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 15 Jul 2010 16:46 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 04:51:12 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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. What a shame. You need to learn how to buy better cameras. So just because you only know how to buy shitty cameras, then this applies to all cameras that you've never used nor know anything about. I get it now. LOL! (Have you ever figured out what an f-stop is yet? Did Puppygang Weasleburg ever get you to comprehend what it is and how they work? LOL!!!!!)
From: Rich on 16 Jul 2010 15:38 rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4c3ec2d3$0$1604 $742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net: > 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. > Shouldn't you be out marching somewhere, carry a red hammer and sickle flag?
From: Rich on 16 Jul 2010 20:00 rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4c3ec2d3$0$1604 $742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net: > 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. You are a fool. I paid $499 for my last G1, hardly elitist when it cost less than the top superzoom P&S's. Call it smart instead.
From: Ray Fischer on 17 Jul 2010 03:09 Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4c3ec2d3$0$1604 >> 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. > >Shouldn't you be out marching somewhere, carry a red hammer and sickle >flag? Shouldn't you be wearing your hood and carrying a swastika? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 17 Jul 2010 03:10
Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4c3ec2d3$0$1604 >$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net: > >> 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. > >You are a fool. I paid $499 for my last G1, But that's not what you paid for your last camera, is it? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |