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: J. Clarke on 9 Jul 2010 16:44 On 7/9/2010 4:02 PM, -hh wrote: > On Jul 9, 1:05 pm, nospam<nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> In article<5aje36h1eg3io6i5phlp3vi94vdhmgk...(a)4ax.com>, John Navas >> >> <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>> The automotive analogy here is also illustrative: take a look at our >>>> car's sound system controls: originally, our old analog radio systems >>>> used a dial-based volume control ... a potentiometer. With >>>> digitalization, this analog dial component was replaced with up/down >>>> pushbuttons. But look now at today's controls and we find that >>>> they've gotten rid of the volume pushbuttons and gone back to a human >>>> interface for the radio's volume control that's once again a dial. >>>> Hmmm... >> >>> Mine has buttons for stations, seek and scan, plus buttons on the >>> steering wheel for station change. I can't remember the last time >>> I twisted a volume knob. I'm guessing they are for Luddites that can't >>> learn new things. >> >> pejorative comment noted. > > And yet John conveniently failed to mention how his car's radio's > **volume** control is actually performed. > > From a UI perspective, buttons are better for some things, but that > doesn't automatically mean that a 'button' UI is better for ALL > inputs. The exercise is left to the reader to go replace a car's > steering _wheel_ with Left& Right buttons :-) I dunno about his car, but mine has controls on the steering wheel for station change and for volume, as well as for "speed up" and "slow down". > > -hh
From: tony cooper on 9 Jul 2010 17:11 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:44:05 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >On 7/9/2010 4:02 PM, -hh wrote: >> On Jul 9, 1:05 pm, nospam<nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> In article<5aje36h1eg3io6i5phlp3vi94vdhmgk...(a)4ax.com>, John Navas >>> >>> <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>>> The automotive analogy here is also illustrative: take a look at our >>>>> car's sound system controls: originally, our old analog radio systems >>>>> used a dial-based volume control ... a potentiometer. With >>>>> digitalization, this analog dial component was replaced with up/down >>>>> pushbuttons. But look now at today's controls and we find that >>>>> they've gotten rid of the volume pushbuttons and gone back to a human >>>>> interface for the radio's volume control that's once again a dial. >>>>> Hmmm... >>> >>>> Mine has buttons for stations, seek and scan, plus buttons on the >>>> steering wheel for station change. I can't remember the last time >>>> I twisted a volume knob. I'm guessing they are for Luddites that can't >>>> learn new things. >>> >>> pejorative comment noted. >> >> And yet John conveniently failed to mention how his car's radio's >> **volume** control is actually performed. >> >> From a UI perspective, buttons are better for some things, but that >> doesn't automatically mean that a 'button' UI is better for ALL >> inputs. The exercise is left to the reader to go replace a car's >> steering _wheel_ with Left& Right buttons :-) > >I dunno about his car, but mine has controls on the steering wheel for >station change and for volume, as well as for "speed up" and "slow down". So does mine, but there is also a knob on the radio itself to adjust volume. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Neil Harrington on 9 Jul 2010 17:33 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:mrnc36dmrbs81svog846rg5kqmk78h9d4k(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:17:41 -0400, in > <pq6dnS-LN5kDwavRnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" > <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >>"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >>news:o9tb36lh2gbg9lr95m1p5nlg809bu41db8(a)4ax.com... > >>> What you have done is make negative judgments without sufficient >>> experience to support them, in other words, guesses. >> >>I don't think so. I have used a lot of compact cameras with motorized >>zooms, >>and a lot of SLRs with manual zooms. > > But you don't even know your own camera well, much less mine. > >>As I have said, I can understand the >>*necessity* of using motorized zooms in small cameras, so there would be >>little point in wishing they had manual zooms instead. But I think 99.9% >>of >>people using both types of camera would agree that manual zooms are >>faster, >>easier and more precise than motorized ones. > > I disagree. If I said things fall DOWN and not UP, you would disagree. Your disagreement in this carries no weight, it is just silly. > >>> 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. >> >>Well, I don't "lack experience" with it entirely, I have used it, though >>admittedly not a great deal. I think I have used it enough to make the >>sort >>of judgements I have made. > > I don't. You obviously lack real experience with power zoom. > You also seem to lack experience with macro modes. I have a great deal of experience with macro modes. > >>> That has nothing to do with varifocal versus parfocal, which only refers >> >>It has *everything* to do with varifocal vs. true zoom. With a true zoom >>lens, near focus distance does not change with changes in focal length. > > Nope. But feel free to prove me wrong with an authoritative citation. You can prove it to yourself with any camera fitted with a true zoom (as opposed to varifocal) lens. All of my zoom lenses have the same near focus regardless of focal length used. If you had a zoom lens you would see that that's the case. The varifocal lens on your FZ28, which is the same lens as on my FZ35, does not do that. It doesn't even come close to doing it. You can prove this to yourself WITH YOUR OWN CAMERA. At its shortest focal length it focuses much closer than at the longer focal lengths. That is characteristic of varifocal lenses (most of them, anyway). > >>> 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. >> >>But it DOES NOT "emulate parfocal operation," and cannot. That is the >>whole >>point. How close you can focus depends on the focal length used. > > You are confusing constant focus, which is what parfocal means, and Of course. > minimum focusing distance, which has nothing to do with parfocal. Do you really not see that what you're saying makes no sense whatever? If its minimum focusing distance changes according to focal length, then how how a varifocal lens be parfocal? No offense, John, but you are talking gibberish. > >>> I don't need experience >> >>Ah. YOU "don't need experience" to have an opinion, but anyone else does. >>Right? >> >>> -- 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. >> >>My Tamron Di II VC LD Aspherical has a significantly wider zoom ratio, >>18-270mm. > > It lacks the quality of either the Canon L or the Panasonic Leica. Where do you find that in "its specs"? > > NOTE: I'm not going to get drawn into a pointless and meaningless > debate over the quality of Tamron lenses. If they're good enough for > your needs, then by all means use them, but you've effectively conceded > the point by doing so. Tamron makes a wide variety of lenses, and has for decades. Many of them have been superb. As with any other manufacturer, including Canon and Nikon, some models are better than others and there are differences between individual lenses as well. Published tests have shown that some Tamrons are superior to the analogous Nikkors. I have Nikon's 18-200mm VR lens as well as the Tamron 18-270. The Tamron is actually superior at the longer focal lengths *and* has superior image stabilization as well. See the lens tests at DPReview as well as many online user reviews for proof of this. You're the one who claims that no one can have an opinion unless it's based on lengthy experience with the product, and yet here you are disparaging Tamron lenses that you have no experience with and know nothing about -- you're apparently basing your opinion on nothing at all except that you think one brand name is more prestigious than the other. Talk about hypocrisy! > >>> You're actually making disparaging and false characterizations. >>> Like your comments on "pushbutton" zoom. >> >>It's just not as fast, easy or precise as a manual zoom, John. Not your >>fault, not Panasonic's fault, it's just a limitation of that type of lens. > > Again, you're simply not in a position to judge either the camera or how > I use it. All you can say with any (but not much) validity is that you > personally don't like it. Do you really not pay any attention at all? I DO like the FZ35 and have said so repeatedly. I like it very much for the kind of camera it is. You just won't be satisfied unless someone says it's the equal of a DSLR, which is simply not the case and never will be the case for these entirely different types of camera. Another day or so of this useless discussion with you and I probably would end up despising the FZ35 at that.
From: Neil Harrington on 9 Jul 2010 17:39 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:080720101655326421%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <mrnc36dmrbs81svog846rg5kqmk78h9d4k(a)4ax.com>, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> I don't. You obviously lack real experience with power zoom. >> You also seem to lack experience with macro modes. > > why do you keep attacking people? you must be threatened. > >> >> That has nothing to do with varifocal versus parfocal, which only >> >> refers >> > >> >It has *everything* to do with varifocal vs. true zoom. With a true zoom >> >lens, near focus distance does not change with changes in focal length. >> >> Nope. But feel free to prove me wrong with an authoritative citation. > > it's been done, even using the sources you provided. > > you dismiss anything that says you're wrong, regardless of the source, > just like you dismiss the laws of physics when it comes to sensor > sizes. > >> NOTE: I'm not going to get drawn into a pointless and meaningless >> debate over the quality of Tamron lenses. If they're good enough for >> your needs, then by all means use them, but you've effectively conceded >> the point by doing so. > > have you used that particular lens? no? then you aren't in a position > to comment. the double-standard rears its head again. > > furthermore, some tamron lenses are outstanding. some are not. what > matters is how well a particular lens performs. some nikon and canon > lenses are outstanding and some are not. Exactly. John seems to be basing his opinion of lenses entirely on which ones he thinks have more of a prestige brand name. That, after all his insistence that it's only long experience with the particular product that matters. > >> >> You're actually making disparaging and false characterizations. >> >> Like your comments on "pushbutton" zoom. >> > >> >It's just not as fast, easy or precise as a manual zoom, John. Not your >> >fault, not Panasonic's fault, it's just a limitation of that type of >> >lens. >> >> Again, you're simply not in a position to judge either the camera or how >> I use it. > > you aren't in a position to judge a lens he mentioned or how he uses it. > >> All you can say with any (but not much) validity is that you >> personally don't like it. Anything more is disparaging. > > which means that your comments about tamron are exactly that. Just so. I think I'm going to give up on John. I enjoy a good argument with anyone who can manage a *rational* discussion, by arguing with him is like arguing with a doorknob.
From: nospam on 9 Jul 2010 17:54
In article <hbmdnf1KIZgLCKrRnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >>> -- 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. > >> > >>My Tamron Di II VC LD Aspherical has a significantly wider zoom ratio, > >>18-270mm. > > > > It lacks the quality of either the Canon L or the Panasonic Leica. > > Where do you find that in "its specs"? a better question is if he's every owned it. he hasn't. by his own admission, he won't buy canon after they orphaned his fd lenses. > > NOTE: I'm not going to get drawn into a pointless and meaningless > > debate over the quality of Tamron lenses. If they're good enough for > > your needs, then by all means use them, but you've effectively conceded > > the point by doing so. > > Tamron makes a wide variety of lenses, and has for decades. Many of them > have been superb. As with any other manufacturer, including Canon and Nikon, > some models are better than others and there are differences between > individual lenses as well. Published tests have shown that some Tamrons are > superior to the analogous Nikkors. exactly correct. the tamron 90mm macro is one of the best macro lenses made. last time this came up, he said the lens was junk because one review said the focus motor was loud. > You're the one who claims that no one can have an opinion unless it's based > on lengthy experience with the product, and yet here you are disparaging > Tamron lenses that you have no experience with and know nothing about -- > you're apparently basing your opinion on nothing at all except that you > think one brand name is more prestigious than the other. Talk about > hypocrisy! it's ok when he does it but not when others. he is a hypocrite. he hasn't owned any of the equipment he bashes. |