From: Bruce on 22 Jun 2010 05:44
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:14:20 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote:
>George, did you listen to one too many hours of Limbaugh this morning? John
>has a point of view, and he's not afraid to express it; but he's NOT the P$S
Navas may not be "The P&S Troll" but he is definitely "a p&s troll".
From: Bruce on 22 Jun 2010 05:46
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:23:41 -0400, krishnananda
>And on topic, the fastest and easiest way to identify a rank amateur is
>anyone who says/writes "A 12mm on FF is not a street lens."
From: Bruce on 22 Jun 2010 05:47
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:33:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
>On Jun 21, 2:19�pm, "/dev/null/" <d...(a)null.invalid> wrote:
>> Your point is moot, neither Panasonic or Olympus are pro cameras.
>At some point in the near future, pro will no longer always include
So you agree that small senor P&S camera have something to offer the
From: David J. Littleboy on 22 Jun 2010 05:52
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:23:41 -0400, krishnananda
> <krishna(a)divine-life.in.invalid> wrote:
>>And on topic, the fastest and easiest way to identify a rank amateur is
>>anyone who says/writes "A 12mm on FF is not a street lens."
> Agree 100%.
12mm on FF is a great street lens for, say, gaslit streets at 4:00am in the
snow. That is, except for the problem of snow collecting on the lens...
David J. Littleboy
From: SMS on 22 Jun 2010 06:44
> The original poster is a rank amateur. He argues against a point made
> later in the thread in favour of the 7-14mm Panasonic versus the
> 9-18mm Olympus. The Panasonic is an enthusiast, even a pro lens. The
> Olympus is a kit lens.
This is true. The Panasonic 7-14mm (14-28mm) costs $1200, the Olympus
7-14mm costs $1450. The Olympus 9-18mm (18-36mm) costs $475.
The 9-18mm was brought out because Olympus desperately needed a low-end,
low-cost, wide angle lens for Micro four-thirds (which, in general, is a
system that only rank amateurs would ever consider). Canon has the
excellent 10-22mm (16-35mm) for around $700, and Nikon has the 12-24mm
(18-36mm) for around $1000. The Canon is the best quality extreme
wide-angle lens of the three, and the best deal (I ended up getting mine
for around $600 on sale).
Even Nikon aficionado Ken Rockwell concedes that the Canon extreme
wide-angle lens is very high quality, offering L quality optics at not
much more than a non-L price (since you can't use that EF-s lens on a
high end Canon body, it's safe for Canon to offer it for their consumer
level, APS-C frame size, D-SLRs). Rockwell writes: "The Canon 10-22mm
has much less distortion than any wide zoom I've tested, which means
it's much better than my Nikon 12-24mm., much better then the Tamron
11-18mm, much better than the Tokina 12-24mm and much better than the
Sigma 10-20mm, period. No contest: compare the numbers in my wide
digital zoom comparison. It's also much better than the Canon 17-40mm L
and 16-35mm L used on full frame digital and film cameras. Bravo!"
When you select a D-SLR body it's important to remember than you're
making a long-term commitment to a specific manufacturer and that will
be very expensive to make a change. Spending $500-750 more for an
extreme wide-angle zoom, an extremely useful lens, is one good reason to
not go the Micro four-thirds (or Nikon) route. Of course you cannot get
anywhere close to 14mm or 16mm or 18mm at the wide end with a point and
shoot camera where 24mm to 28mm is considered wide angle.