Will phase focusing go the way of the dinosaur?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Historical Center at night
Next: Forget Dpreview's B.S., "diplomatic language" NEX 16mm lens is not good
From: Paul Furman on 11 Jun 2010 02:12 ok, if you say so :-)
From: David J Taylor on 30 Jun 2010 03:55 "John Turco" <jtur(a)concentric.net> wrote in message news:4C2AB5E4.709EDD8A(a)concentric.net... [] > Superior or not, "phase focusing" just isn't enough, to offset > super-zoom > digicams' overall advantages (versus other market segments). > > -- > Cordially, > John Turco <jtur(a)concentric.net> Most of the time I find the opposite. My take includes overall image quality, speed of total response, viewfinder quality, and ability to isolate the subject by differential focussing. When those factors are less important than size, I take my Panasonic compact 28-280mm (equivalent) zoom. Cheers, David
From: John Navas on 30 Jun 2010 09:50 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:55:14 +0100, in <i0et92$3uu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"John Turco" <jtur(a)concentric.net> wrote in message >news:4C2AB5E4.709EDD8A(a)concentric.net... >[] >> Superior or not, "phase focusing" just isn't enough, to offset >> super-zoom >> digicams' overall advantages (versus other market segments). >Most of the time I find the opposite. My take includes overall image >quality, speed of total response, viewfinder quality, and ability to >isolate the subject by differential focussing. When those factors are >less important than size, I take my Panasonic compact 28-280mm >(equivalent) zoom. Overall image quality, speed of total response, viewfinder quality, and ability to isolate the subject by differential focussing are some of the factors that lead me to take my compact Panasonic 27-486mm super-zoom. "Different strokes for different folks." -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: SMS on 30 Jun 2010 10:20 On 29/06/10 8:11 PM, John Turco wrote: <snip> > Superior or not, "phase focusing" just isn't enough, to offset super-zoom > digicams' overall advantages (versus other market segments). Oh please, the super-zoom has some advantages, such as $/mm of zoom, but the disadvantages are huge, at least for many users. Slow contrast-detect focusing, poor low-light capability because of the tiny sensor, lack of an optical viewfinder, and compromise lenses are the main disadvantages. It gets worse if you have to start using lens adapters on top of the already compromised lens. If you're only using your super-zoom in good light, in the middle 3/5 or so of the focal range, and not taking photos of anything moving, then they're great, and you'd be wasting your money on a D-SLR. The appeal of the super-zoom is the low cost, wide-focal range, and small size (compared to a large D-SLR). The manufacturers love the super-zooms because they get to sell the consumer the super-zoom, then when the consumer realizes their mistake the manufacturer gets to sell them a D-SLR as well. At some point they learn that a 25-500mm or so lens is not possible to do well, and they may even learn about noise and pixel size. Or not, apparently.
From: John Navas on 30 Jun 2010 10:29
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:20:59 -0700, in <4c2b52c7$0$22118$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 29/06/10 8:11 PM, John Turco wrote: > ><snip> > >> Superior or not, "phase focusing" just isn't enough, to offset super-zoom >> digicams' overall advantages (versus other market segments). > >Oh please, the super-zoom has some advantages, such as $/mm of zoom, but >the disadvantages are huge, at least for many users. Slow >contrast-detect focusing, Actually quite fast. >poor low-light capability because of the tiny >sensor, Actually works quite well up to ISO 400, decent at ISO 800, and the fast lens makes it comparable to twice the ISO in a dSLR. >lack of an optical viewfinder, Actually an advantage. >and compromise lenses are the >main disadvantages. Actually sensational, on par with prime non-zoom dSLR lenses. >It gets worse if you have to start using lens >adapters on top of the already compromised lens. Actually works quite well. >If you're only using your super-zoom in good light, in the middle 3/5 or >so of the focal range, and not taking photos of anything moving, then >they're great, and you'd be wasting your money on a D-SLR. This shows you to have no real experience or expertise. >The appeal of the super-zoom is the low cost, wide-focal range, and >small size (compared to a large D-SLR). Plus sensational optics (better than dSLR lenses at many times the price, size and weight) and superior handling. >The manufacturers love the >super-zooms because they get to sell the consumer the super-zoom, then >when the consumer realizes their mistake the manufacturer gets to sell >them a D-SLR as well. Nonsense. >At some point they learn that a 25-500mm or so lens is not possible to >do well, and they may even learn about noise and pixel size. Or not, >apparently. Patently wrong. -- Best regards, John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin |