Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: -hh on 3 Nov 2009 11:44 John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote > >John Navas wrote: > >> tony cooper wrote: > >>> 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, Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 .. YMMV if its worth a slight (10%) drop in focal length to gain 1/3rd of a stop...along with the better ISO range and the better lens stabilization (if one is so inclined). > >> and Extended Optical Zoom goes > > >ie; 'digital zoom'. *snicker* > > Nope. Your ignorance is showing. Its simply in-camera cropping, which carries the disadvantage of not permitting an image to be re-composed if the operator missed slightly when tightly framing the subject. This results in lower yield. > >You've obviously never tried to use such > > a combination for real photography. > > Again, your ignorance is showing. Pendantly, the correct statement would have been "...never demonstrated a success of good yield from the range of aviary subjects (large-small, static-flying) while using such a combination..." The simple reality is that flying birds are a challenging subject no matter what gear one has. Not only does it have focal length considerations, but it also stresses autofocus systems, both for speed of acquiring, but also for their dynamic tracking accuracy. Of course, John will continue to claim to high heaven that the Panasonic is the bees knees, but if one were to go buy the hardware to test for one's self, any failures will predictably result in the excuse of "Operator Error". -hh
From: John Navas on 3 Nov 2009 11:46 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:04:07 -0800, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in <q2l0f5pfr8o5vv4ultjs5bnjhrbaps3g3o(a)4ax.com>: >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0500, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in ><2beve558371hbukcr48a0ic6770v9aegjc(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:21 -0800, John Navas > >>>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 ... > >I do indeed. :) And, making an exception to my rule: <http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg> Your turn. Image you've taken yourself. -- 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: John Navas on 3 Nov 2009 11:48 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:18:43 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in <0sl0f51505eeikj9k8f8ajb4iea2d3v52j(a)4ax.com>: >John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:27:55 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> >>wrote in <qofve5la7lrts5g05rif3jp6ed94cdcr6m(a)4ax.com>: >> >>>John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>>Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm, >>>>and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm, >>> >>>What is "extended optical zoom"? An addon-lens? >> >>Automatic cropping of the image. > >And what does digital cropping have to do with "[extended] optical >zoom"? >Calling cropping zooming is plain lying (not by you but probably by >marketing). I call this sour grapes. YMMV. ;) -- 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: John Navas on 3 Nov 2009 11:52 On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:44:46 -0800 (PST), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <4a967c85-edfa-4f95-9ecb-9750ca106db1(a)b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >John Navas wrote: >> >> tony cooper wrote: >> >>> 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, > >Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 .. What lens (including price, size and weight, and how long you've owned it)? -- 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: Ray Fischer on 3 Nov 2009 13:03
John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:04:07 -0800, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in ><q2l0f5pfr8o5vv4ultjs5bnjhrbaps3g3o(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0500, tony cooper >><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in >><2beve558371hbukcr48a0ic6770v9aegjc(a)4ax.com>: >> >>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:21 -0800, John Navas >> >>>>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 ... >> >>I do indeed. :) > >And, making an exception to my rule: ><http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg> I note that 1) your bird is a very large bird that you didn't need to get very close to, and 2) your got fairly close to it anyway judging by the angle of the shot. Not bad, but not impressive. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |