imagemeister wrote:
This is why most reviewers rate them this way ...!
The OP question was basically “what is meant by low light ability ratings”. It was not an invitation to object to the norms of the rating regime.
Your objections have some value but they fail to address the question.
Consider the following example of the existing ratings regime as it stands:
There is a premium semi pocket sized camera with fixed 35/1.8. I try it out and return it for refund. I’ll just stick with my current kit that gives me the same IQ as the camera that I returned, when both cameras are used in the same dim small dingy after hours club.
I prefer my current kit cuz its 28-70/3.5-5.6 kit zoom beautifully nails performers’ expressions at 70mm.
As a bonafide member of the current ratings regime, I rate my camera as a real low light camera, delivering sufficient IQ at f/5.6 in a dim dingy club.
It’s a shame the little camera with the 35/1.8 was such a waste of a fine fast lens. It just wasn’t a real low light design ... hadda be near max aperture to deliver IQ that my own camera delivers at f/5.6 with more tele reach and better DoF.
As a bonafide low light camera rater, I regret the wasted potential of that 35/1.8, cuz I know verrrrry well what my own fast prime delivers when I swap it for the slow zoom on my real low light camera.
imagemeister wrote:
True, BUT if the lens is NOT interchangeable and part of the design of the camera then, it DOES have an impact on "camera" ratings. This pertains to P&S, bridge and other non-interchangeable lens type cameras.
.
Let it go. Nobody’s buying it.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
User ID wrote:
The OP question was basically “what is meant by low light ability ratings”. It was not an invitation to object to the norms of the rating regime.
Your objections have some value but they fail to address the question.
Consider the following example of the existing ratings regime as it stands:
There is a premium semi pocket sized camera with fixed 35/1.8. I try it out and return it for refund. I’ll just stick with my current kit that gives me the same IQ as the camera that I returned, when both cameras are used in the same dim small dingy after hours club.
I prefer my current kit cuz its 28-70/3.5-5.6 kit zoom beautifully nails performers’ expressions at 70mm.
As a bonafide member of the current ratings regime, I rate my camera as a real low light camera, delivering sufficient IQ at f/5.6 in a dim dingy club.
It’s a shame the little camera with the 35/1.8 was such a waste of a fine fast lens. It just wasn’t a real low light design ... hadda be near max aperture to deliver IQ that my own camera delivers at f/5.6 with more tele reach and better DoF.
As a bonafide low light camera rater, I regret the wasted potential of that 35/1.8, cuz I know verrrrry well what my own fast prime delivers when I swap it for the slow zoom on my real low light camera.
The OP question was basically “what is meant by lo... (
show quote)
Remember, Larry equates exposure stops to Fstops in his very unique view of photographic things. . .
imagemeister wrote:
... non-interchangeable lens camera /P&S/bridge camera - all the same to me
Just checked a major reseller - no separate listing for bridge cameras, but they do list P&S. Bridge cameras are included along with pocket cameras.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.