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: Neil Harrington on 5 Jul 2010 15:51 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:mmuu26l5i77o3n7vleav547rqvcs1nirv3(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 17:22:42 +0100, in > <i0no4k$bp0$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >>"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >>news:9flu269771esh97rmilvtbp0butg0li235(a)4ax.com... >>[] >>> Your blaming of equipment for your own shortcomings is the problem. > >>.. and just how does an objective measurement of zoom times using two >>different techniques: > > What objective measurement of zoom times? > The only thing that matters is how well _you_ can zoom a given lens. > I find the FZ28 zoom to be sufficiently fast and accurate for my needs. > You've never used it so you don't really know, but you guess it wouldn't > work well for you. I have the FZ35 which seems almost identical to the FZ28. I like the camera a lot, within its limitations, but it's just nonsensical to compare its zooming qualities with the ease, speed and accuracy of a manual zoom lens on a DSLR. The only compact digital cameras I own that have really nice handling zooms are those in the old Minolta DiMAGE 7 family (and similar, e.g. A200). And that's because they have manual zoom lenses.
From: Joel Connor on 5 Jul 2010 15:57 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 07:08:05 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:56:03 +0100, in <i0skot$u67$1(a)qmul>, "whisky-dave" ><whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >>"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >>news:ortr26hgfvm6l2u3dgpjb4nd7o69nub6mn(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:01:24 +0100, in <i0knuu$58d$1(a)qmul>, "whisky-dave" >>> <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >>> >>>>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:4c2cb9f6$0$22125$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > >>>>> Also, Imaging Resource always prominently displays both the shutter lag >>>>> and the AF lag of the cameras they test. >>>> >>>>Do you happen to know the lag on a purely mechanical camera >>>>say a SLR from the 70s like my old Practica L or even my first truely >>>>'electronic' canon A1 . >>> >>> No. I say that with confidence, because he clearly doesn't know the lag >>> on *any* camera. >> >>What do you mean by the lag of a camera, don;t you realise there's many >>areas where lag can be accumulated. > >For course. Much depends on how the camera is configured, and on the >skill of the user. > >>For me there are many areas of lag, one I eliminated wass by not usiong a >>lens cap when I was ready to take photos, another was focusing before I take >>the shot, rather than just before I take the shot. > >Sure. I likewise configure my camera appropriately when shooting fast >action, with settings I've stored in a custom configuration that can be >set with a twist of the mode dial. That's Fast Focus mode for most >cases, although I sometimes switch to Continuous Focus or Manual Focus >(pre-focus) when it makes more sense to do so. > >This is the kind of thing known only to people who have actually used a >given camera enough to know how to use it well. Those like Steven who >rely only on what they read on the Internet are thus easily mistaken >about the true capabilities of a camera, as is painfully obvious from >all the mistakes he posts to Usenet. > >But even just a half-press of the shutter button in preparation for a >shot will pre-focus any decent camera, avoiding any focus lag when the >shot is taken, which even Steven should know, so there really is no >excuse for his statements. For him to claim to be the expert about CHDK the way he continually does, you'd think he'd know about the simple shortcut button-press to quickly set any CHDK'ed camera's focus to a "hyperfocal" setting for your selected aperture nearly instantaneously (or another shortcut button-press for infinity). These are basic functions of CHDK that everyone knows about. So much for his claims about knowing anything at all about CHDK cameras too. Yet these other online trolls just agree with someone as obviously delusional as SMS. Birds of a feather!
From: Joel Connor on 5 Jul 2010 16:01 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:22:19 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <a2p3365iqrp51sl6hcj2j9di6gr8bjoiqt(a)4ax.com>, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> >What do you mean by the lag of a camera, don;t you realise there's many >> >areas where lag can be accumulated. >> >> For course. Much depends on how the camera is configured, and on the >> skill of the user. > >lag is not a function of the user's skill. the camera is either fast or >it's not. > >how well a user can deal with a slow camera may involve skill (and a >little bit of luck too). > >> >For me there are many areas of lag, one I eliminated wass by not usiong a >> >lens cap when I was ready to take photos, another was focusing before I take >> >the shot, rather than just before I take the shot. >> >> Sure. I likewise configure my camera appropriately when shooting fast >> action, with settings I've stored in a custom configuration that can be >> set with a twist of the mode dial. That's Fast Focus mode for most >> cases, although I sometimes switch to Continuous Focus or Manual Focus >> (pre-focus) when it makes more sense to do so. > >in other words, you have a number of workarounds for limitations of the >camera. Hey troll. Let's see some of your photography. What's that? You don't have any? Yeah, we all already know that. But just to correct your wild imaginings.. In other words, you have a number of workaround for the limitations of your DSLRs. 1. Don't change lenses. 2. Don't keep it in a camera bag. 3. Don't leave it at home gathering dust because it's so damn cumbersome and heavy and it's not allowed in most public events. 5. Don't use long focal-lengths or you'll miss those shots setting up a tripod. 6. Should I go on with the rest of your lousy DSLR workarounds? I could type about 200 more if you want. > >> This is the kind of thing known only to people who have actually used a >> given camera enough to know how to use it well. Those like Steven who >> rely only on what they read on the Internet are thus easily mistaken >> about the true capabilities of a camera, as is painfully obvious from >> all the mistakes he posts to Usenet. >> >> But even just a half-press of the shutter button in preparation for a >> shot will pre-focus any decent camera, avoiding any focus lag when the >> shot is taken, which even Steven should know, so there really is no >> excuse for his statements. > >what was that you like to say about attacking the man?
From: SMS on 5 Jul 2010 16:02 On 05/07/10 10:34 AM, Pete wrote: > On 2010-07-05 15:10:20 +0100, John Navas said: > >> "Point and shoot" is a pejorative when applied to high-end bridge >> cameras here, and "pretty much everyone" is a wild exaggeration, as I'm >> sure you know. > > From what I've understood from reading several Usenet photography > groups since last November, my initial reaction would be to disagree. > However, you did say "here" so I stay open-minded. > > My perception is that hatred of DSLR owners in the various groups seems > to be an order of magnitude worse than the pejorative remarks in the > other direction. Wrong perception. There are a grand total of two people that are pathological liars on the subject, Navas, and our favorite troll that goes by a plethora of identities in an effort to evade everyone's kill files. > Owning both an old (but very nice) P&S and a DSLR makes > me dislike all of the arguments. It appears that you may have thought I > was a DSLR nutter and I thought you were an anti-DSLR person. I doubt if there's a single D-SLR owner posting on any of the groups that does not own at least one P&S digital camera, and most have several in their household (we have five P&S cameras and one D-SLR in my house). > I would love to have a high-end bridge camera (what is the correct > short-name for these?), There is an attraction of such a camera, but the ones that are presently available had limitations that make them a poor choice for most people used to the quality and versatility of a D-SLR. A replacement for the Sony DSC-R1 that did not give up the key features like the large sensor and the mechanical zoom ring would be part of a good bridge camera, along with a wider range lens. But with the R1 Sony realized that there are limits to how wide of a focal range you can have and still have a good lens. So the first issue with the R1 was that the telephoto range wasn't long enough, and how nice it would be to be able to extend the telephoto range. So Sony sold a 1.7x Tele Extender Lens, but it was huge, worked well only over 100-120mm of the regular lens, and using it really cried out for IS, and the R1 lacked IS. All the experts advise against the use of telephoto and wide-angle adapters on P&S cameras with good reason.
From: Joel Connor on 5 Jul 2010 16:07
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:34:21 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <jqp336pm2j077tides4a13jl308lgrcohm(a)4ax.com>, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> >> it was pointed out to him that pretty much everyone calls non-dslrs >> >> point and shoot cameras, including stores who sell them and even the >> >> manufacturers of the cameras themselves. it's common usage of the term. >> >> >> >> none of that mattered to him. he called it a pejorative, which meant it >> >> gave him an exit strategy. it's one of his usual tactics. >> > >> >Thanks, I hadn't realized that. >> >> "Point and shoot" is a pejorative when applied to high-end bridge >> cameras here, and "pretty much everyone" is a wild exaggeration, as I'm >> sure you know. > >wrong, no matter how hard you try to rationalize it. > >you must be really threatened. > >b&h photo, one of the largest if not *the* largest worldwide seller of >photo equipment, classifies digital cameras into three categories, >point & shoot, slr and mirrorless system cameras for the latest large >sensor compacts, a category that didn't exist until recently. And many multinational drug companies, far wealthier than B&H, who are now getting class-action lawsuits advertised on TV to try to find all those who were injured or killed by their products will call deadly medications as "Safe and Effective". Your point? Do you always let advertising define your reality for you? You have some serious problems if so. |