end up with the images on
your computer for your own personal memories/viewing in years ahead.....and
you will know a crappy ISO800 shot from a decent ISO100 shot.
That's the bottom line. If its not....sure you might as well use an iPhone if that's the case!! What's the point in buying a camera at all, so?
I can only speak for myself. I do share my images with others too. And those people wouldn't be as photo savy as me....but at the end of the day they still remain in
my possession for
my memories too, and I have to look at them more than them
and with a more trained eye. And believe me, I have often wished that some of my old holiday shots from places were I can't visit again, were taken with a better quality camera than what I had with me then.
For many years on holidays, I always left my DSLR at home and brought a P&S. I used to convince myself that the bulk was too much to carry because I travelled by motorbike. This year I took my D5000 and 16-85VR and the results were light years ahead of any P&S that I have used in the past.
And even the novices noticed. And I wasn't too troubled by the bulk either. It was all in the mind! A selection from the last holiday:
...and believe me, I would tell a ISO3200 shot from the D5000 from the HS10 a mile away and probably my friends too.
On the other hand, this is a forum for photographers and, yes, to see what a camera can do, the size does matter.
I think that was the whole point of my response. Most people want to pixel peep at 100% level to see what's going on.
I wasn't even looking for that. I just wanted to view them
normally on a monitor with no enlargement at all.
I couldn't do that. So what's the point in posting web size images unless you are either trying to hide something, or are trying to overexaggerate the performance of what the HS10 can do, or perhaps the author of the thread wants to get some kind of "feel good factor" knowing that there are plenty of people here who are oblivious to the fact that these are not a representation of the final image for general purpose use, and who will respond to the OP with a attaboy response.
These are ISO 800 shots I have done with the HS10 (close-up-lens) a while ago and already posted.
The first one as it is, the second is a pano from 2x24 mm raws, ISO 800, f 2.8, 1/15 (handheld) and downsized a bit.
Thanks Nictita. Now these are a decent level to see what the HS10 does at ISO800. Sorry and no offence.....the subjects are nice and you photo skills are pretty good, but all I can say about the
technical quality of these results is that you are lucky you have people who don't know ISO800 from ISO100.
--
Stephen
