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 13:27 In article <j9joe5pqh2ndl138uoolrepptfaf9f6abp(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >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> except that his calculator confirms what roger states.
From: -hh on 31 Oct 2009 21:12 Defending his boyfriend (again), the Copy & Paste troll wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(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 ... Which (paraphrasing) has vignetting at the one end, and is soft at the other ... but other than that, its the epitome of perfection! Gosh Golly Gee! > I've already posted one fisheye image proving this... Gosh, I must have missed that, with all your easy-to-ignore/killfile nymshifting. Please provide proof by citing the URL to your post as archived in Google Groups, lest this be assumed to be yet another lame lie. Afterall, its just a Copy & Paste ... you've already proven the ability to do that. > Proved 100%. Just like your vast experience in BJ's from strange men! > 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. FWIW, I own a clip-on adaptor for one of my camera systems. It has its place, but it does invariably compromise the system's optics. Part of the reason why is that a simple flush attachment onto a thread mount, etc, simply can't be reliably indexed to within a 1/10th of a wavelength to effect a perfect optical alignment so as to eliminate chromatic aberrations, overall softness, etc...its YA trade-off. -hh
From: Bob Larter on 1 Nov 2009 01:14 John Navas wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:21:28 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> > wrote in <4aeb9f2b$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: > >> John Navas wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:44:05 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote in <4aead188$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >>> >>>> tony cooper wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:03:53 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN! >>>>> <otif(a)myaddress.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Just as a DSLR is a "master of none". It's not even a "jack of all trades" >>>>>> It can't be used silently so as to take photos of wild animals without >>>>>> changing their behavior, your presence alerted to them by the sound of your >>>>>> camera, or the subject fleeing without you getting a second chance to take >>>>>> a shot. >>>>>> >>>>>> It can't be taken into most public performances these days due to the >>>>>> intrusive and obnoxious qualities of them. >>>>> That, in itself, is one of the best reasons to own a dslr and not a >>>>> p&s. I don't like paying for a ticket and have some idiot in front of >>>>> me standing up to fire off a flash picture of dots in the distance. >>>> Too true. Any time I'm photographing a gig, I'm an invited guest. If >>>> some P&S shooter refuses to move out of the way, I can just ask security >>>> to move them for me. >>> How silly and arrogant. I'd hazard a guess that you're no more welcome. >> Like I said, I'm generally shooting at the invitation of the performers. > > Read what I wrote more carefully. Read what I wrote more carefully - I'm talking about gigs that the performers have invited me to photograph. Naturally, my needs take priority over random people with P&S cameras. (Or worse yet, people trying to get photos with camera-phones.) -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 1 Nov 2009 01:15 John Navas 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. Really? I must have missed that post. Care to post the link again? -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 1 Nov 2009 01:17
nospam wrote: > <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. LOL. 0.5 - 0.81 second? That's awful. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |