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: nospam on 31 Oct 2009 01:53 In article <v4gne55kfeuvuj88ks2cm4h3hpgo48jebk(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >I do own some zooms, but I prefer primes, & would never expect top > >quality out of a 10:1 zoom - even if it is an 'L' zoom. > > The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a > comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here > previously. bullshit. the laws of physics and optics don't apply to you, do they? plus, the camera fixes up the shortcomings of the lens, whereas that's not an issue with a top quality fixed focal length lens. <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q109superzoomgroup/page7.asp> The small sensor means its images are never super-sharp (there's always a hint of noise reduction being applied, even at the lowest ISO settings), and they struggle with fine low-contrast detail and can easily be overwhelmed by bright light, but then that's true of all the cameras in this test. Overall, an impressive performance for a camera of this type and one that's undeniably enhanced by the removal of chromatic aberration, which appears to be processed-out by the camera. <http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ28/FZ28A.HTM> Sharpness: The wide-angle end of the Panasonic FZ28's zoom is surprisingly sharp from center to corner, but the telephoto end is quite soft in some corners. quite soft in some corners??? so much for outperforming a fixed focal length lens. and although not about the lens, this camera is relatively slow: Shutter lag: Full autofocus shutter lag is good, at 0.50 second at wide angle and 0.81 second at full telephoto.
From: David J Taylor on 31 Oct 2009 03:33 "John Turco" <> wrote in message news:4AEBCBF1.8290CD2F(a)concentric.net... [] > My Kodak P850 and DX6490 digicams, both feature fairly long optical zoom > lenses (12x and 10x, respectively). When employing telephoto, on closer > subjects, I've often achieved some >very< narrow DOF. > > -- > Cordially, > John Turco <jtur(a)concentric.net> Yes, John, so have I with my Panasonic FZ5 P&S, but it's so much easier with the large sensor on a DSLR, and you can get the same shallow depth of field at much closer subject distances (i.e. you don't need to be at the telephoto end of the zoom) and at the telephoto end you can get much more blurred backgrounds. The shallower depth-of-field was the prime reason my wife moved from P&S (Panasonic FZ20) to DSLR. The much better high-ISO was a secondary advantage. Well explained here, as I'm sure you know: http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth/ Cheers, David
From: Ray Fischer on 31 Oct 2009 04:26 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:23:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >wrote in <4aeb9fa5$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: > >>nospam wrote: >>> In article <4aead29d$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter >>> <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> he's fixated on a superzoom. >> >>I do own some zooms, but I prefer primes, & would never expect top >>quality out of a 10:1 zoom - even if it is an 'L' zoom. > >The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a >comparable dSLR, No it doesn't. > as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here >previously. You having posted any data on the lens. You've posted data on the camera's processing of the lens. Big difference. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: George Kerby on 31 Oct 2009 11:28 On 10/30/09 11:46 PM, in article v4gne55kfeuvuj88ks2cm4h3hpgo48jebk(a)4ax.com, "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:23:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> > wrote in <4aeb9fa5$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: > >> nospam wrote: >>> In article <4aead29d$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter >>> <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Even the big and expensive Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus >>>>> lens isn't all that close: >>>> Are you serious? The 28-300mm EF is a 10:1 zoom! Try using a _good_ lens. >>> >>> he's fixated on a superzoom. >> >> I do own some zooms, but I prefer primes, & would never expect top >> quality out of a 10:1 zoom - even if it is an 'L' zoom. > > The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a > comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here > previously. You are a fuckin idiot, NavASS...
From: John Navas on 31 Oct 2009 12:09
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:33:42 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in <qLRGm.131$Ym4.56(a)text.news.virginmedia.com>: >"John Turco" <> wrote in message news:4AEBCBF1.8290CD2F(a)concentric.net... >[] >> My Kodak P850 and DX6490 digicams, both feature fairly long optical zoom >> lenses (12x and 10x, respectively). When employing telephoto, on closer >> subjects, I've often achieved some >very< narrow DOF. >Yes, John, so have I with my Panasonic FZ5 P&S, but it's so much easier >with the large sensor on a DSLR, As you should know, it's dead easy with a Panasonic super-zoom like the (ancient) FZ5. How much easier can or need it be? >and you can get the same shallow depth of >field at much closer subject distances (i.e. you don't need to be at the >telephoto end of the zoom) Usually not an issue. >and at the telephoto end you can get much more >blurred backgrounds. Extremely shallow depth of field is usually considered a defect, not an advantage, and when an unusual image needs more, post-processing will usually give better results than any in-camera image (for me at least). >The shallower depth-of-field was the prime reason my >wife moved from P&S (Panasonic FZ20) to DSLR. She should of course go with what she wants/needs, but that doesn't really make much objective sense. >The much better high-ISO >was a secondary advantage. She should of course go with what she wants/needs. >Well explained here, as I'm sure you know: > http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth/ Not really -- too distorted by his agenda. Better explained here: <http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm> -- Best regards, 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 |