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 7 Jul 2010 16:18 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:i0uijd$nn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message > news:4c327598$0$5514$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message >> news:RfmdnU_hiNm_yK_RnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >> >>> Compact or ultracompact, depending on the size. Any camera that fits >>> easily in a shirt pocket I would call an ultracompact. Otherwise, >>> anything up to say a Coolpix 8800 in size I would call a compact. It >>> would be ridiculous to call an 8800, which has just about every >>> imaginable control, a P&S. >> >> I own an 8800, which I have always referred to as a P&S. Yes, it does >> have a lot of controls. I converted it to infra red and still use it. >> >> >> This whole conversation is ridiculous. >> >> >> >> -- >> Peter > > There's only one person who objects to "P&S" I think two of us, at least. > - the rest of us are quite happy! I own both and have no problem with the > term. My objection is that it stands for "point and shoot," which does not properly describe most of the cameras one sees referenced in that way. If it stood for "Pittsburgh and Seattle," or "phenolphthalein and sugar," I would object that those terms are not relevant -- though hardly less so than "point and shoot."
From: Remmy Martin on 7 Jul 2010 16:21 On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:03:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:s5e636te85o4kdf2pefhkchehbabe27eug(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:51:22 -0400, in >> <zuWdnRc_Rohdqq_RnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" >> <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >> >>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >>>news:mmuu26l5i77o3n7vleav547rqvcs1nirv3(a)4ax.com... >> >>>I have the FZ35 which seems almost identical to the FZ28. I like the >>>camera >>>a lot, within its limitations, but it's just nonsensical to compare its >>>zooming qualities with the ease, speed and accuracy of a manual zoom lens >>>on >>>a DSLR. >> >> To you. Not to me, and to others like me who have learned how to use >> the power zoom effectively and comfortably. For us, zooming isn't an >> issue -- it's only an issue to those who haven't learned how to use it >> effectively and comfortably. > >I suppose you could "learn how to use" pushbuttons to sign your name -- >rather than just using a pen manually -- but I doubt anyone would be able to >do that "effectively and comfortably" compared with doing it manually. > >For one thing, a manual zoom gives you an infinite range of focal lengths; >you can quickly get *precisely* the framing you want -- whereas pushbutton >motorized zooms go by steps, you have to be satisfied with "close enough," >and not very quickly. > >But apart from that, pushbuttons are just an awkward way of doing something >that can be done much, much more efficiently with a simple manual control. >It's somewhat like the difference between trying to regulate your speed on >the highway with the + and - cruise control buttons instead of the far >simpler accelerator pedal. > >Motorized zooms are a necessary evil on compact cameras where there just >isn't any room for a manual control and the associated parts. But that's >what you have: a necessary evil, not a desired thing. Make all the excuses >you like and it still doesn't change that. > >> >> p.s. The FZ35 is not "almost identical" to the FZ28 -- it has >> significant differences as well as significant similarities -- you >> cannot make valid judgments of one from the other. > >Well, my FZ35 has some improvements over your FZ28 -- nothing that changes >the basic shortcomings of that type of camera, though. > Yeah, those gosh darn push-buttons! It'd be so much simpler to write your posts in cursive with a quill and ink, or by gouging shapes in clay with a stylus, or pounding your letters into a rock with a harder and more pointy rock, if there was only a way to transmit it easily. And those damn accelerator peddles in cars too! What's up with that? It'd be so much easier to be able to pull back on some reins to control the speed of your vehicle!
From: John Navas on 7 Jul 2010 16:21 On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:03:56 -0400, in <r-ydnZx0GIMuQKnRnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:s5e636te85o4kdf2pefhkchehbabe27eug(a)4ax.com... >> To you. Not to me, and to others like me who have learned how to use >> the power zoom effectively and comfortably. For us, zooming isn't an >> issue -- it's only an issue to those who haven't learned how to use it >> effectively and comfortably. > >I suppose you could "learn how to use" pushbuttons to sign your name -- >rather than just using a pen manually -- but I doubt anyone would be able to >do that "effectively and comfortably" compared with doing it manually. Silly and meaningless analogy, as I'm sure you know (although I do use pushbutton digital signature for electronic documents instead of jumping through unnecessary hoops to sign them manually). >For one thing, a manual zoom gives you an infinite range of focal lengths; >you can quickly get *precisely* the framing you want -- whereas pushbutton >motorized zooms go by steps, you have to be satisfied with "close enough," >and not very quickly. As the citation I posted earlier shows, framing isn't an issue, and zoom is quick enough for those of us that know how to use it effectively, as I've said a number of time before. You're trying to project your own limitations onto everyone else. >But apart from that, pushbuttons are just an awkward way of doing something >that can be done much, much more efficiently with a simple manual control. It's a multi-speed rotary control, not push buttons -- you must not have actual experience with it. ;) >It's somewhat like the difference between trying to regulate your speed on >the highway with the + and - cruise control buttons instead of the far >simpler accelerator pedal. Cruise control works fine for me, speeding up or slowing down. Either yours isn't as good, or you must not know how to use it effectively either. >Motorized zooms are a necessary evil on compact cameras where there just >isn't any room for a manual control and the associated parts. But that's >what you have: a necessary evil, not a desired thing. Make all the excuses >you like and it still doesn't change that. Motorized smart zooms are actually a benefit in that they free lens design to use varifocal instead of more restrictive parfocal design, and to make the lens smaller and lighter, and arguing against it is much like arguing against autofocus. >> p.s. The FZ35 is not "almost identical" to the FZ28 -- it has >> significant differences as well as significant similarities -- you >> cannot make valid judgments of one from the other. > >Well, my FZ35 has some improvements over your FZ28 -- nothing that changes >the basic shortcomings of that type of camera, though. Guess again. -- John "At every crossway on the road that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past." -Maeterlinck
From: tony cooper on 7 Jul 2010 16:24 On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:18:03 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >My objection is that it stands for "point and shoot," which does not >properly describe most of the cameras one sees referenced in that way. Can you not point and shoot with a p&s camera? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nospam on 7 Jul 2010 16:30
In article <hpn936hrdk8kmumsuhebv2e0sp3ecc9ann(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >I suppose you could "learn how to use" pushbuttons to sign your name -- > >rather than just using a pen manually -- but I doubt anyone would be able to > >do that "effectively and comfortably" compared with doing it manually. > > Silly and meaningless analogy, as I'm sure you know (although I do use > pushbutton digital signature for electronic documents instead of jumping > through unnecessary hoops to sign them manually). you missed his point. > >For one thing, a manual zoom gives you an infinite range of focal lengths; > >you can quickly get *precisely* the framing you want -- whereas pushbutton > >motorized zooms go by steps, you have to be satisfied with "close enough," > >and not very quickly. > > As the citation I posted earlier shows, framing isn't an issue, and zoom > is quick enough for those of us that know how to use it effectively, as > I've said a number of time before. You're trying to project your own > limitations onto everyone else. except for your friend who had problems with it. > >But apart from that, pushbuttons are just an awkward way of doing something > >that can be done much, much more efficiently with a simple manual control. > > It's a multi-speed rotary control, not push buttons -- > you must not have actual experience with it. ;) it's not directly coupled. > >It's somewhat like the difference between trying to regulate your speed on > >the highway with the + and - cruise control buttons instead of the far > >simpler accelerator pedal. > > Cruise control works fine for me, speeding up or slowing down. > Either yours isn't as good, or you must not know how to use it > effectively either. you don't use cruise control in stop and go city traffic. why do you insist on lying? > >Motorized zooms are a necessary evil on compact cameras where there just > >isn't any room for a manual control and the associated parts. But that's > >what you have: a necessary evil, not a desired thing. Make all the excuses > >you like and it still doesn't change that. > > Motorized smart zooms are actually a benefit in that they free lens > design to use varifocal instead of more restrictive parfocal design, and > to make the lens smaller and lighter, and arguing against it is much > like arguing against autofocus. nonsense. the lens is smaller and lighter because the image circle is smaller. there were slr zooms that were motorized and they were bigger, slower and clunkier. the market rejected them (pentax and i think canon had them). |