I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Immigration: The shocking truth about the immigrants who openedthe floodgates
Next: The real cost of being sued by Getty
From: Ray Fischer on 30 Oct 2009 13:31 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:48:42 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >wrote in <4aead29d$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: > >>John Navas wrote: >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:56:37 -0700, John Navas >>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in >>> <fr4ee5p9196a1mduq553nj92auolvl8pnk(a)4ax.com>: >>> >>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:15:04 -0700 (PDT), -hh >>> >>>>> Since John expressed a hypothetical willingness to pay 4x the price of >>>>> a typical P&S, the proportionally appropriate factor of 4x taken >>>>> against the price of an S90, would give us a $1600 budget to work >>>>> with. Plenty of options & choices. And even if we do a simple >>>>> linearization to a +$300 premium, that would afford a $700 budget; >>>>> there's still several choices. > >>>> I've said nothing of the sort. What I have said is that even a budget >>>> dSLR kit that still falls far short of the Panasonic FZ28 is on the >>>> order of $1,128 (as I detailed in my earlier post to this thread), far >>>> more expensive than the FZ28, and to get close to comparable quality, >>>> it's more like $3,000 (Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus >>>> lens, as I've detailed in several prior posts to this forum). >>>> Apology accepted. >>> >>> Even the big and expensive Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus >>> lens isn't all that close: >> >>Are you serious? The 28-300mm EF is a 10:1 zoom! Try using a _good_ lens. > >The Panasonic FZ28 has an _18:1_ zoom that is more than _good_. It's "good" thanks to image processing done by the camera to correct its flaws. >The painful fact for dSLR fans/users is that there _aren't_ any good >lenses that even get close to matching the Leica super-zoom lenses on >Panasonic compact digital cameras. Bullshit. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: -hh on 30 Oct 2009 15:35 On Oct 30, 1:30 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > ><recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in > > >>[HUGE SNIP] > > That's a pretty artless retreat. Because amongst other things, it revealed John's btant hypocrisy. > >>This then means that all of those "light" and "fits in my pocket" > >>attributes that nominally favor a P&S unfortunately disappear, simply > >>because of their need for tripod to conduct a stiched panorama as an > >>attempt to be an acceptable substitute for failing to have a wider > >>lens. > > >Nope, no matter how many times you make those false and misleading > >claims. > > You're not very honest, either. While it is possible to carry/use a micro-tripod, they are quite limiting for the same reason that they're small (sound familiar?). I actually used one for my "Milky Way/Cabin" shot, but in order to do so, I had to drag a piece of furniture out of the cabin with which to set the mini+camera upon, and moving the contraption around for composition and compensating for the uneven surface. It definitely took longer & involved more hassles than it would have otherwise taken with the right gear. In hindsight, I now carry a Kinesis K-gear "Safari I" empty sandbag...it is lighter & smaller than even a mini- tripod for transport, and when filled with local material, it provides overall a more stable support. -hh
From: -hh on 30 Oct 2009 16:28 nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > > > 5. Panoramas can easily be created by stitching images. > > > Not if *anything* is moving, which requires both a static composition > > as well as a static camera...eg, a tripod. > > you are forgetting that the laws of physics do not apply to him. he can > make panoramas of moving subjects (and he's actually claimed this). I thought that it was only that fool "D-Mac" who made that claim...? Nevertheless, even if one is able to violate the laws of parallax, there still is the factor that some subjects dare to move around. Stitched images have their place, but their place isn't "everywhere". -hh
From: nospam on 30 Oct 2009 16:45 In article <ab553e7d-dbdb-4fd6-a347-db39c68a7afc(a)k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > Nevertheless, even if one is able to violate the laws of parallax, > there still is the factor that some subjects dare to move around. sometimes you can still make a panorama if there's minimal movement or if the movement is entirely in one photo. parallax can be adjust also, but there's a tradeoff in quality. it's best to get it right in the first place. for stage work, panoramas are simply the wrong choice. > Stitched images have their place, but their place isn't "everywhere". right.
From: Outing DSLR-Trolls is FUN! on 30 Oct 2009 20:19
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:26:31 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >John Navas wrote: >> >> Panasonic FZ20 takes silent available light >> >> images with its superb 36-432 mm f/2.8 zoom. >> >> ><grin> Too bad if you need a 20mm shot to >> include the entire stage. ;^) >> >> 1. 36 mm is just fine in the great majority of cases. > >Yet there's the entire field of "Wide Angle" which not only starts at >lower focal lengths (35mm), but because it been around for 40+ years >(just go look at your father's Kodachrome 64's from your family >vacations), it isn't at all unknown or uncommon. > Attesting to your trolls' ignorance and inexperience (again), I found a wonderful, and yet (surprisingly) inexpensive, fish-eye adapter that takes my 36mm P&S super-zoom lens to a 9mm-36mm Eq. focal-length zoom range. The point at which all vignetting disappears is at an 18mm Eq. focal-length. 9mm being a full-frame circular fish-eye view. The most surprising part, that for under $100, there is ZERO chromatic aberration too, throughout the whole 9mm-36mm focal length range. Some softness starts when zooming in enough to bring it to a 40mm Eq. focal-length, but that's of no concern because the camera's own unaided lens takes up at that point long before.. I've compared the images produced with this lens costing less than $100 for a P&S against the images produced with a $3,500 Nikkor fish-eye lens (which only has a fixed focal-length). This P&S adapter wins. No contest. It even bests the Raynox $350+ fish-eye that Raynox used to offer. I've already posted one fisheye image proving this, and all you pathetic and sad inexperienced snapshooter trolls claimed it was taken with an expensive DSLR lens or that I stole the image online. Go play your pathetic troll games with someone else. I don't play your childish little game anymore. Those who saw the posted image in the past already know you for the fools and trolls that you are. As do I. Proved 100%. Let us all watch them now act as definitive experts about equipment that they have never actually used ... As all insecure DSLR-Trolls always do. |