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: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 7 Jul 2010 20:32 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:50:31 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >That seems to be the case because the experienced photographer is not >going to give up all the advantages of a D-SLR for only a slightly >smaller package. They will likely have a compact P&S for the times when >their D-SLR is too much trouble to take along. How would you know? When you've NEVER used ANY camera in your lifetime?
From: John Navas on 7 Jul 2010 21:26 On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:59:29 -0400, in <JcWdnWlLXoB0iajRnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:hpn936hrdk8kmumsuhebv2e0sp3ecc9ann(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:03:56 -0400, in >> <r-ydnZx0GIMuQKnRnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" >> <nobody(a)homehere.net> 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). > >Your "pushbutton digital signature" is not at all the same thing, is it? Try >signing with some device that uses different pushbuttons to move the pen up, >down or sideways. That would be analogous to pushbutton zooming. It's at least as valid as your analogy. I press a single key (button) to sign a document. Much easier that the alternative. >> 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. > >Yes, you have. Regardless of your "know[ing] how to use it effectively," it >is still slower, less precise and more difficult than a manual zoom. For you. Not for me. You're trying to project your limitations onto everyone else again. >>>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. ;) > >Then you're not talking about your FZ28, are you? I am talking about the FZ28. >If you're talking about a >camera that has some sort of zoom control that imitates a manual zoom lens, >then you're right, I have no experience with that. You're obviously unfamiliar with the FZ28. The zoom control is a single two-speed rotary switch around the shutter button. No zoom pushbuttons whatsoever. Will you now be big enough to admit your mistake? >>>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. > >Really? When accelerating to pass another car, or slowing because the car in >front of you has suddenly slowed, cruise control "works fine" for you? I >think we must have quite different ideas about what "works fine" means. We obviously do. I use cruise control to both speed up and slow down, fine adjusting the speed of the vehicle, much more precise and simple that disengaging the cruise control to use the accelerator pedal. For me, that is. Not apparently for you. >> Either yours isn't as good, or you must not know how to use it >> effectively either. > >You seem to be talking about different cameras. If you're talking about your >FZ28, of course my FZ35 is "as good" since it's essentially the same. Except it's not. You've admitted to zero experience with the FZ28, and you're guessing it's just the same. Whereas I've actually used five (5) different Panasonic superzoom models, and know from actual experience that there are considerable differences between models, zoom included. So does your FZ35 have pushbutton zoom as you've claimed, or is it a rotary switch like the FZ28? ;) >>>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 > >Now there you have a point. In that respect yes, varifocal lenses have made >small cameras possible. That has been true since long before digital >cameras. Varifocal also makes more sophisticated optics possible, enabling sharp images with minimal distortion over very long zoom ranges. It's a huge advantage -- there are no comparable lenses for dSLR cameras at any price. >>>Well, my FZ35 has some improvements over your FZ28 -- nothing that changes >>>the basic shortcomings of that type of camera, though. >> >> Guess again. > >Show me where I'm wrong in saying so, then. I don't think you can show that. Been there; done that; and growing very tired of your endless attempt to blame *my* equipment, which works just fine for me, for *your* own limitations. -- 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: Neil Harrington on 7 Jul 2010 23:43 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:9g9a36h5q6dkt0271eesd0412tsc9ffcuc(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:59:29 -0400, in > <JcWdnWlLXoB0iajRnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" > <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >>"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >>news:hpn936hrdk8kmumsuhebv2e0sp3ecc9ann(a)4ax.com... > >>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:03:56 -0400, in >>> <r-ydnZx0GIMuQKnRnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" >>> <nobody(a)homehere.net> 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). >> >>Your "pushbutton digital signature" is not at all the same thing, is it? >>Try >>signing with some device that uses different pushbuttons to move the pen >>up, >>down or sideways. That would be analogous to pushbutton zooming. > > It's at least as valid as your analogy. I press a single key (button) > to sign a document. Much easier that the alternative. > >>> 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. >> >>Yes, you have. Regardless of your "know[ing] how to use it effectively," >>it >>is still slower, less precise and more difficult than a manual zoom. > > For you. Not for me. You're trying to project your limitations onto > everyone else again. It isn't a question of my "limitations." I believe anyone would find a manual zoom easier, faster and more accurate to use than any motorized zoom, regardless of his experience with the latter. > >>>>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. ;) >> >>Then you're not talking about your FZ28, are you? > > I am talking about the FZ28. > >>If you're talking about a >>camera that has some sort of zoom control that imitates a manual zoom >>lens, >>then you're right, I have no experience with that. > > You're obviously unfamiliar with the FZ28. The zoom control is a single > two-speed rotary switch around the shutter button. No zoom pushbuttons > whatsoever. Will you now be big enough to admit your mistake? Yes, of course. I've been talking about pushbuttons and thinking of that arrangement only, since most of my compact cameras use buttons for zooming. When you mentioned "multi-speed rotary control" I thought you meant something like Minolta's briefly marketed motorized "zooms" (actually varifocals) for their SLRs, which had a zoom control around the lens that looked like a manual control, but wasn't. My FZ35 has the same two-speed rotary control around the shutter release as your FZ28. I had frankly forgotten about that, not having used the camera for some time. > >>>>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. >> >>Really? When accelerating to pass another car, or slowing because the car >>in >>front of you has suddenly slowed, cruise control "works fine" for you? I >>think we must have quite different ideas about what "works fine" means. > > We obviously do. I use cruise control to both speed up and slow down, > fine adjusting the speed of the vehicle, much more precise and simple > that disengaging the cruise control to use the accelerator pedal. > For me, that is. Not apparently for you. If I want to speed up I step on the gas. Foot off the gas and it goes back to the cruise control setting, unless I've done something to change it. Slowing down for a slower car in front of me I use the brake, which also disengages the cruise control. Every car I've owned with cruise control has worked that way. The only time I use the + and - buttons is to set or resume, or *rarely* to make small adjustments to the speed setting. You must do an awful lot of button pushing if you do as you say. > >>> Either yours isn't as good, or you must not know how to use it >>> effectively either. >> >>You seem to be talking about different cameras. If you're talking about >>your >>FZ28, of course my FZ35 is "as good" since it's essentially the same. > > Except it's not. You've admitted to zero experience with the FZ28, and Yes. Zero experience with the FZ28 and not really a lot with the FZ35 either. But it is still practically the same as the FZ28. If you think it's not, tell me what you think the important differences are. > you're guessing it's just the same. Whereas I've actually used five (5) > different Panasonic superzoom models, and know from actual experience > that there are considerable differences between models, zoom included. > > So does your FZ35 have pushbutton zoom as you've claimed, or is it a > rotary switch like the FZ28? ;) Rotary two-speed switch like the FZ28. > >>>>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 >> >>Now there you have a point. In that respect yes, varifocal lenses have >>made >>small cameras possible. That has been true since long before digital >>cameras. > > Varifocal also makes more sophisticated optics possible, enabling sharp Not "more sophisticated," just more compact. Not having to be parfocal allows a much simpler design. There have been small 35mm cameras with four-element zoom lenses, an amazing simplification. > images with minimal distortion over very long zoom ranges. It's a huge > advantage -- there are no comparable lenses for dSLR cameras at any > price. That is entirely because of the difference in format sizes. The smaller the format, the greater the possible zoom range. So there are superzoom lenses with as much as 26x zoom range, which can only be made for very-small-format cameras. Whoop de doo, but you can get video cameras with 35x zoom range -- made possible by their even smaller formats. I have a 15x zoom lens for my DX Nikons -- compares well with the tiny-format superzooms, considering the format difference, and I'd put it up against any of them for definition and low distortion. > >>>>Well, my FZ35 has some improvements over your FZ28 -- nothing that >>>>changes >>>>the basic shortcomings of that type of camera, though. >>> >>> Guess again. >> >>Show me where I'm wrong in saying so, then. I don't think you can show >>that. > > Been there; done that; No, as a matter of fact, you have not. I've asked the question several times and you have always declined to answer it. > and growing very tired of your endless attempt to > blame *my* equipment, which works just fine for me, for *your* own > limitations. I'm hardly "blaming" your equipment, John. I like the FZ35 myself as I've mentioned a number of times, and surely would like your FZ28 too since the FZ35 appears to be a slightly improved version of the same camera. As I have said, there's little apparent difference between them. You keep insisting that there must be some important difference, though what that might be you evidently cannot say.
From: Neil Harrington on 8 Jul 2010 00:05 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010070715231316807-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-07-07 13:33:19 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> > said: > >> >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >> news:2010070600313643042-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>> On 2010-07-05 23:48:54 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> said: >>> >>>> In article <i0uijd$nn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor >>>> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There's only one person who objects to "P&S" - the rest of us are >>>>> quite >>>>> happy! I own both and have no problem with the term. >>>> >>>> who cares what it's called. people know what is meant by p&s and slr >>>> and that's all that matters. language evolves. the whole pejorative >>>> nonsense is his way of arguing, particularly when his position is weak. >>> >>> Just what is objectional and pejorative about the term "Pocketable & >>> Small"? >> >> Apart from its redundancy? ;-) > > Just me being silly. I always think of "Point & Shoot" in a totally > different context. I though there was a possibility you might also have > that in mind, but normally a little more deliberate than "point!" > >> >> Well, few people would consider a Coolpix 8700 or 8800 pocketable & >> small. >> Yet many use the silly term "P&S" to characterize those cameras. > > Yup, I had a 5700, which was not cheap. Right. I have the later version of the same camera, the 8700. Very nice, and built on a magnesium body too, as high-end Coolpixes were at that time. > a year later I bought a D70 for less, and never used the 5700 again. I have hardly used my 8700 at all. But it's a treasured part of my Nikon collection. >> >> "Point-and-shoot" was perfectly appropriate for those compact 35mm >> cameras >> to which the term was originally applied. Because they were >> auto-everything >> and had no user controls to speak of, pointing and shooting was almost >> literally all you could do with them. > > Agreed. My wife had a great little Pentax PC35AF, and that was all she > ever wanted. >> >> Using "P&S" to describe a camera with full user controls should be made a >> felony punishable by either (a) flogging or (b) forced listening to an >> entire speech by Joe Biden, the latter reserved for the more egregrious >> offenses of course. > > Agreed. > A camera such as a G11 has the elements of full user control, and can be > quickly relegated to the role of more simplistic, ...er mindless > operation. So perhaps a term such as "Full Function Compact" might be And I've seen one user review of the G11 in which the writer kept referring to it as a "P&S" and even "only a P&S." That was just annoying, and I don't even own a G11. > better for those. However there remain those digital compacts, which > probably make up the bulk of sales, and bring nothing to the table in > terms of image quality. All you might be able to say of them is, "what a > cute little camera!" > > ...but there is a big caveat with the "Superzooms" > > I think one of the big problems with many of the "Superzooms" is, they are > still mostly a compromise. They are a solution for the traveler wanting a > single camera with a wide zoom range, and a bit more heft than a > "pocketable" compact. ...but as good as they are, to claim that they have > the flexibility, or image quality potential of a DSLR is just being > argumentative. Absolutely. I have several, like them very much as intriguing instruments and marvels of design, but seldom actually use them. To claim (as a couple here do) that they are in any way equal to DSLRs is just plain nonsensical. > They are still limited with small sensors, over packed to silly pixel > density. Maxing those out at around 10MP as with the G11 makes more sense. Definitely. I wish Nikon would follow Canon's lead in that respect. > They are mostly marketed to photographers making the transition from the > lesser compacts. They might be lacking a feature such as RAW capture, and > emphasize shooting "scene-program/modes." The experienced/talented > photographer, who buys one, and uses the user controls rather than the > "scene-program/modes" is the exception rather than the rule. For the most > part they will be using all that potential as a DSLR looking, scene-mode, > point and shoot camera, regardless of the capability of the camera. They are handy when one needs a compact camera with a wide range of focal lengths without carrying anything beside the camera itself, and THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF LIGHT. I took my FZ35 to Florida this last winter, just a few days' trip and traveling very light. It was the only time in I've taken a trip without an SLR of some kind in at least the last 40 years. I wanted to get some shots of pelicans and other sea birds, and with the strong Florida sun I think it would've been ideal for that. But in the event I was occupied with other things and didn't get to do any of that anyway. > > > Now, on to punishment, the Biden speech can easily be replaced with having > to sit through taped reruns of the entire World Cup competition, with > Vuvuzelas at full volume. ;-) Yes! Massed vuvuzelas are probably about the only thing worse than listening to Joe Biden. :-)
From: tony cooper on 8 Jul 2010 00:07
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 23:43:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >If I want to speed up I step on the gas. Foot off the gas and it goes back >to the cruise control setting, unless I've done something to change it. >Slowing down for a slower car in front of me I use the brake, which also >disengages the cruise control. Every car I've owned with cruise control has >worked that way. The only time I use the + and - buttons is to set or >resume, or *rarely* to make small adjustments to the speed setting. You must >do an awful lot of button pushing if you do as you say. In our cars, foot on the gas while on cruise control speeds up the car, and the car goes back to the set speed when the foot is removed. To go slower, there's a button for (I think it's labeled) "coast". Release that and the car resumes the set speed. However, I usually tap the brake to slow and then re-set. I wouldn't comment on John's car. Obviously, unless one has driven John's make, model, and his personal car, one shouldn't. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |