Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 3 Nov 2009 17:43 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:16:01 -0800, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:19:06 -0500, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in ><dt61f5h8fu406qfigajd9hblgff1g2nhds(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:46:07 -0800, 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> >>> >>>Your turn. Image you've taken yourself. >> >>I'd have taken it over. It's a decent, but not particularly good >>photograph. The heron's head, feathers on the head, and beak are not >>sharply in focus. The composition is bland. The cropping is >>unimaginative. Overall, it's run-of-the-mill bird photo. > >You presume to put down a photo from a small compressed sample. >Why am I not surprised. You truly are a waste of time. Who are you trying to fool, John? I can look at a "small compressed" image and tell if the detail's mushy. I'm not putting it down. I'm commenting on what is obvious. It's decent but lacks detail. A larger, uncompressed, version would have the same lack of detail. A larger, uncompressed, version would be composed and cropped identically. For critique, any size/compression tells the tale. > >>Why do you feel that this is better than a dslr can do? > >"The best camera is the one you have with you." > >>Here's a photograph of a heron that I took, and one that I would rate >>to be about equal with yours. Like yours, my heron's head and beak >>are not sharply in focus. My lack of sharp focus extends down the >>neck, though. >>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Birds/1000/499715774_XfCuM-X3.jpg > >No Exif or other information provided. Why am I not surprised. Didn't know you wanted it. I just linked from my SmugMug site. It was taken at 1/500th at 5.6, ISO 200, using my 55/200mm lens. If I remember right, the mode setting was "Auto". I was about to board the Mayport ferry and noticed the heron next to the pier. I usually keep the setting set to Auto until I know what I'm going to photograph, and then switch to Aperture. Didn't switch here because they were directing us to drive onto the ferry. I was shooting .jpg only that day because I was up at my daughter's in Jacksonville Beach, and we planned to upload our photos to her laptop. She wasn't set up for RAW then. I kept this one because I like the composition with the diagonal lines of the pier base. Now, bullshit aside, what is there about that image of yours that makes you think it makes a case in the dslr vs P&S issue? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 3 Nov 2009 17:47 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:32:25 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <7k71f59li00aq632tpmrf3d7dehg8smr2t(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> When upgrading a dslr body, the owner can continue to benefit from the >> investment because the upgrades can be used on other bodies purchased >> in the future. The upgrades you mention are good for that car only. > >not true! you can take the engine out just as easy as you put it in! Sure, if your next car will accept the engine. But, you are left with at least one car without an engine. If you upgrade your dslr body with the items I've mentioned, using the upgrades on a new body doesn't affect the old body. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John Navas on 3 Nov 2009 17:53 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:43:52 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in <mab1f51f0daa0gd2vnf1of2a1qv4n40k9s(a)4ax.com>: >Now, bullshit aside, ... there's nothing left. -- 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 17:55 On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:26:44 -0800 (PST), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <da91b729-171a-4472-b0a4-9e2f2c4fc954(a)d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>: >> >>Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 .. >> >> >What lens (including price, size and weight, >> >and how long you've owned it)? >The Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III sells for $160, although it is f/ >5.6 whereas John is curious because I specifically mentioned it having >an f/4.0 solution. ... Mediocre lens. No thanks. -- 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: nospam on 3 Nov 2009 18:01
In article <hic1f5tc8bm8prs42120h637idicuri2d2(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> When upgrading a dslr body, the owner can continue to benefit from the > >> investment because the upgrades can be used on other bodies purchased > >> in the future. The upgrades you mention are good for that car only. > > > >not true! you can take the engine out just as easy as you put it in! > > Sure, if your next car will accept the engine. But, you are left with > at least one car without an engine. you can buy an engine by itself and sell the one that you removed. of course, very very few people swap engines in cars. it's an absurd comparison. > If you upgrade your dslr body > with the items I've mentioned, using the upgrades on a new body > doesn't affect the old body. the only issue is if you switch camera brands, but even then, a lot of things can still be used. |