Canon and Panasonic: updated models
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 29 May 2010 11:50 "Jeff Jones" <jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message news:4gi1061ia6g7spmhoikfc161ai1gc9a7g9(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 29 May 2010 02:25:19 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" > <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >>Once you get past arbitrary standards, a photo by a blind photographer >>might >>just well indicate better mastery of the art than that exhibited by the >>Mona >>Lisa > > And there you have it folks. Precisely the kind of delusional twit that > you've all come to know and support. > I never said mine were, just that a blind photographer might exhibit a better mastery of the art than an artist who has exemplary physical abilities... The end result may not be as pleasing to the eye of a sighted person, but it may well have taken supreme skills to produce it. But, with your bigotted outlook on life, you'll never understand that point... Take Care, Dudley
From: John Navas on 29 May 2010 12:00 On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote in <cec0c04c-03b6-46e7-8fe9-12ec633563e2(a)e6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>: >On May 28, 2:40�am, John Navas <jnsp...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:59 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> >> wrote in <4bff1afc$0$1591$742ec...(a)news.sonic.net>: >> >On 27/05/10 4:22 PM, Bowser wrote: >> >> >> Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in >> >> the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. >> >> Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. >> >> >You've got to understand the issue here. Apparently our favorite troll >> >has an FZ-35/FZ-38 so by default that camera becomes the perfect camera >> >and it can have no faults. >> >> >Unlike you and I, who could objectively look at most any item we own and >> >point out both its highs and lows to someone who inquires about it, >> >there are people that immediately after purchasing an item feel >> >compelled to justify the purchase to the entire world and make it clear >> >that their purchasing decision was in fact the best possible one. It's >> >deep-seated insecurity that causes this behavior. >> >> >The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces >> >acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features. >> >But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image >> >quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR. >> >> The actual reality is that you have zero experience with any of these >> cameras, and have no idea what you're talking about. >> >> 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 > >Erm, have you ever tried a DSLR? Often. Canon and Nikon. My favorite is probably the D90. -- 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: John Navas on 29 May 2010 12:04 On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:04:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in <4c0013b7$0$1639$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>: >It's always amusing, though rather sad, to see Usenet (and other forum) >posts where the sole purpose of the poster is to try to justify their >purchase. It's as if it's a personal insult when someone points out even >the slightest flaw in the product and why some other product might be >better. At least they have the actual gear. Even more amusing are people like you that pontificate on gear with which they have zero experience, made painfully clear by how oven the pontification is patently wrong. >For outdoor photos in good light with non-moving subjects, a superzoom >can produce good results, and is certainly more convenient than a D-SLR. >The reason why D-SLR sales are going up so much faster is the situations >where they excel--low light, moving subjects, and better wide angle and >telephoto lenses than the compromise lenses on the ZLRs. The reason why D-SLR sales are going up faster is that they are coming from a lower base. Compact super-zoom sales continue to grow. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: David J Taylor on 29 May 2010 12:54 "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:7waMn.5161$Z6.1914(a)edtnps82... [] > I was wondering when somebody would point that out... > > My only lenses for the XSi are either 3.5 - 5.6 or 4.0 - 5.6, so the > f/2.8 - 4.3 is still larger, even at long focal lengths... The aperture (as an f/number) may be slightly "smaller" (i.e. higher f/number), but more light is collected because the actual physical aperture is greater (i.e. more photons get in). > As for the ISO 3200 not producing the full resolution, that would only > be a problem if I intended to produce low light, large format prints, > which I obviously would not, and the image size is plenty big enough for > posts to Usenet, my site, etc... Of course, but applying the same resolution reduction, the DSLR will work as well at 6400 12800 etc. ISO. > I forgot to put the smaller end of the aperture range, as I do not shoot > at full zoom very often. Most of my pics are at the shorter to mid > focal length of the 36 to 360mm lens. So, even at 3.5 for about 180mm, > the aperture is as large as the lowend of my other lenses, which seems > like a large aperture zoom to me... > > Take Care, > Dudley Normally, I have similar lenses to you (16-85mm, f/3.5-f/5.6; 70-300mm, f/4.5-f/5.6), but I treated myself to an f/1.8 lens for my DSLR recently. The f/1.8 combined with the ISO 3200 allowed me some shots of the aurora borealis, with which I was very pleased. For low-light and night-time shots, I would be in envy of the full-frame DSLR and f/1.4 lenses! <G> Cheers, David
From: Dudley Hanks on 29 May 2010 12:59
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:htrgs4$ln5$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message > news:7waMn.5161$Z6.1914(a)edtnps82... > [] >> I was wondering when somebody would point that out... >> >> My only lenses for the XSi are either 3.5 - 5.6 or 4.0 - 5.6, so the >> f/2.8 - 4.3 is still larger, even at long focal lengths... > > The aperture (as an f/number) may be slightly "smaller" (i.e. higher > f/number), but more light is collected because the actual physical > aperture is greater (i.e. more photons get in). > >> As for the ISO 3200 not producing the full resolution, that would only be >> a problem if I intended to produce low light, large format prints, which >> I obviously would not, and the image size is plenty big enough for posts >> to Usenet, my site, etc... > > Of course, but applying the same resolution reduction, the DSLR will work > as well at 6400 12800 etc. ISO. > >> I forgot to put the smaller end of the aperture range, as I do not shoot >> at full zoom very often. Most of my pics are at the shorter to mid focal >> length of the 36 to 360mm lens. So, even at 3.5 for about 180mm, the >> aperture is as large as the lowend of my other lenses, which seems like a >> large aperture zoom to me... >> >> Take Care, >> Dudley > > Normally, I have similar lenses to you (16-85mm, f/3.5-f/5.6; 70-300mm, > f/4.5-f/5.6), but I treated myself to an f/1.8 lens for my DSLR recently. > The f/1.8 combined with the ISO 3200 allowed me some shots of the aurora > borealis, with which I was very pleased. For low-light and night-time > shots, I would be in envy of the full-frame DSLR and f/1.4 lenses! <G> > > Cheers, > David You and me both ... :) My next lens will probably be either a macro (not sure which one) or the f/2.8 85mm lens. With my old A1 camera, I had a nice 130mm lens which was great for portraits, candids, etc, and I think the 85mm will yield similar results with the XSi. Take Care, Dudley |