How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: John Navas on 29 Jun 2010 17:53 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:48:45 -0400, in <ruWdnSgY08G907fRnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >"Henry Olson" <henryolson(a)nospam.org> wrote in message >news:hkph26dftn5jq51tki8pfhe2q7l4ut0va0(a)4ax.com... >> Damn. I guess this 16mm wide-angle shot taken on a 36-432mm super-zoom >> camera by using a 0.25x wide-angle pocket-size adapter doesn't really >> exist. >> >> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4743299674_8ced23efa9_b.jpg > >That's very impressive, from the equipment described. What "0.25x wide-angle >pocket-size adapter" was used, and with what prime lens? Was the prime lens >really used at 64mm (equiv.) to produce your "16mm" shot? Is it shown there >uncropped? While obviously wide it doesn't really look like 16mm (equiv.). > >My Panasonic FZ15's lens is 36-432mm (equiv.) also, and is beautifully sharp >by itself, but I've never tried using it with any sort of adapter. I'm >wondering if it's a Panasonic camera with that lens that you used. <http://www.newworldvideodirect.com/productdetail.asp?productid=1203> On a budget: <http://www.digitaltoyshop.co.uk/Wide_Angle_Lens_0_5x_PRO_SERIE_Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-FZ15_t395_5906> -- 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: George Kerby on 29 Jun 2010 18:43 On 6/29/10 2:23 PM, in article LMOdnU1pFdWq1bfRnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > > "John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message > news:egnh26h3da0cr50ksslqujvuf0d5etg2qd(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:20:41 -0700, in >> <4c209c9e$0$1638$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS >> <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >> >>> Rich wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Go shoot a close-in sports even and say that. All equipment has >>>> limitations, some a lot more than others and the photographer (no matter >>>> how good) is at a disadvantage because of it. >>> >>> That's the bottom line. There are certainly situations where excellent >>> results can be obtained with equipment that has limitations that don't >>> matter much for the specific situation. But there are many times when >>> the equipment makes a huge difference, and without the proper equipment >>> you would not even bother to try to get the shot because you know that >>> it's just not possible. >> >> Assuming good equipment, such situations are actually few and far >> between (for most of the rest of us at least). Such exaggeration tends >> to come from those who claim great equipment will somehow make up for >> their lack of great technique. >> >>> ... Since I use it >>> extensively, and since I contributed to the documentation for it, I try >>> to spread the word about it. ... >> >> LLPOF >> > > Leaping lily pads of France? > > Lidless latrines putrid odor factories? > > I give up, John. What's LLPOF? > > In NavASS's case: "Liar, Liar Pants On Fire!" If the glove fits...
From: Paul Furman on 30 Jun 2010 01:30 John Navas wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:48:45 -0400, in > <ruWdnSgY08G907fRnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" > <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >> "Henry Olson"<henryolson(a)nospam.org> wrote in message >> news:hkph26dftn5jq51tki8pfhe2q7l4ut0va0(a)4ax.com... > >>> Damn. I guess this 16mm wide-angle shot taken on a 36-432mm super-zoom >>> camera by using a 0.25x wide-angle pocket-size adapter doesn't really >>> exist. >>> >>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4743299674_8ced23efa9_b.jpg >> >> That's very impressive, from the equipment described. What "0.25x wide-angle >> pocket-size adapter" was used, and with what prime lens? Was the prime lens >> really used at 64mm (equiv.) to produce your "16mm" shot? Is it shown there >> uncropped? While obviously wide it doesn't really look like 16mm (equiv.). >> >> My Panasonic FZ15's lens is 36-432mm (equiv.) also, and is beautifully sharp >> by itself, but I've never tried using it with any sort of adapter. I'm >> wondering if it's a Panasonic camera with that lens that you used. > > <http://www.newworldvideodirect.com/productdetail.asp?productid=1203> That's only .5x. > On a budget: > <http://www.digitaltoyshop.co.uk/Wide_Angle_Lens_0_5x_PRO_SERIE_Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-FZ15_t395_5906> >
From: John Navas on 30 Jun 2010 01:48 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:30:49 -0700, in <JM-dnSiV1dYPS7fRnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: >John Navas wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:48:45 -0400, in >> <ruWdnSgY08G907fRnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" >> <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >> >>> "Henry Olson"<henryolson(a)nospam.org> wrote in message >>> news:hkph26dftn5jq51tki8pfhe2q7l4ut0va0(a)4ax.com... >> >>>> Damn. I guess this 16mm wide-angle shot taken on a 36-432mm super-zoom >>>> camera by using a 0.25x wide-angle pocket-size adapter doesn't really >>>> exist. >>>> >>>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4743299674_8ced23efa9_b.jpg >>> >>> That's very impressive, from the equipment described. What "0.25x wide-angle >>> pocket-size adapter" was used, and with what prime lens? Was the prime lens >>> really used at 64mm (equiv.) to produce your "16mm" shot? Is it shown there >>> uncropped? While obviously wide it doesn't really look like 16mm (equiv.). >>> >>> My Panasonic FZ15's lens is 36-432mm (equiv.) also, and is beautifully sharp >>> by itself, but I've never tried using it with any sort of adapter. I'm >>> wondering if it's a Panasonic camera with that lens that you used. >> >> <http://www.newworldvideodirect.com/productdetail.asp?productid=1203> > >That's only .5x. Only? 36 x 0.5 = 18 Is that difference such a big deal to you? -- 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 02:04
On 29/06/10 3:43 PM, George Kerby wrote: <snip> > In NavASS's case: "Liar, Liar Pants On Fire!" > > If the glove fits... Yeah, I never saw LLPOF before this. In any case, I went and checked the CHDK documentation to see if my contributions to the Wiki had been removed by our favorite troll, and was pleased to see that they are all still there. So clearly he's not as smart as he thinks he is, since if he had recognized them as being from me (which he should have been able to do since I've posted almost the exact same text in Usenet threads that discuss CHDK) he would have removed them from the Wiki. |