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: Bruce on 11 Jul 2010 14:29 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:41:49 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REMOVE(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: >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. Ah, yes, a Minolta copy. ;-)
From: RichA on 11 Jul 2010 22:20 On Jul 10, 11:23 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:09:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(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? I don't believe in cramming such wide focal length ranges into one lens, they end up sucking horribly because of that. 5:1 is the maximum I've seen and the lens still being able to produce decent images, especially at either end of the range.
From: RichA on 11 Jul 2010 22:20 On Jul 11, 4:27 am, Allen <all...(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 It also appears to have a nictitating (sp?) membrane over it's eye.
From: RichA on 11 Jul 2010 22:21 On Jul 11, 11:08 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <all...(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. Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.
From: Bruce on 12 Jul 2010 05:43
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 11, 11:08�am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <all...(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. > >Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever >used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close. I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post, but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a beauty. Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches! Zero depth of field up close, as you said. You need to avoid out of focus highlights, as with any mirror lens. |