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: nospam on 8 Jul 2010 02:40 In article <i13qmg$nfe$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > What DSLR could be described as unprofessional? sigma sd14 :)
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 09:41 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:15:17 +0100, in <i13qdl$llq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message >news:MJ6dndNMn4CffKnRnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> My objection is that it stands for "point and shoot," which does not >> properly describe most of the cameras one sees referenced in that way. >> >> If it stood for "Pittsburgh and Seattle," or "phenolphthalein and >> sugar," I would object that those terms are not relevant -- though >> hardly less so than "point and shoot." > >There are many terms in both British and American English which I don't >feel are 100% accurate, but they are in such common usage that it would be >difficult to change them. The term ZLR was used for a while for SLR-like >cameras without a mirror - cameras like my FZ5 and FZ20, John's FZ28, and >your FZ35 - but that term didn't stick. > >What term would you suggest for such cameras - they certainly aren't >"compact". They are compact by most standards, and certainly by comparison to a roughly comparable dSLR. There are other terms for smaller cameras. -- John "Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 09:43 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:20:00 +0100, in <i13qmg$nfe$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message >news:UeydnQBCeaSTdqnRnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >[] >> DSLRs I suppose can reasonably be subdivided by intended market, or by >> size. For example, the Nikon D3X is a camera intended for professional >> use. I wouldn't want one. It would be possible to quibble about whether >> a D300s is "professional" or "semiprofessional," or whether a D90 is >> "semiprofessional" or "enthusiast" level, etc. Any camera in the D40 >> family can fairly be discribed as a "compact" or "entry level" DSLR. I >> can't imagine anyone being offended by the use of any of these terms, so >> I see no reason for concern there. > >What DSLR could be described as unprofessional? Equipment is neither professional no nonprofessional -- that's a myth promulgated by those who want to be considered "professional" simply by their choice of equipment. Real professionals can and do get professional results from kinds of equipment. -- John "Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]
From: Neil Harrington on 8 Jul 2010 11:31 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:kria369g7rfe0lqo09ca3a0u7kluihvb9t(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 23:43:18 -0400, in > <Eb-dnceG5oPA1KjRnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" > <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >>"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >>news:9g9a36h5q6dkt0271eesd0412tsc9ffcuc(a)4ax.com... > >>> 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. > > For me it works fine. For you it doesn't. > Nothing more to be said. End of story. > >>> 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. > > Unfortunately, as Watergate conspirator H.R. Haldeman famously said, > "You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube." It's too late to claim > you really do know your camera when you've made such a basic mistake > about how it works. Since you don't even know your own camera terribly > well, much less mine, it's not terribly surprising you have trouble with > the non-"pushbutton" power zoom. I haven't claimed any particular expertise with the FZ35 at all. Since apparently your FZ28 is your primary camera, I have not the slightest doubt that you are far more familiar with it than I am with my FZ35, which I don't use much. I am sort of a collector and have a lot of digital cameras, including several superzooms, two of them Panasonics (the other one is an FZ15). I would agree that the rotary switch around the shutter release is a somewhat better solution than pushbuttons, though it has its drawbacks too. You use the rotary switch with your index finger, and then have to move it back to the shutter button to take the shot. With pushbuttons you use your thumb and don't have to move your finger from the shutter release. Also I'd agree that a two-speed zoom is some advantage over single speed, but still not close to the ease, quickness and accuracy of a manual zoom ring. > >>> 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. > > Nope. Just the occasional fine adjustment. Perhaps I'm just a less > aggressive driver than you are. But this has nothing to do with > photography, so this is all I'm going to say about it. > >>> 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. > > I've not used the FZ35 enough to have a meaningful opinion. Yet you insist there are significant differences between the two. > >>> 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. > > That's a red herring. As you ought to know, Panasonic superzooms > actually have complex, sophisticated lens designs. Of course. But they still are not parfocal or anywhere near it. My FZ35 focuses very, very close at its shortest focal length. At other focal lengths it does not focus closely at all, and since those other focal lengths are generally better suited to close-up work than the extreme wide-angle end, I have to use close-up lenses on it to do that sort of thing. An advantage of the FZ35 over most other superzooms currently on the market is that it has 46mm filter threads to accept such accessories, while its competitors (that I've seen) do not. That is nice but still not as handy as having a really close-focusing standard lens, such as Nikon's 18-55mm kit lens. > >>> 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. ... > > Your opinion, Not mine. We'll just have to agree to disagree. > >>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. > > Sorry, but not even close. OK then, what is *your* experience with *my* lens? > >>> 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. > > I've repeatedly answered you. You just don't like the answers. Your only answer has been "I've already answered that." > >>> 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. > > OK, then you're making disparaging characterizations about a camera with > which you have no actual experience. I am not disparaging your camera at all. I have repeatedly expressed admiration for the Panasonic superzooms, and as I've said I own two of them myself. > >>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. > > Correct. Unlike you, I won't rely on guesswork and 2nd-hand > information. I can speak to the differences between the FZ28 and > several prior models based on a great deal of actual experience, but not > the FZ35. While I have never handled an FZ28 I have read extensive reviews of both cameras, and it is clear that they are essentially the same camera but with various improvements in the FZ35, which is pretty much as you would expect. The lens is the same, as is the general body and controls layout. Here is a side-by-side comparison of both cameras: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz35-review
From: David J Taylor on 8 Jul 2010 11:41
"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:j8lb3613iquq60u3vtvimp5vc5obkvv7kb(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:15:17 +0100, in > <i13qdl$llq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >>"Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message >>news:MJ6dndNMn4CffKnRnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > >>> 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." >> >>There are many terms in both British and American English which I don't >>feel are 100% accurate, but they are in such common usage that it would >>be >>difficult to change them. The term ZLR was used for a while for >>SLR-like >>cameras without a mirror - cameras like my FZ5 and FZ20, John's FZ28, >>and >>your FZ35 - but that term didn't stick. >> >>What term would you suggest for such cameras - they certainly aren't >>"compact". > > They are compact by most standards, and certainly by comparison to a > roughly comparable dSLR. There are other terms for smaller cameras. > > -- > John Not "compact" by my standards - they don't fit into a coat or jacket pocket. Your standards of "compact" obviously differ. David |