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: LOL! on 12 Jul 2010 05:52 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate. YOUR LOSS! LOL! > >You need to avoid out of focus highlights, as with any mirror lens.
From: Ray Fischer on 15 Jul 2010 04:12 RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent >focal length can. So what? Yes, you're an elitist snob who thinks that only your cameras are acceptable. Got it. Again. Thanks for sharing. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: DanP on 15 Jul 2010 05:23 On Jul 12, 10:52 am, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(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. > > Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate. > No need for a crappy sensor, use a smaller aperture and higher ISO. DanP
From: LOL! on 15 Jul 2010 06:19 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:23:37 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 12, 10:52�am, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(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. >> >> Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate. >> > >No need for a crappy sensor, use a smaller aperture and higher ISO. > >DanP Yes, then you can turn that larger sensor into a worse than crappy sensor by ruining your images with diffraction and noise. What a novel idea! LOL!
From: DanP on 15 Jul 2010 07:51
On Jul 15, 11:19 am, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:23:37 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 12, 10:52 am, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(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. > > >> Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate. > > >No need for a crappy sensor, use a smaller aperture and higher ISO. > > >DanP > > Yes, then you can turn that larger sensor into a worse than crappy sensor > by ruining your images with diffraction and noise. What a novel idea! > > LOL! You keep mentioning difraction without providing any numbers. Diffraction starts kicking in at f/8 on my SLR and I dare use ISO 1600 on it. On my P&S diffraction starts at f/4 with a maximum ISO of 400. My P&S is gathering dust now. A Nikon D700 to lose half of its resolution to difraction has to go to f/32. A Canon G11 loses half of its resolution to difraction at f/7.4 http://www.aguntherphotography.com/tutorial/diffraction-limits-of-resolution.html DanP |