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: Neil Harrington on 30 Jun 2010 11:54 "John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:pdml26l2rq3o9nqt5t4c0n6oiueo7gal6n(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:30:49 -0700, in > <JM-dnSiV1dYPS7fRnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Paul Furman > <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: > >>John Navas wrote: >>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:48:45 -0400, in >>> <ruWdnSgY08G907fRnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" >>> <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "Henry Olson"<henryolson(a)nospam.org> wrote in message >>>> news:hkph26dftn5jq51tki8pfhe2q7l4ut0va0(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> That's very impressive, from the equipment described. What "0.25x >>>> wide-angle >>>> pocket-size adapter" was used, and with what prime lens? Was the prime >>>> lens >>>> really used at 64mm (equiv.) to produce your "16mm" shot? Is it shown >>>> there >>>> uncropped? While obviously wide it doesn't really look like 16mm >>>> (equiv.). >>>> >>>> My Panasonic FZ15's lens is 36-432mm (equiv.) also, and is beautifully >>>> sharp >>>> by itself, but I've never tried using it with any sort of adapter. I'm >>>> wondering if it's a Panasonic camera with that lens that you used. >>> >>> <http://www.newworldvideodirect.com/productdetail.asp?productid=1203> >> >>That's only .5x. > > Only? 36 x 0.5 = 18 > Is that difference such a big deal to you? Between 0.5x and 0.25x there is certainly a huge difference -- and as I've just pointed out, even the claimed 0.5x is an exaggeration. I make it out to be about 0.75x. And 36 x 0.75 = 27, not all that impressive though it probably is about as much as one can expect from a screw-on wide-angle adapter without too much loss in lens performance. From the small size of the photos shown, it's virtually impossible to tell how much loss there really is.
From: Neil Harrington on 30 Jun 2010 12:11 "Henry Olson" <henryolson(a)nospam.org> wrote in message news:erlk26dser383in2vpdn88melemuvujgn0(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:48:45 -0400, "Neil Harrington" > <nobody(a)homehere.net> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Olson" <henryolson(a)nospam.org> wrote in message >>news:hkph26dftn5jq51tki8pfhe2q7l4ut0va0(a)4ax.com... >>> 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: >>>> >> >>[ . . . ] >>>> >>>>>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 >> >>That's very impressive, from the equipment described. What "0.25x >>wide-angle >>pocket-size adapter" was used, and with what prime lens? Was the prime >>lens >>really used at 64mm (equiv.) to produce your "16mm" shot? Is it shown >>there >>uncropped? While obviously wide it doesn't really look like 16mm (equiv.). > > Then here's the 9mm full-circle fisheye from the same adapter lens taken > from a few feet away from the spot that one was taken at. > > http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4747052132_1a0e49f42d_b.jpg Sorry, that is nowhere near a 9mm fisheye shot (assuming you mean 9mm 135 equivalence). > > This will give you a wide-angle reference for FOV comparison. Yes, it was > uncropped. The 64mm setting on the zoom-lens (16mm EFL) is just where all > the fisheye's circular vignetting disappears. So you say "uncropped," but obviously you've had to straighten the tree trunks a bit. Zooming in doesn't get rid of the curvature, though the angle you've selected has minimized that. If you'd shot straight up, all the true verticals would have been straight without any editing. > Then it's still a seamless > wide-angle zoom range up to where the camera's own optics can then take > over without the adapter. > > I never reveal what P&S equipment I use for any photo. For several > reasons: > > 1. It drives the DSLR trolls, bit-head trolls, pretend-photographer > trolls, > and gear-head trolls even more insane than they already are. Dang, you're the P&S troll, slipped past me again!
From: Henry Olson on 30 Jun 2010 14:07 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:11:03 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >"Henry Olson" <henryolson(a)nospam.org> wrote in message >news:erlk26dser383in2vpdn88melemuvujgn0(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:48:45 -0400, "Neil Harrington" >> <nobody(a)homehere.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henry Olson" <henryolson(a)nospam.org> wrote in message >>>news:hkph26dftn5jq51tki8pfhe2q7l4ut0va0(a)4ax.com... >>>> 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: >>>>> >>> >>>[ . . . ] >>>>> >>>>>>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 >>> >>>That's very impressive, from the equipment described. What "0.25x >>>wide-angle >>>pocket-size adapter" was used, and with what prime lens? Was the prime >>>lens >>>really used at 64mm (equiv.) to produce your "16mm" shot? Is it shown >>>there >>>uncropped? While obviously wide it doesn't really look like 16mm (equiv.). >> >> Then here's the 9mm full-circle fisheye from the same adapter lens taken >> from a few feet away from the spot that one was taken at. >> >> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4747052132_1a0e49f42d_b.jpg > >Sorry, that is nowhere near a 9mm fisheye shot (assuming you mean 9mm 135 >equivalence). > Are you this daft? All focal-lengths on P&S cameras are usually standardized to EFL (35mm equivalent focal length) when discussing various brands due to the huge amount of sizes of sensors involved. >> >> This will give you a wide-angle reference for FOV comparison. Yes, it was >> uncropped. The 64mm setting on the zoom-lens (16mm EFL) is just where all >> the fisheye's circular vignetting disappears. > >So you say "uncropped," but obviously you've had to straighten the tree >trunks a bit. Zooming in doesn't get rid of the curvature, though the angle >you've selected has minimized that. If you'd shot straight up, all the true >verticals would have been straight without any editing. Nope, didn't use any lens-geometry correction tools on that. That's how well that lens mates up with the superzoom lens on the camera. Too bad you don't want to believe it. Wallow in your ignorance and your DSLR-Troll's imaginary justifications if you want. The rest of the world is discovering things you'll NEVER be privy to nor want to use to your advantage. YOUR LOSS, and YOUR LOSS ALONE. Well, and the loss of every fuckwad DSLR-TROLL just like you, that is. > >> Then it's still a seamless >> wide-angle zoom range up to where the camera's own optics can then take >> over without the adapter. >> >> I never reveal what P&S equipment I use for any photo. For several >> reasons: >> >> 1. It drives the DSLR trolls, bit-head trolls, pretend-photographer >> trolls, >> and gear-head trolls even more insane than they already are. > >Dang, you're the P&S troll, slipped past me again! > And yet, that doesn't refute what I stated and proved one bit, now does it. You useless PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER DSLR-TROLL FUCKWAD! LOL!
From: John Navas on 30 Jun 2010 17:16 On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:00:39 -0700, in <4c2097ec$0$1676$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >The need for extreme wide-angle is probably #3 in the reasons why >digital SLRs continue to increase in sales faster than P&S cameras (#1 >being low-light/high ISO capability, and #2 being AF lag). Why do you persist is making claims that only serve to make you look ignorant and foolish? Is it because you really don't know the facts? Well here you go: FZ28 <http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Panasonic-Lumix-DMCFZ28-10658> Shutter lag times started off looking promising at 0.04sec but it turned out I was being over eager as I started to get consistent results of 0.08sec which is the standard for any compact up to bridge and prosumer status. FZ8 <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page5.asp> Again focus (using the high speed AF mode) is very fast. Shutter lag is marginally slower than the FZ7 - the difference is down to the video lag on the live preview (the actual delay between pressing the button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous). The Panasonic spec for the FZ8 is 0.005 second shutter release time lag (the time between pressing the button on the camera and the photo being taken). -- 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: John Navas on 30 Jun 2010 23:17
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:16:50 -0700, in <tfcn26ptp2mbgh2tq8s9efps6mcd7vhcf0(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:00:39 -0700, in ><4c2097ec$0$1676$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS ><scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >>The need for extreme wide-angle is probably #3 in the reasons why >>digital SLRs continue to increase in sales faster than P&S cameras (#1 >>being low-light/high ISO capability, and #2 being AF lag). > >Why do you persist is making claims that only serve to make you look >ignorant and foolish? Is it because you really don't know the facts? >Well here you go: > >FZ28 ><http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Panasonic-Lumix-DMCFZ28-10658> > > Shutter lag times started off looking promising at 0.04sec but it > turned out I was being over eager as I started to get consistent > results of 0.08sec which is the standard for any compact up to bridge > and prosumer status. > >FZ8 ><http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page5.asp> > > Again focus (using the high speed AF mode) is very fast. Shutter lag > is marginally slower than the FZ7 - the difference is down to the > video lag on the live preview (the actual delay between pressing the > button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous). > >The Panasonic spec for the FZ8 is 0.005 second shutter release time lag >(the time between pressing the button on the camera and the photo being >taken). p.s. To put this into perspective, human fingertip (shutter press) reaction time is about 0.20 secs. (Test your own here: <http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/>) These release times are thus too small to have a substantial effect on image capture. Shutter lag on better compact digital cameras is a bogus issue, as you would know if you had any real experience with them. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams |