Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 5 Dec 2009 09:42 Bob Larter wrote: > Pretend-Photographers Is All They Are wrote: >> >> I suggest that YOU spend some time learning about close-up >> photography. Because, clearly, you know absolutely NOTHING about it. > > Got some samples to show us of your (no doubt) excellent work? I guess we've already seen as much of the troll's "excellent work" as anyone is ever going to see.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 6 Dec 2009 19:59 Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: >> Yet pro photographers have been taking photos on ASA25, ASA64, ASA100, and >> ASA200 all their lives for nearly a century. Oh, sure, and that's why the pros are all using P&S cameras ... so they can get ISO 64 or ISO 50. Who buys and uses the high end 35mm cameras, the medium format backends and so on? How do you attach a studio flash system to a P&S camera. Of course, when shooting sports, it's just the trick to anticipate the action a few minutes ahead of time and then guess right how long your P&S will take THIS time to focus properly. Once you have that skill, you can bet confidentally on the outcome of any game and have more than enough money to hire pro photographers who understand what they are doing: they use DSLRs with really high ISO settings and expensive, fast glass. > Not at night, they haven't. Tripod. Doesn't work with grandchildren, creeping moss or any kind of movable object, though. >> Higher ISOs are only required >> by those that don't know how to use a camera properly--beginner >> snapshooters. > Ever heard of Tri-X? No, the slime hasn't, it would destroy it's worn out stupid, wrong and boneheaded "argument". You must forgive it, it has never ever even touched a camera, all it knows comes from LSD trips. -Wolfgang
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 6 Dec 2009 20:22 Paul Ciszek <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote: > I realize now that these better cameras with the larger sensors > may not go as close without special lenses. Macro is *not* about "close". Macro is about life size on the sensor (or more). Case in point: an old film movie camera my father used to have could literally(!) focus an ant crawling on the front lens. You cannot get "closer" than that. However, the ant wouldn't be near it's life size on the film. (And it would be mostly a black shadow.) With a macro lens like the 100mm macro from Canon I can shoot the ant from quite a distance, 149mm from the front of the lens, and have it appear at it's full size on the sensor. Because the working distance is large, it's much easier to get light on the ant --- it's not a shadow any more, even without flash. Moss and lichen won't flee, but many insects will if you come too close ... again, more distance is a plus at times. There's a 1x-5x speciality lens for Canon. Then there are the old methods of using good lenses and extension tubes (or bellows) and reverse mounted wide angle lenses. Tripods are practically mandatory then. > I still don't think > I am enough of a photographer to fully utilize, let alone justify, > a $ingle Len$ Reflex camera. In which case you probably are happier with a compact camera for now, so you'll find out what you really want. -Wolfgang
From: Neil Harrington on 6 Dec 2009 21:55 "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:iv1uu6-t54.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... > Paul Ciszek <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >> I realize now that these better cameras with the larger sensors >> may not go as close without special lenses. > > Macro is *not* about "close". Macro is about life size on > the sensor (or more). The OP did not use the term "macro" either in that post or any other that I'm aware of. He spoke only of "close up." In any case, the meaning of "macro" is very fluid. There have been plenty of macro lenses that focused only to 1:2 without some sort of adapter, several zoom lens manufacturers have used "macro" to mean a lens that focused to 1:4 or thereabouts; FFL macro lens makers nowadays usually take it to mean *up to* 1:1 but an earlier and quite legitimate usage was a lens that could achieve *greater than* 1:1 at the film plane. That is why Nikon calls its up-to-1:1 lenses "micro" instead -- they aren't just doing that to be different; they honor the older definition of "macro" meaning greater magnification than 1:1. Minolta on the other hand used "macro" to mean either lenses than would go *up to* 1:1 (the current conventinal usage) or *greater than* 1:1, i.e. their 1-3x macro lens. Smaller sensors on most of today's DSLRs complicate the matter still further, since a 1:1 lens on an APS-C camera achieves a magnification (final image size) equal to 1:0.66 or so on a full-frame camera. > > Case in point: an old film movie camera my father used to have > could literally(!) focus an ant crawling on the front lens. > You cannot get "closer" than that. However, the ant wouldn't > be near it's life size on the film. (And it would be mostly a > black shadow.) It's almost like that with my new FZ35, I've discovered. (I'm sorry the OP doesn't seem to be following this thread anymore since he was considering buying that model). The "close up" mode allows getting to a very, very close focusing distance from the lens, but the magnification is not really satisfactory IMO for the "ultra close up" work he said he wanted to do. And that very close focusing distance is only available at the extreme wide angle end -- trying to gain more magnification by zooming doesn't work at all because zooming even a little greatly increases the near focus distance. > > With a macro lens like the 100mm macro from Canon I can shoot > the ant from quite a distance, 149mm from the front of the lens, > and have it appear at it's full size on the sensor. Because the > working distance is large, it's much easier to get light on > the ant --- it's not a shadow any more, even without flash. > Moss and lichen won't flee, but many insects will if you come > too close ... again, more distance is a plus at times. > > There's a 1x-5x speciality lens for Canon. > > Then there are the old methods of using good lenses and extension > tubes (or bellows) and reverse mounted wide angle lenses. > Tripods are practically mandatory then. > >> I still don't think >> I am enough of a photographer to fully utilize, let alone justify, >> a $ingle Len$ Reflex camera. > > In which case you probably are happier with a compact camera > for now, so you'll find out what you really want. Yes, and probably not the FZ35 he was thinking of. Some of my older Coolpix models actually are *much* better at close-up work than the FZ35, to my surprise.
From: Ray Fischer on 7 Dec 2009 01:04
Bart Bailey <me2(a)privacy.net> wrote: >01:59:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Begin > >>How do >>you attach a studio flash system to a P&S camera. > >Use a slave trigger. Now how do you attach a studio flash to a P&S without having the camera's flash screw up the lighting? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |