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: nospam on 8 Jul 2010 19:26 In article <pq6dnS-LN5kDwavRnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > > I don't need experience > > Ah. YOU "don't need experience" to have an opinion, but anyone else does. > Right? that's his double standard in action. > > -- 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, > 18-270mm. he fixates on the canon zoom since it's the biggest and heaviest superzoom made. that way he can 'prove' that a smaller lens is better. it's also not that great, making the comparison easier. > > 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. absolutely correct, otherwise you'd have to buy every single camera and use it for a period of time to gain experience so you know which one to keep.
From: nospam on 8 Jul 2010 19:27 In article <xpWdndr6tcSdw6vRnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <nobody(a)homehere.net> 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." :-/ you must feel threatened!
From: Neil Harrington on 8 Jul 2010 19:44 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:er2c36htd3jbln37hesdn0jigev3n59m3f(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:31:43 -0400, in > <seydnXXzTc7lYKjRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" > <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >>"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message >>news:i13qdl$llq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >>> There are many terms in both British and American English which I don't >>> feel are 100% accurate, but they are in such common usage that it would >>> be >>> difficult to change them. The term ZLR was used for a while for >>> SLR-like >>> cameras without a mirror - cameras like my FZ5 and FZ20, John's FZ28, >>> and >>> your FZ35 - but that term didn't stick. >> >>"ZLR" wasn't really correct to begin with, since cameras of this type are >>not reflex. That is the same sort of mistake some apparent newbie made >>here >>just a few days ago (and was jumped on for) when he called a compact >>digital >>camera a "DSLR" because it had some DSLR-like features. >> >>"Zoom Lens Reflex" was what Olympus years ago called certain 35mm models >>that had a non-interchangeable zoom lens -- but those ZLRs really *were* >>reflex. > > It's a silly semantic debate. The term "reflex" was coined to > distinguish cameras with >> through lens viewing << (single lens or twin > lens) WITH MIRROR, John. It's not a "semantic debate" at all. A camera that doesn't have a mirror behind the lens to reflect the image into the viewfinder system is NOT a reflex camera. Words mean things, and "reflex" means there's at least one mirror in there somewhere. > from rangefinder cameras, and it's quite reasonable to > characterize EVF cameras as a kind of reflex cameras, That's utter nonsense. An EVF camera is not a reflex camera. > especially since > there is no other good term for through lens viewing. "TTL" has been around for decades, if you really need a term for through the lens. But since virtually *all* digital cameras have TTL viewing in one form or another, there doesn't seem to be a great need for it. > >>> 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. Of course there are pockets and there are pockets. I suppose if you had a pocket large enough you could call a 4 x 5 view camera pocket sized. I've already said (in what you just quoted) "my FZ35 is significantly more compact than my D40-family cameras (with usual kit lens)" which I think makes it reasonable to call it "compact," but "pocketable" would be a bit of a stretch for most people.
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 19:46 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:17:41 -0400, in <pq6dnS-LN5kDwavRnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:o9tb36lh2gbg9lr95m1p5nlg809bu41db8(a)4ax.com... >> 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. But you don't even know your own camera well, much less mine. >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 disagree. >> 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. I don't. You obviously lack real experience with power zoom. You also seem to lack experience with macro modes. >> 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. Nope. But feel free to prove me wrong with an authoritative citation. >> 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. You are confusing constant focus, which is what parfocal means, and minimum focusing distance, which has nothing to do with parfocal. >> I don't need experience > >Ah. YOU "don't need experience" to have an opinion, but anyone else does. >Right? > >> -- 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, >18-270mm. It lacks the quality of either the Canon L or the Panasonic Leica. NOTE: I'm not going to get drawn into a pointless and meaningless debate over the quality of Tamron lenses. If they're good enough for your needs, then by all means use them, but you've effectively conceded the point by doing so. >> 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. Again, you're simply not in a position to judge either the camera or how I use it. All you can say with any (but not much) validity is that you personally don't like it. Anything more is disparaging. >> 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. You've shown you don't even understand basic operation of your own camera, much less my camera. Reading specs on the Internet (like SMS) isn't enough. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 19:48
On 8 Jul 2010 19:55:07 GMT, in <89moorFulgU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:31:43 -0400, in >> <seydnXXzTc7lYKjRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" >> <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>>"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> 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. Sure, but not suitable as a foul weather jacket on a boat. -- John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams |