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: Henry Olson on 30 Jun 2010 02:58 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:48:10 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >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? When Paul can't even get pixel level resolution from any of his expensive DSLR gear and expensive lenses (that he keeps buying in the hopes that they might turn him into a photographer one day), every little bit counts to him. His gear still can't beat P&S image quality. He was especially upset to see that a +4 diopter close-up filter stacked with a 1.7x teleconverter on a P&S camera's super-zoom lens could still resolve a butterfly's wing-scales from 7 feet away, down to pixel-level resolution on the sensor. So that's why he has to nitpick over 2mm of focal-length/FOV now. He's got nothing but straws left to grasp for.
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 30 Jun 2010 08:29 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4c28f7b3$0$22089$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > On 23/06/10 5:12 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: >> "SMS"<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >> news:4c211bae$0$1638$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> John McWilliams wrote: >>>> SMS wrote: >>>>> gordito995(a)teranews.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The pro does not denigrate others. He is able to rise above that and >>>>>> provide positive responses. >>>>> >>>>> It's denigrating someone to state the fact about their experience >>>>> level. >>>>> Everyone was a "rant amateur" at some point. >>>> >>>> << Snipped bits out>> >>>> >>>> Was that a typo, or a clever pun?? We do seem to have our share of >>>> ranters, both rank and seasoned. >>> >>> A typo, but maybe a Freudian slip, LOL. It can sometimes be a fine line >>> when you explain to others something that they may not want to hear. If >>> they're sensitive about having made a mistake they can respond >>> defensively >>> or in anger. You certainly see this often on rec.photo.digital. It's an >>> attitude that I don't like, but I can accept the fact that there are >>> times >>> when I may not have bought the best product for the money, without being >>> upset about it. >>> >>>> IAE, no one seems to be talking about the rank pro vs. seasoned >>>> amateur..... >>> >>> The seasoned amateur does not own a 4:3 or micro 4:3 camera. >> >> That will come as a surprise to the seasoned amateurs I know who have a >> 4/3 >> system. > > You're obviously using a different definition of "seasoned amateur." I doubt you'd even be able to recognize one. You're a master at stating your opinion as if it's fact. No one here falls for it. > Well it is possible to get decent results with a 4:3 camera but the cost > is so ridiculously high because of how much the good lenses cost that few > "seasoned amateurs" would go that route. It's possible to get more than decent results but you would first have to be objective before you could see for yourself. > I.e., you can certainly get a good extreme wide-angle lens, the Olympus > Zuiko 7-14mm f/4.0 costs over $1400, versus $700 for the Canon extreme > wide-angle lens of comparable quality. > > Or consider the 90-250mm f2.8 lens, for a cool $4888 versus the Canon Zoom > Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens for $1900. > > Most of the 4:3 buyers are attracted by the small size, but do not realize > the severe drawbacks of the 4:3 system, and the lack of any upgrade path.
From: John Navas on 30 Jun 2010 10:10 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:04:34 -0700, in <4c2ade6d$0$22139$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >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. Yet more proof that you have no clue. >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. And what would those be? Yet again you've posted no real proof, just vague hand waving that can't be taken seriously. >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. In other words, you've got no proof. -- Best regards, John "Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]
From: Tzortzakakis Dimitris on 30 Jun 2010 10:49 � "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> ������ ��� ������ news:LMOdnU1pFdWq1bfRnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "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? > http://www.all-acronyms.com/LLPOF -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr
From: Neil Harrington on 30 Jun 2010 11:44
"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:hiqk26hg27ipd2dpbgg5aa37b5bou50jgf(a)4ax.com... > 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> Oooh. Expensive. It seems to me I've seen that brand selling for much less. > On a budget: > <http://www.digitaltoyshop.co.uk/Wide_Angle_Lens_0_5x_PRO_SERIE_Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-FZ15_t395_5906> Both of those attachments are described as 0.5x, not 0.25x, which is a vast difference. And the photos accompanying the second one show even "0.5x" exaggerates the f.l.-shortening effect. I make it out to be about 0.75x. |