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: SMS on 8 Jul 2010 13:08 On 08/07/10 8:41 AM, David J Taylor wrote: > Not "compact" by my standards - they don't fit into a coat or jacket > pocket. Your standards of "compact" obviously differ. > > David Here's what I've used for size designations: * Professional SLR with integrated vertical grip (around 2000cc without lens) * Medium SLR: Canon 20D, Nikon D70s, etc. [1000 cc-1500 cc, without lens] * Small SLR: Canon EOS-Rebel T2i, Olympus E-620, etc. [<1000 cc without lens] * Superzoom: Canon SX20 IS, etc * Compact: Canon G11 series, etc. [>300 cc] * Sub-Compact: Canon S90, Canon A series, etc. [175-300 cc] * Ultra-Compact: Coolpix S8000, etc. [125-175 cc & >25mm thick] * Thin Ultra-Compact: Canon SD1300, etc. [<125 cc & 20-25 mm thick] * Ultra-Thin, Ultra-Compact: Casio EX-S10, etc. [<20 mm thick and <125 cc]
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 13:13 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:31:31 -0400, in <ldSdnSL_85LGcqjRnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >"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... >>>> 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. What you have done is make negative judgments without sufficient experience to support them, in other words, guesses. >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). Fair enough. >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. Again, you lack the experience and expertise to say that with any authority -- you're guessing -- and that reflects your personal working style, not the working style of others like me. >>>> 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. I think that very likely, given the significant differences in many prior models and on published information, but I do not know that for a fact, but regardless, you lack experience with the FZ35 as well. >>>> 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, That has nothing to do with varifocal versus parfocal, which only refers to whether focus changes with zooming or not. An advantage of power zoom and focus is that the camera can emulate parfocal operation of a varifocal lens, since the onboard processor knows how to adjust the focus with focal length. >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. With all due respect, that's another reflection of your personal working style, not some sort of universal truth, if not a difference between the FZ28 and FZ35 (which I'm too busy to check at the moment). I personally find the close focusing of the FZ28 sufficiently useful at both ends of the zoom range to not feel the need for close-up filters. "Different strokes for differ net folks." >>>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? I don't need experience -- your lens is disqualified by its specs. My experience is with the best roughly comparable lens I know of, Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens. >>>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." Not so. See my other posts. >>>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. You're actually making disparaging and false characterizations. Like your comments on "pushbutton" zoom. >>>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 essentally 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 That's no substitute for real first-hand experience, as you should know if you have much experience in photography. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 13:31 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:08:07 -0700, in <4c3605f0$0$22146$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 08/07/10 8:41 AM, David J Taylor wrote: > >> Not "compact" by my standards - they don't fit into a coat or jacket >> pocket. Your standards of "compact" obviously differ. >> >> David > >Here's what I've used for size designations: > >* Professional SLR with integrated vertical grip (around 2000cc without >lens) >* Medium SLR: Canon 20D, Nikon D70s, etc. [1000 cc-1500 cc, without lens] >* Small SLR: Canon EOS-Rebel T2i, Olympus E-620, etc. [<1000 cc without >lens] >* Superzoom: Canon SX20 IS, etc >* Compact: Canon G11 series, etc. [>300 cc] >* Sub-Compact: Canon S90, Canon A series, etc. [175-300 cc] >* Ultra-Compact: Coolpix S8000, etc. [125-175 cc & >25mm thick] >* Thin Ultra-Compact: Canon SD1300, etc. [<125 cc & 20-25 mm thick] >* Ultra-Thin, Ultra-Compact: Casio EX-S10, etc. [<20 mm thick and <125 cc] Almost none of which you've actually used. -- John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 13:37 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:31:43 -0400, in <seydnXXzTc7lYKjRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message >news:i13qdl$llq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> 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. > >"ZLR" wasn't really correct to begin with, since cameras of this type are >not reflex. That is the same sort of mistake some apparent newbie made here >just a few days ago (and was jumped on for) when he called a compact digital >camera a "DSLR" because it had some DSLR-like features. > >"Zoom Lens Reflex" was what Olympus years ago called certain 35mm models >that had a non-interchangeable zoom lens -- but those ZLRs really *were* >reflex. It's a silly semantic debate. The term "reflex" was coined to distinguish cameras with >> through lens viewing << (single lens or twin lens) from rangefinder cameras, and it's quite reasonable to characterize EVF cameras as a kind of reflex cameras, especially since there is no other good term for through lens viewing. >> What term would you suggest for such cameras - they certainly aren't >> "compact". > >Well, my FZ35 is significantly more compact than my D40-family cameras (with >usual kit lens), and those I regard as "small body" Nikons. But I'll agree >some others (Coolpix 8800, DiMAGE 7Hi, etc.) would be stretching the term >"compact" too far. I suppose "superzoom" is the best term for that type of >camera since it isn't likely to be confused with anything else. > >"Compact" I think is the best used for more or less pocketable cameras >(Optio 750Z, Coolpix 5900, Powershot S80, etc.) while "ultracompact" should >be reserved for those cameras that are really shirt-pocket size (Optio S4i, >Coolpix S510 and thereabouts). You need to broaden your horizons -- the FZ28 is easily pocketable in the jackets I use for outdoor shooting. -- 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
From: Bruce on 8 Jul 2010 13:55
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:50:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I took the FZ35 >because I thought it would be ideal for that situation. That's an "offensive >put-down"? > >I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John. John Navas's problem is, and always has been, that his modest needs are completely satisfied by mediocre equipment. He simply cannot understand why some people need, or at least aspire to, something better. He gets irrationally angry when they point this out, then claims that his mediocre equipment is "excellent". He has been doing it for years. No doubt he will be doing it many years hence. Arguing with him is pointless because his values are on an entirely different scale, one that peaks at "mediocre". |