How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: John Navas on 28 Jun 2010 13:51 On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:44:28 -0700, in <4c209421$0$1592$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >The 9-18mm was brought out because Olympus desperately needed a low-end, >low-cost, wide angle lens for Micro four-thirds (which, in general, is a >system that only rank amateurs would ever consider). Nonsense. Serious amateurs and pros use many different kinds of cameras, including Micro Four Thirds. >When you select a D-SLR body it's important to remember than you're >making a long-term commitment to a specific manufacturer and that will >be very expensive to make a change. Spending $500-750 more for an >extreme wide-angle zoom, an extremely useful lens, is one good reason to >not go the Micro four-thirds (or Nikon) route. Nonsense. It's inevitable that Micro Four Thirds will have a full complement of very good glass. >Of course you cannot get >anywhere close to 14mm or 16mm or 18mm at the wide end with a point and >shoot camera where 24mm to 28mm is considered wide angle. Which only matters in a tiny minority of cases, and even then a stitched image is often better. It's pretty funny how you pontificate about a system with which you have zero actual experience. -- Best regards, John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
From: nospam on 28 Jun 2010 13:54 In article <tpnh26tk14io7g1nd9619ie3c32obhtfma(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >There will either need to be some major advancements in sensor and > >optical technology for that to happen, or several laws of physics will > >need to be repealed. > > If it were true that smaller photosites inevitably resulted in worse > images, then newer dSLR cameras with much smaller photosites than older > dSLR cameras would produce much worse images, when in fact they produce > much better images. for a given sensor technology, smaller photosites *will* produce noisier and lower quality images. that is a basic law of physics. > The reason is that it's not that simple -- image > quality depends on many complex factors and tradeoffs. true. modern sensor technology has improved, which offsets photosites getting smaller, as well as improvements in raw processing, etc.
From: John Navas on 28 Jun 2010 13:56 On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:51:42 -0700, in <4c20ce14$0$1643$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >gordito995(a)teranews.com wrote: >> >> "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ccd9a097-d27c-4940-8488-d3124e49cd48(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >>> The original poster is a rank amateur. >> >> The pro does not denigrate others. He is able to rise above that and >> provide positive responses. > >It's denigrating someone to state the fact about their experience level. > Everyone was a "rant amateur" at some point. Hopefully the person >referred to doesn't take it personally and get defensive about their >purchasing decision. In fact he/she may have needed a wide-angle lens >and simply not cared that much about the problems with the low-cost >lens. Of course the real problem is that they got stuck with 4/3 in the >first place and had to make that compromise. If they'd had a Canon APS-C >EOS D-SLR they could have obtained a very high quality extreme >wide-angle lens without spending $1200-1500. That's one of the problems >when you commit to the wrong eco-system of D-SLR. Nonsense. All of the systems are fully capable producing great images. -- Best regards, John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
From: Henry Olson on 28 Jun 2010 14:49 On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:51:33 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:44:28 -0700, in ><4c209421$0$1592$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS ><scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >>The 9-18mm was brought out because Olympus desperately needed a low-end, >>low-cost, wide angle lens for Micro four-thirds (which, in general, is a >>system that only rank amateurs would ever consider). > >Nonsense. Serious amateurs and pros use many different kinds of >cameras, including Micro Four Thirds. > >>When you select a D-SLR body it's important to remember than you're >>making a long-term commitment to a specific manufacturer and that will >>be very expensive to make a change. Spending $500-750 more for an >>extreme wide-angle zoom, an extremely useful lens, is one good reason to >>not go the Micro four-thirds (or Nikon) route. > >Nonsense. It's inevitable that Micro Four Thirds will have a full >complement of very good glass. > >>Of course you cannot get >>anywhere close to 14mm or 16mm or 18mm at the wide end with a point and >>shoot camera where 24mm to 28mm is considered wide angle. Damn. I guess this 16mm wide-angle shot taken on a 36-432mm super-zoom camera by using a 0.25x wide-angle pocket-size adapter doesn't really exist. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4743299674_8ced23efa9_b.jpg I guess I should just delete all of my CA-free images of 9mm (full circular fish-eye) to 36mm taken with that P&S super-zoom and adapter lens combo. According to the SMS GOD they are an affront to his rulings on how the digital-camera universe is supposed to work. Either that, or SMS is a psychotic troll that doesn't know one damn thing about using any cameras and lenses in this universe and has never touched a real camera in his lifetime. Has to be one or the other. Either the above image exists, or SMS is just another resident role-playing pretend-photographer troll. > >Which only matters in a tiny minority of cases, and even then a stitched >image is often better. > >It's pretty funny how you pontificate about a system with which you have >zero actual experience. Ah, that explains it. It's the latter of the two reasons above, thanks. But just to confirm it ... SMS? Is they sky in your world the same color as the sky in that image above? Or is your sky a more mauvey greenishy purplishy checkerboard pattern, as I suspect it must be, or something very similar to that. Maybe it's more morony than mauvey.
From: SMS on 28 Jun 2010 15:27
On 23/06/10 5:12 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: > "SMS"<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message > news:4c211bae$0$1638$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> John McWilliams wrote: >>> SMS wrote: >>>> gordito995(a)teranews.com wrote: >>> >>>>> The pro does not denigrate others. He is able to rise above that and >>>>> provide positive responses. >>>> >>>> It's denigrating someone to state the fact about their experience level. >>>> Everyone was a "rant amateur" at some point. >>> >>> << Snipped bits out>> >>> >>> Was that a typo, or a clever pun?? We do seem to have our share of >>> ranters, both rank and seasoned. >> >> A typo, but maybe a Freudian slip, LOL. It can sometimes be a fine line >> when you explain to others something that they may not want to hear. If >> they're sensitive about having made a mistake they can respond defensively >> or in anger. You certainly see this often on rec.photo.digital. It's an >> attitude that I don't like, but I can accept the fact that there are times >> when I may not have bought the best product for the money, without being >> upset about it. >> >>> IAE, no one seems to be talking about the rank pro vs. seasoned >>> amateur..... >> >> The seasoned amateur does not own a 4:3 or micro 4:3 camera. > > That will come as a surprise to the seasoned amateurs I know who have a 4/3 > system. You're obviously using a different definition of "seasoned amateur." Well it is possible to get decent results with a 4:3 camera but the cost is so ridiculously high because of how much the good lenses cost that few "seasoned amateurs" would go that route. I.e., you can certainly get a good extreme wide-angle lens, the Olympus Zuiko 7-14mm f/4.0 costs over $1400, versus $700 for the Canon extreme wide-angle lens of comparable quality. Or consider the 90-250mm f2.8 lens, for a cool $4888 versus the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens for $1900. Most of the 4:3 buyers are attracted by the small size, but do not realize the severe drawbacks of the 4:3 system, and the lack of any upgrade path. |