Superzoom P&S's may have long "effective" focal lengths, but....
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: KODAK EASYSHARE Z915: Good choice for a college student onTIGHT budget?
Next: Monitors slowly evolving
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 10 Jul 2010 23:23 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:09:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 10, 9:43�pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> >wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent >> >focal length can. �These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove >> >it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. �On top of that, the >> >images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable >> >chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. �All of which reduces >> >detail. >> >> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35767510 >> >> >Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm >> >mirror lens. �About a 500mm "equivalent." >> >> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original >> >> And here's where a 20x superzoom lens' resolution and CA performance EASILY >> beats an easy to design and build 3X DSLR lens. >> >> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res... >> >> Your point? >> >> Oh that's right. You NEVER have one. > >November 2008 >Yes, that original Canon 18-55mm was dog. Not equaled in crumminess >until the Sony 18-70mm showed up. But they are hardly representative >of good quality kit lenses. But you forgot to compare the resolution of that fixed-focal-length one-aperture-setting-only mirror lens with all focal-lengths from 35 to 420mm and apertures from f/2.8 to f/11 in the superzoom camera. How many mirror lenses would you have to haul around for that much focal-length reach and aperture range in all of them? How much would they cost? How large and sturdy of a camera bag to try to haul it all? Is that the largest aperture you can get at 500mm? F/5.6 isn't even enough aperture to allow shutter speeds fast enough freeze the image of someone walking during sunset let alone any other more demanding wildlife photography. Oh, and if you notice, the gull's image is downsized. The moon images were shot at 1/250 second, the gull at 1/3200 second. Even with all the technique advantages given to the mirror lens' image there's more pixel level details in the cropped-only 1:1 superzoom's moon images than in the gull image, even in its downsized version, where pixel-level details should have markedly increased, not reduced. Didn't you notice that? Could you find any two more totally disparate lens and shooting conditions to compare to try to prove something and yet totally fail even more at doing so? I don't think it possible. At least you got one of your fellow pretend-photographer trolls to out himself again by agreeing with you. He never even realized he was agreeing to your having provided perfect proof that you are 100% wrong and a fool. All that you managed to accomplish is make complete fools of both of you.
From: Allen on 11 Jul 2010 04:27 ransley wrote: > On Jul 10, 8:39 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent >> focal length can. These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove >> it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. On top of that, the >> images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable >> chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. All of which reduces >> detail. >> >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35767510 >> >> Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm >> mirror lens. About a 500mm "equivalent." >> >> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original > > You finally are learning. I thought everyone knew this in 05 Nice picture. Do you know what kind if gull? One very interesting thing that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something I've never noticed in any other kind of bird. Allen
From: James Nagler on 11 Jul 2010 06:07 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote: >ransley wrote: >> On Jul 10, 8:39 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent >>> focal length can. These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove >>> it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. On top of that, the >>> images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable >>> chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. All of which reduces >>> detail. >>> >>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35767510 >>> >>> Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm >>> mirror lens. About a 500mm "equivalent." >>> >>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original >> >> You finally are learning. I thought everyone knew this in 05 >Nice picture. Do you know what kind if gull? One very interesting thing >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird. >Allen That's because it doesn't have one as well. Those are artifacts caused by refraction through the gull's nictitating membrane.
From: Bruce on 11 Jul 2010 11:08 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote: > >One very interesting thing >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird. That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon. Had it been made by Nikon, it would have had more blades. The blade edges would also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on 11 Jul 2010 13:41
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> saying something like: >That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon. Had it been >made by Nikon, it would have had more blades. The blade edges would >also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh. I'd have said it was Chinese. Seagull. |