When the Canon 1" sensor?

Started Jun 19, 2014 | Discussions thread
brianj Forum Pro • Posts: 14,657
Re: Where does it lead us?

crashpc wrote:

Greynerd wrote:

My little 1 litre 3 cylinder city car does 70mph without any trouble and took me and my wife 400 miles to Scotland in a day without any trouble or discomfort and averaged over 60 miles per gallon. 150 mph cars are all about ego and nothing else and as you get older these things just become so unimportant which is a relief in many ways. The amazing thing with current technology is the torque and power that can be obtained from small things and that applies to sensors also.

crashpc wrote:

I do agree, but it's not that easy. If you want Very comfortable feeling of your car in 70 or even 90 mph, it needs to be able to make 150, otherwise all you get with slightly higher travel speed will be screaming and rumbling. So the overkill is here for a reason. Anyway we are getting in the situation where almost any device can serve it's better than it was supposed to, and we're getting in very interesting "times of plentyfullnes" we don't even appreciate....

-- hide signature --

Why does he do it?

Of course it does without trouble for you. But it´s inevitable there are more comfortable solutions people can pay for. That´s ones decision, how will he do his things. That redundant performance has some other benefits than just max speed. It IS more comfortable, it´s good for emergencies, you can pull another car with it (happened to me when insurance company refused to help with very special car accident), and the car is propably build to go forever. Mine is 17years old (wow, japanese people managed to put radio, central lock, climatisation, digital panel, electric windows, mirror and seat heating in it at that time) , and still going strong. Old 3l Mercedes can do 2 000 000 km. That new turbocharged 1 litre motors? No way man. I drive about 12000 miles/year, and while this car is not going to fail me, Maybe you buy second or third car before I start to think about another one, so that fuel saving does not win here (money wise). But I have the comfort, speed, safety (of course not universal, but that long "nose" with great motor in front of the car goes to help) and many more things I like. Every solution has it´s great benefits. So please, don´t look at this people like they´re egoists. It´s not true in many cases, and it´s very unhealthy assumption. Many of those did very wise comparison, and while they have different needs, they inevitably needed to make different choices.

The same applies about cameras. If there is chance I can take a shot without flash, I´ll do it 100 times of 100. I save money for flash, and buy better cam with greater sensor, so I propably also have more resolution, less noise and so on, even if I use it at its full potential only when I shoot without flash. Just different need.

What you and greynerd describe is a machine that is 'fit for purpose', but you both have a different purpose.  In the case of the camera, I have a purpose of recording holiday trips and then print them to 6x4 prints, so any cheap camera will do that for me.

Here is my IXUS 330 night shot without flash:

Long Shutter Mode


 brianj's gear list:brianj's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow