Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: George Kerby on 2 Nov 2009 20:08 On 11/2/09 5:54 PM, in article 4aef7146$0$1582$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:11:36 -0000, "No spam please" >> <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hcmc90$1foi$3(a)adenine.netfront.net>: >> >>> The difference between SLRs and vehicles is that an SLR is adaptable to the >>> user's changing needs. >> >> On the contrary -- dSLR is non-upgradable and rapidly obsoleted, > > You really are a stupid liar. Ray, THAT is one thing we can agree. Congrats!
From: nospam on 2 Nov 2009 21:09 In article <C714DEA7.37C85%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> The difference between SLRs and vehicles is that an SLR is adaptable to > >>> the > >>> user's changing needs. > >> > >> On the contrary -- dSLR is non-upgradable and rapidly obsoleted, > > > > You really are a stupid liar. > > Ray, THAT is one thing we can agree. Congrats! a liar is someone who says things that they know to be false. i think john really believes the stuff he posts.
From: Dudley Hanks on 2 Nov 2009 22:43 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:021120092209308785%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <C714DEA7.37C85%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, George Kerby > <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> The difference between SLRs and vehicles is that an SLR is adaptable >> >>> to >> >>> the >> >>> user's changing needs. >> >> >> >> On the contrary -- dSLR is non-upgradable and rapidly obsoleted, >> > >> > You really are a stupid liar. >> >> Ray, THAT is one thing we can agree. Congrats! > > a liar is someone who says things that they know to be false. i think > john really believes the stuff he posts. That's assuming he understands what he's posting ... :) Take Care, Dudley
From: John Navas on 2 Nov 2009 23:29 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:57:46 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in <ebsue594peulupu5l57sp3jca4rquh16ge(a)4ax.com>: >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:16:23 -0800, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:21:01 -0000, "No spam please" >><me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hcn098$2m11$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>: >> >>>I agree that a 3oomm lens isn't ideal for bird photography. Personally, I'd >>>love a fast 400mm but the cost, size and weight are beyond me. ... >> >>Panasonic with optically-stabilized Leica super-zoom lens is >>inexpensive, compact and light, excellent for birding. > >Chickens, perhaps. Turkeys, ostriches, emus, and caged birds maybe. >Large birds that you can close enough to touch. Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm, and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm, quite sufficient for most birding, but those ranges are easily extended with a teleconverter to over 800 mm and over 1400 mm respectively. Much better than dSLR. :D -- 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
From: tony cooper on 3 Nov 2009 00:03
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:21 -0800, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:57:46 -0500, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in ><ebsue594peulupu5l57sp3jca4rquh16ge(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:16:23 -0800, John Navas >><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:21:01 -0000, "No spam please" >>><me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hcn098$2m11$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>: >>> >>>>I agree that a 3oomm lens isn't ideal for bird photography. Personally, I'd >>>>love a fast 400mm but the cost, size and weight are beyond me. ... >>> >>>Panasonic with optically-stabilized Leica super-zoom lens is >>>inexpensive, compact and light, excellent for birding. >> >>Chickens, perhaps. Turkeys, ostriches, emus, and caged birds maybe. >>Large birds that you can close enough to touch. > >Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm, >and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm, >quite sufficient for most birding, >but those ranges are easily extended with a teleconverter >to over 800 mm and over 1400 mm respectively. > >Much better than dSLR. :D And, of course, you have examples of your "better than dslr" bird photographs to show. Right? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |