From: Savageduck on
On 2010-07-08 12:55:07 -0700, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)> said:

> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:31:43 -0400, in
>> <seydnXXzTc7lYKjRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d(a)>, "Neil Harrington"
>> <nobody(a)> wrote:
>>> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)> wrote in message
>>>> What term would you suggest for such cameras - they certainly aren't
>>>> "compact".
>>> Well, my FZ35 is significantly more compact than my D40-family cameras (with
>>> usual kit lens), and those I regard as "small body" Nikons. But I'll agree
>>> some others (Coolpix 8800, DiMAGE 7Hi, etc.) would be stretching the term
>>> "compact" too far. I suppose "superzoom" is the best term for that type of
>>> camera since it isn't likely to be confused with anything else.
>>> "Compact" I think is the best used for more or less pocketable cameras
>>> (Optio 750Z, Coolpix 5900, Powershot S80, etc.) while "ultracompact" should
>>> be reserved for those cameras that are really shirt-pocket size (Optio S4i,
>>> Coolpix S510 and thereabouts).
>> You need to broaden your horizons -- the FZ28 is easily pocketable in
>> the jackets I use for outdoor shooting.
> My shooting waistcoat has two big pockets each one of which can easily
> take a medium sized DSLR fitted with a 500mm reflex lens.

A pocketable 500mm !! ???

Model? Specs? Weight? Inquiring minds need to know.



From: nospam on
In article <nt3c36tnj1borf5fgu4v4fkevve77j95nl(a)>, Bruce
<docnews2011(a)> wrote:

> John Navas's problem is, and always has been, that his modest needs
> are completely satisfied by mediocre equipment.

to an extent that's true, but the fundamental problem is that he thinks
whatever he picks is perfect and everything else is flawed, whether or
not the user has different needs.

he also insists his camera violates the laws of physics to justify his
choice (small sensors are better than big sensors). whenever anyone
points out any shortcoming (which all products have), he says the
person is insecure for making pejorative remarks. of course, *he* can
be rude and condescending, such as telling people they don't know how
to use zoom properly.

> He simply cannot understand why some people need, or at least aspire
> to, something better. He gets irrationally angry when they point this
> out, then claims that his mediocre equipment is "excellent".

true. as he says, different strokes for different folks.

> He has been doing it for years. No doubt he will be doing it many
> years hence. Arguing with him is pointless because his values are on
> an entirely different scale, one that peaks at "mediocre".

From: nospam on
In article <7p5c36tcvs50bg11vumc1dpr3as3f5eha5(a)>, John Navas
<spamfilter1(a)> wrote:

> >Superzoom and compact are terms I would quite happily use, while retaining
> >the generic term P&S to cover both. ...
> We wouldn't want to miss an opportunity for pejorative bashing, now
> would we. You must be terribly insecure and threatened.

so why do you keep bashing people? language evolves. p&s doesn't mean
what you want it to mean. deal with it.
From: Neil Harrington on

"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)> wrote in message
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:31:31 -0400, in
> <ldSdnSL_85LGcqjRnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d(a)>, "Neil Harrington"
> <nobody(a)> wrote:
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)> wrote in message
>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 23:43:18 -0400, in
>>> <Eb-dnceG5oPA1KjRnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)>, "Neil Harrington"
>>> <nobody(a)> wrote:
>>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> You're obviously unfamiliar with the FZ28. The zoom control is a
>>>>> single
>>>>> two-speed rotary switch around the shutter button. No zoom
>>>>> pushbuttons
>>>>> whatsoever. Will you now be big enough to admit your mistake?
>>>>Yes, of course. I've been talking about pushbuttons and thinking of that
>>>>arrangement only, since most of my compact cameras use buttons for
>>>>When you mentioned "multi-speed rotary control" I thought you meant
>>>>something like Minolta's briefly marketed motorized "zooms" (actually
>>>>varifocals) for their SLRs, which had a zoom control around the lens
>>>>looked like a manual control, but wasn't.
>>>>My FZ35 has the same two-speed rotary control around the shutter release
>>>>your FZ28. I had frankly forgotten about that, not having used the
>>>>for some time.
>>> Unfortunately, as Watergate conspirator H.R. Haldeman famously said,
>>> "You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube." It's too late to claim
>>> you really do know your camera when you've made such a basic mistake
>>> about how it works. Since you don't even know your own camera terribly
>>> well, much less mine, it's not terribly surprising you have trouble with
>>> the non-"pushbutton" power zoom.
>>I haven't claimed any particular expertise with the FZ35 at all. Since
>>apparently your FZ28 is your primary camera, I have not the slightest
>>that you are far more familiar with it than I am with my FZ35, which I
>>use much.
> What you have done is make negative judgments without sufficient
> experience to support them, in other words, guesses.

I don't think so. I have used a lot of compact cameras with motorized zooms,
and a lot of SLRs with manual zooms. As I have said, I can understand the
*necessity* of using motorized zooms in small cameras, so there would be
little point in wishing they had manual zooms instead. But I think 99.9% of
people using both types of camera would agree that manual zooms are faster,
easier and more precise than motorized ones.

>>I am sort of a collector and have a lot of digital cameras,
>>including several superzooms, two of them Panasonics (the other one is an
> Fair enough.
>>I would agree that the rotary switch around the shutter release is a
>>somewhat better solution than pushbuttons, though it has its drawbacks
>>You use the rotary switch with your index finger, and then have to move it
>>back to the shutter button to take the shot. With pushbuttons you use your
>>thumb and don't have to move your finger from the shutter release. Also
>>agree that a two-speed zoom is some advantage over single speed, but still
>>not close to the ease, quickness and accuracy of a manual zoom ring.
> Again, you lack the experience and expertise to say that with any
> authority -- you're guessing -- and that reflects your personal working
> style, not the working style of others like me.
>>>>> Except it's not. You've admitted to zero experience with the FZ28,
>>>>> and
>>>>Yes. Zero experience with the FZ28 and not really a lot with the FZ35
>>>>either. But it is still practically the same as the FZ28. If you think
>>>>not, tell me what you think the important differences are.
>>> I've not used the FZ35 enough to have a meaningful opinion.
>>Yet you insist there are significant differences between the two.
> I think that very likely, given the significant differences in many
> prior models and on published information, but I do not know that for a
> fact, but regardless, you lack experience with the FZ35 as well.

Well, I don't "lack experience" with it entirely, I have used it, though
admittedly not a great deal. I think I have used it enough to make the sort
of judgements I have made.

>>>>> Varifocal also makes more sophisticated optics possible, enabling
>>>>> sharp
>>>>Not "more sophisticated," just more compact. Not having to be parfocal
>>>>allows a much simpler design. There have been small 35mm cameras with
>>>>four-element zoom lenses, an amazing simplification.
>>> That's a red herring. As you ought to know, Panasonic superzooms
>>> actually have complex, sophisticated lens designs.
>>Of course. But they still are not parfocal or anywhere near it. My FZ35
>>focuses very, very close at its shortest focal length. At other focal
>>lengths it does not focus closely at all,
> That has nothing to do with varifocal versus parfocal, which only refers

It has *everything* to do with varifocal vs. true zoom. With a true zoom
lens, near focus distance does not change with changes in focal length.

> to whether focus changes with zooming or not. An advantage of power
> zoom and focus is that the camera can emulate parfocal operation of a
> varifocal lens, since the onboard processor knows how to adjust the
> focus with focal length.

But it DOES NOT "emulate parfocal operation," and cannot. That is the whole
point. How close you can focus depends on the focal length used.

>>and since those other focal
>>lengths are generally better suited to close-up work than the extreme
>>wide-angle end, I have to use close-up lenses on it to do that sort of
>>thing. An advantage of the FZ35 over most other superzooms currently on
>>market is that it has 46mm filter threads to accept such accessories,
>>its competitors (that I've seen) do not. That is nice but still not as
>>as having a really close-focusing standard lens, such as Nikon's 18-55mm
> With all due respect, that's another reflection of your personal working
> style, not some sort of universal truth, if not a difference between the
> FZ28 and FZ35 (which I'm too busy to check at the moment). I personally
> find the close focusing of the FZ28 sufficiently useful at both ends of
> the zoom range to not feel the need for close-up filters. "Different
> strokes for differ net folks."
>>>>I have a 15x zoom lens for my DX Nikons -- compares well with the
>>>>tiny-format superzooms, considering the format difference, and I'd put
>>>>it up
>>>>against any of them for definition and low distortion.
>>> Sorry, but not even close.
>>OK then, what is *your* experience with *my* lens?
> I don't need experience

Ah. YOU "don't need experience" to have an opinion, but anyone else does.

> -- your lens is disqualified by its specs.
> My experience is with the best roughly comparable lens I know of, Canon
> Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens.

My Tamron Di II VC LD Aspherical has a significantly wider zoom ratio,

>>>>No, as a matter of fact, you have not. I've asked the question several
>>>>and you have always declined to answer it.
>>> I've repeatedly answered you. You just don't like the answers.
>>Your only answer has been "I've already answered that."
> Not so. See my other posts.
>>>>I'm hardly "blaming" your equipment, John.
>>> OK, then you're making disparaging characterizations about a camera with
>>> which you have no actual experience.
>>I am not disparaging your camera at all. I have repeatedly expressed
>>admiration for the Panasonic superzooms, and as I've said I own two of
> You're actually making disparaging and false characterizations.
> Like your comments on "pushbutton" zoom.

It's just not as fast, easy or precise as a manual zoom, John. Not your
fault, not Panasonic's fault, it's just a limitation of that type of lens.

>>>>I like the FZ35 myself as I've
>>>>mentioned a number of times, and surely would like your FZ28 too since
>>>>FZ35 appears to be a slightly improved version of the same camera. As I
>>>>said, there's little apparent difference between them. You keep
>>>>that there must be some important difference, though what that might be
>>>>evidently cannot say.
>>> Correct. Unlike you, I won't rely on guesswork and 2nd-hand
>>> information. I can speak to the differences between the FZ28 and
>>> several prior models based on a great deal of actual experience, but not
>>> the FZ35.
>>While I have never handled an FZ28 I have read extensive reviews of both
>>cameras, and it is clear that they are essentally the same camera but with
>>various improvements in the FZ35, which is pretty much as you would
>>The lens is the same, as is the general body and controls layout.
>>Here is a side-by-side comparison of both cameras:
> That's no substitute for real first-hand experience,
> as you should know if you have much experience in photography.

You can still see the comparisons side by side and judge for yourself. You
don't necessarily need "first-hand experience" to evaluate every little
detail difference between the two models.

From: Neil Harrington on

"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <g7qdnUKqyat0bqjRnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d(a)>, Neil
> Harrington <nobody(a)> wrote:
>> > Offensive put-downs from dSLR fans threatened by them. Shame on you.
>> > Are you really that insecure?
>> How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I took the
>> FZ35
>> because I thought it would be ideal for that situation. That's an
>> "offensive
>> put-down"?
> anything that contradicts him is a put-down. haven't you noticed?

Apparently that's true. That, and it makes me "insecure." :-/

>> I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John.
> very much so.