Prev: Any tutorials for MAGIX PhotoStory on CD & DVD 9?
Next: Should all RichA TROLLS be taken out and shot?
From: RichA on 12 Aug 2010 17:29
"You will give your lens, a dog's name." (because that's how they
perform).

http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10081205sony18200mmemount.asp
From: Superzooms Still Win on 12 Aug 2010 19:19
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

And RichA will sleep with his keyboard.

>"You will give your lens, a dog's name." (because that's how they
>perform).
>
>http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10081205sony18200mmemount.asp

Now why on earth would I want a measly 18-200mm (27-300mm EFL) F3.5-6.3,
when I already have a 9-735mm (EFL) F2.7-3.5 on one of my superzoom
cameras, by using two high-quality converter lenses--camera and both
converter lenses all fitting into one roomy windbreaker pocket.

That's 2 stops more aperture on my camera at the long end with almost 2.5
times the focal-length. Meaning: noise-free images at ISO200 when you would
need to have noise-free images at ISO800. Ooops, you can't get a 735mm F6.3
lens. So sad. Crank up that ISO some more for longer focal-lengths. You can
get 600mm (EFL) out of that lens if you use a 2x tele-converter, but then
you're using an apparent aperture of F12.7. (Damn, can't use any
phase-detection focusing at that aperture on any camera. So sad.) Crank up
that ISO to 3200 now for 600mm. Boy, I sure hope that equivalent exposure
setting needed is noise-free on your camera. (LOL) Yet you still haven't
come close to the 735mm (EFL) reach of my camera yet. I also have almost 1
stop more aperture at the short end at 1/3rd of the shortest focal-length
of the $800 lens. Camera and both adapter lenses for a seamless zoom range
of 9mm to 735mm for less than 1/2 the price of that lens alone.

An old saying strongly comes to mind. "A fool and his money are soon
parted."

You've all already seen the tack-sharp, CA-free fish-eye, to
super-telephoto images (even when stacked with a +2 diopter closeup lens
for a tele-macro configuration) with details resolved down to single pixels
from my superzoom cameras. Remember the butterfly photo with its
wing-scales resolved from 7-8 feet away? So don't bother with the usual
"DSLR-Troll's Song and Dance" about better image quality, it doesn't get
better than what I already have. Mention image quality and you'll only look
like the fools that you are yet again.



From: Rich on 12 Aug 2010 20:21
Superzooms Still Win <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote in
news:61t866l66s8sp4tpec1bbb0r59hjiukugq(a)4ax.com:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> And RichA will sleep with his keyboard.

I think I'll start posting two pictures a day. One taken with a superzoom,
the other taken by a DSLR, both at 1600 ISO. What say you?


From: Superzooms Still Win on 12 Aug 2010 20:43
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:21:00 -0500, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote:

>Superzooms Still Win <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote in
>news:61t866l66s8sp4tpec1bbb0r59hjiukugq(a)4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> And RichA will sleep with his keyboard.
>
>I think I'll start posting two pictures a day. One taken with a superzoom,
>the other taken by a DSLR, both at 1600 ISO. What say you?
>

Why? When you only need ISO100-200 on the superzoom for the focal-lengths
required for sports and nature photographers, due to their much larger
available aperture at those focal-lengths. Focal-lengths and apertures that
you can't even get on any DSLR.

So sad, for you.

Try again, TROLL.

From: George Kerby on 12 Aug 2010 20:59



On 8/12/10 4:29 PM, in article
3e469679-887b-4d9f-ab21-2635ec050ba0(a)z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, "RichA"
<rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> "You will give your lens, a dog's name." (because that's how they
> perform).
>
> http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10081205sony18200mmemount.asp

You have completely lost what was left of your mind.

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Any tutorials for MAGIX PhotoStory on CD & DVD 9?
Next: Should all RichA TROLLS be taken out and shot?