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: David J Taylor on 3 Jul 2010 15:26 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:edvu26pkjn2vrf1st9bl0f6ii08145oqnp(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 18:34:58 +0100, in > <2010070318345874069-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid>, Pete > <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > >>On 2010-07-03 16:24:37 +0100, John Navas said: >> >>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:05:28 +0100, David J Taylor wrote: >>> >>>> John Navas wrote: >>>> [] >>>>> Sure, for those like you who don't know how to use them effectively >>>>> (and presume to characterize cameras they're never actually used). >>>>> But no problem for those of us who do. >>>>> >>>>> "It's a poor workman who blames his tools." >>>> >>>> Your continued personal attacks deter me from a fuller reply. >>> >>> Your blaming of equipment for your own shortcomings is the problem. >> >>John, I find your posts disrespectful. My limitations make it >>abundantly clear which systems are better than others. I'm glad that >>you do not have my limitations and I hope you never do. A broader >>outlook than "I'm always right" would serve you well - strive for >>excellence in this area. > > Then, and with all due respect, you misread what I'm writing. > > We ALL have our own limitations, and there will always be equipment > that's more suitable for person A than for person B, AND vice versa. > > I don't bash David's choice of equipment (unlike some here) even though > I don't think it would work as well for me as my choice of equipment. > And I'm not saying he lacks ability -- I'm only repeating what he is > saying about himself. > > My objection is to those who claim product Y is worse than product X, > putting down those who choose product Y, simply because X better suits > them than Y does. I find that rude and disrespectful, especially when, > as in David's case, they have NO experience with the equipment. YMMV. > > -- > Best regards, > John See Pete's reply. David
From: BFD on 3 Jul 2010 15:55 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:22:04 -0500, Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu> wrote: >On 7/2/2010 9:24 PM, John Navas wrote: > >>> >>> Casio has something like that, maybe others do too. Essentially it's >>> capturing frames even before you fully depress the button. You get a >>> bunch of frames before and after you press the button and can select >>> which ones you want to keep. Of course it's got some serious flaws, but >>> it's designed to try to work around the slow CDAF of a P&S. >> >> No, because the speed of CDAF isn't an issue. >> The issue is [drum roll] human reaction time, >> which is much slower than CDAF time. >> > >The issue is FOCUS. This can't be solved with contrast focus >on the main sensor nor phase focus on TTL sensors. > >To do it right requires phase focus using a separate, non-TTL, >dual-window, dual aux sensor method. In other words, auto- >rangefinder. > >Doug In matters of auto-focusing the issue is accuracy. What good is phase-focusing if 90% of your shots are ruined by front and back focusing problems. I'd rather get 10 shots in perfect focus, knowing that the ones I shot and wanted were keepers. Rather than take my chances shooting 100 images and hoping that the random 10 that were properly focused were the least bit useful. In matters of manual-focusing the issue is again accuracy. I'd rather be able to zoom in to pixel level resolution in my EVF or LCD and get perfect focus, than hope and pray that that dim OVF viewfinder will allow me to see all parts that are in focus. Add on top of that the extremely shallow DOF of all DSLR optics and the chances of getting the important parts of your subject in focus in an optical viewfinder become nil to none. Providing images that can't be printed any larger than 5"x3". As has been proved time and time again by every last DSLR image posted to these newsgroups. But you go ahead. Keep trying to justify that rube-goldberg DSLR design. It's all quite entertaining watching all of you grasp for straws and missing, every time.
From: Ray Fischer on 3 Jul 2010 17:44 SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 01/07/10 12:37 AM, Ray Fischer wrote: > >> In other words, a "shutter lag" of zero wouldn't help in the slightest >> if the camera took 800msec to focus and save the picture. > >Surely you realize that "shutter lag" is often used to describe the sum >of AF lag and shutter lag. I certainly do realize that, which is how I know that Navas is a liar when he tries to ignore other factors. > In reality it's the contrast detect focusing >of the P&S that causes the AF lag, and while it's not as bad as it was >in the past, it still is much slower than phase-detect AF, especially in >challenging situations. > >It's of little consequence when shooting landscapes in good light. It's >of major concern when photographing children or wild life, or when >shooting in low light. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Jeff Jones on 3 Jul 2010 21:23 On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 23:12:55 +0100, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > >You and many others are capable of getting adequate performance from >less well engineered products, Again you go slamming others who are far more talented than you are and will ever hope to be. Not just "capable" performance, but "excellent" performance. Not from "less well engineered products" but from "excellently engineered products". What a pity that your own skills are so fuckingly lame that you cannot do the same. So you blame the cameras instead of yourself. How insecurely pathetic of you. Your loss, and the loss of everyone just as fuckingly lame as you are.
From: John Navas on 3 Jul 2010 21:55
On 03 Jul 2010 21:44:14 GMT, in <4c2faf2e$0$1652$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >>On 01/07/10 12:37 AM, Ray Fischer wrote: >> >>> In other words, a "shutter lag" of zero wouldn't help in the slightest >>> if the camera took 800msec to focus and save the picture. >> >>Surely you realize that "shutter lag" is often used to describe the sum >>of AF lag and shutter lag. > >I certainly do realize that, which is how I know that Navas is a liar >when he tries to ignore other factors. There is an old saying in litigation: When the law is on your side, hammer away at the law. When the facts are on your side, hammer away at the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, hammer away at your opponent. |