Prev: American Third Position Political Party
Next: |GG| Re: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains
From: LOL! on 19 Jan 2010 02:07
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:42:34 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:

>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
>> Is this sort of stuff documented somewhere? For example, even with
>> the Panasonic teleconverter, the adapter needed depends on the model
>> of the camera, and the FZ35 isn't listed in a lot of places because
>> it's new. The Panasonic manual tells me which Panasonic converter
>> and adapter works with the FZ35; it sure ain't gonna tell me which
>> Nikon parts to use. Or is the Nikon converter made to match the
>> Panasonic camera?
>
>No, it isn't really documented. You have to search for it. But it's been
>common practice to use tele-converters and wide-angle converters that
>are different brands than the one the camera manufacturer offers for its
>own cameras. The reasons are many. There's optical quality, there's
>threading or lack there-of, and there's the trade-offs in the adapter
>since some adapters block sensors or flashes in the camera body and some
>don't. When I bought a wide-angle converter for my old Canon G2 I ended
>up with an adapter from Lensmate and the converter from Olympus because
>there were so many reports of the limitations of the Canon solution. It
>worked as well as such a kludge could be expected to work, but it took
>what was an excellent point and shoot camera and turned into rather a
>mediocre one.
>
>> I may have misunderstood this, but I thought that in order to acheive
>> a telephoto capability comparable to my 18x zoom plus the teleconverter
>> on an SLR, I would have to get a lens the size of a fireplace log,
>> costing thousands of dollars. Is that not the case?
>
>It may be, but remember what you're really getting with the 18x zoom,
>you're essentially doing a digital zoom because of the tiny sensor in
>the P&S. On a D-SLR you can always crop since the original image is so
>much higher quality to begin with.
>
>Believe me, you're not the first person that's tried to do what you're
>doing with these converter lenses. You do get the extra zoom, but at a
>huge penalty in quality. There's just no way around it.

Keeping in mind that this is advice is coming from a psychotic
pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll, as they all are.

For those that want a laugh and to learn what a psychotic, mommy's-basement
living, virtual-life, role-playing troll that this SMS really is, read
this:

<http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>

LOL!
From: SMS on 19 Jan 2010 02:55
Monroe wrote:

> Ditto. Enjoying mine and allowing me photos that otherwise simply
> wouldn't be there.

Enjoy it for what it is. It's already a super-zoom with 27mm to 486mm.
Don't try to make it extreme wide-angle or create a 700mm telephoto.
Those converter lenses will turn what is a decent super-zoom P&S camera
into a lousy one.
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 19 Jan 2010 03:01
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:37:40 +0000 (UTC), nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
wrote:

>
>In article <4b54ffcd$0$1647$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>,
>SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Believe me, you're not the first person that's tried to do what you're
>>doing with these converter lenses. You do get the extra zoom, but at a
>>huge penalty in quality. There's just no way around it.
>
>When I really know what I am doing, I may graduate to an SLR. I never
>did very well with a borrowed film SLR; I was able to take better pictures
>with my pathetic little Olympus digital camera (I don't know the model
>offhand). The Lumix is much, much better than that Olympus and in a
>price range such that I was able to get one for Christmas. The telephoto
>capability cost only a couple hundred more.
>
>I tested the Lumix at maximum zoom with the teleconverter, and the pictures
>seemed crisp enough when viewed 1:1 on a computer monitor. It should take
>me a little while to become disappointed with the what Lumix can do. I
>hope.

When you get really good at photography then you'll realize that you have
more camera in your hands at this very moment than you'll ever need in
life. The better you become at photography the less you become dependent on
what your camera can do for you--the fewer crutches you'll need.

Those who promote DSLRs fall into one of several online camps:

The virtual-life role-playing troll who only parrots what others say or
what they read somewhere else posted by an equally ignorant troll, just
because they are desperate for acceptance. This comprises the vast majority
of them.

The "I can't get a good photograph so it must be the camera's fault!" camp.
These are the kind that don't even know how to use the mirror in their
bathroom. They are forever hoping that their next DSLR comes included with
a "Talent Mode" some day.

The "You get what you pay for!" camp. These are the ones that made P.T.
Barnum so wealthy with his oft-quoted saying, "There's a sucker born every
minute" and the even older saying of "A fool and his money are soon
parted." If you doubt this to be true just look up any threads (with posted
photo examples) on the Leica M8 camera. For $6,000 you too can get images
just as good as that Barbie Cam sold in a bubble-pack hanging in the
toy-aisle at Walmart. But don't you dare tell an M8 owner that! They got
what they paid for! It MUST be a good camera! LOL The funniest part of all,
the Barbie Cam would last longer. The M8 is prone to having the base crack
off of it while mounted on a tripod, thereby throwing their camera and lens
into the pavement.

Then there's the "Look at me! Look what I'm wearing around my neck!" camp.
They buy cameras to try to impress others. Never learning how to properly
use one.

Another huge camp is the "DSLR-Snapshooters". These are the ones who tout
the virtues of the many features of DSLRs but never find a way to take it
off of auto-everything point and shoot mode. These are the ones who pride
their cameras on being the fastest in auto-focusing, even though all DSLRs
are less accurate than contrast-detection focusing P&S cameras. The fastest
in burst-shooting modes. Because they have to depend on machine-gun methods
to hopefully find one photo out of the bunch that week that might be worth
looking at, but they rarely do. The best auto-exposure methods, where the
camera should decide for them if there's a snow or sand background or a
dark stage curtain behind the subject. They're not bright enough to know
how to compensate for these things themselves, you know, like a real
photographer does. They can also be spotted by their dependency on RAW file
formats. These are the people who only depend on what the camera's
programming suggests, knowing they'll have to fix all their images later to
repair what they failed to do or their camera failed to do in the first
place. Anytime you read from a DSLR proponent that touts the virtues of one
of their automatic features you can be 100% sure you are hearing from a
lowly snapshooter, not a photographer.

The "Gear Head & Bit-Head" camp. Another huge group that you'll also find
invading newsgroups and setting up residence. Arguing for days and weeks
and months about something like their camera's problem with auto-focusing,
which camera removes dust off the sensor the best, etc. etc. etc. They only
bought a camera to argue about its problems, if they bought any camera at
all that is. They never take any photos with it. Many of these also have
never touched a camera in their life. They just like to theorize what the
best camera must be like. They live in their minds in their mommy's
basements, much like many of the other DSLR-Troll camps.

The "Insecure Buyers" camp. These are the ones that can never make a
decision for themselves in their lives. Living in a shroud of
buyer's-remorse from birth till death. They must find others to justify why
they wasted all that money on that camera, even though they now find that
their photography hasn't improved one little bit. In fact it got worse
because they aren't even bright enough to learn how to use that new camera.
They comprise a large subset of the "I can't get a good photograph so it
must be the camera's fault!" camp.

Then there's the rare rare few from the "Real Photographers" camp. These
are the ones that offer genuine advice and are quickly called "trolls" by
the throngs of online role-playing trolls. Because advice they offer from
real life experience with real cameras is in direct opposition to these
pretend-photographer role-playing idiots. There's nothing more threatening
to them than throwing reality into their pool of deranged imaginings of
hundreds of psychotic role-playing basement-living trolls. Newsgroups are
their only reality and social-contact in life. If they are proved wrong
it's like killing them. They must defend their delusional imaginings or
their virtual-life is over. It's all they have, so you can see why they go
to such great lengths to defend their position on these newsgroups. Most
from the "Real Photographers" camp sometimes give up handing out real
advice altogether, realizing how futile it is, and then just sit back and
read these newsgroups occasionally for the humor contained. The level of
ignorance and stupidity spewed by the throngs of role-playing newsgroup
trolls is often better humor than anything you'll ever find on a stand-up
comedy stage. And it's FREE!

Starting to catch on yet to what these newsgroups are all about?

From: RichA on 19 Jan 2010 19:16
On Jan 19, 3:01 am, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:37:40 +0000 (UTC), nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
> wrote:
>

Teleconverters as screw-on auxiliary lenses for P&S's are generally
junk. In order to properly cover the FOV of a superzoom, they have to
be hugely large and heavy, in some cases heavier than a lens used on a
DSLR. In addition, the optical match between superzoom camera lenses
and the converters is poor because they are basically a huge
compromise over a specific DSLR lens meant to reach a certain focal
length. The result is as expected, blurred edge detail, horrible
chromatic aberration, annoying residual spherical aberration and a
general slowdown in the already slow responsivity of all P&S's,
especially the glacially-slow and often inaccurate focusing of a
superzoom at full zoom. In addition, when they are built to the
physical size needed to properly (or sort of properly) cover the FOV,
their cost is high.
From: SMS on 19 Jan 2010 19:54
RichA wrote:

> Teleconverters as screw-on auxiliary lenses for P&S's are generally
> junk. In order to properly cover the FOV of a superzoom, they have to
> be hugely large and heavy, in some cases heavier than a lens used on a
> DSLR. In addition, the optical match between superzoom camera lenses
> and the converters is poor because they are basically a huge
> compromise over a specific DSLR lens meant to reach a certain focal
> length. The result is as expected, blurred edge detail, horrible
> chromatic aberration, annoying residual spherical aberration and a
> general slowdown in the already slow responsivity of all P&S's,
> especially the glacially-slow and often inaccurate focusing of a
> superzoom at full zoom. In addition, when they are built to the
> physical size needed to properly (or sort of properly) cover the FOV,
> their cost is high.

All very true. The other issue here is that the FZ-35 is already a
super-zoom, 27-486mm. It was one thing when you had a P&S with a 35-140
lens to want to add more telephoto or more wide-angle, but let's be
practical here. You've already got a lens on the FZ-35 which is a
tremendous compromise, and you don't want to make things worse with a
screw-on converter with it's lack of optical matching between the
element of the camera lens and the converter lens. Autofocus is
compromised when you add these converters, and manual focusing on a P&S
is not nearly as accurate as on an SLR.

I can definitely see the appeal of the FZ-35 with it's wide focal range,
though personally the compromises in such a camera are not something I'd
want to put up with. If I'm going to carry something that large it'll be
an SLR. When I don't want to carry an SLR I have an SD800 with it's 28mm
(at the wide end lens), and the kids have their A570 IS's. With CHDK
installed they're very capable point and shoot cameras, but they're
still P&S cameras with all their limitations. I'm a big fan of CHDK, and
I've authored a good bit of the documentation, but unfortunately it
doesn't turn a P&S into a D-SLR.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: American Third Position Political Party
Next: |GG| Re: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains