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 8 Jul 2010 19:52 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:i154dd$gtr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message > news:seydnXXzTc7lYKjRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > [] >> 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). > > Superzoom and compact are terms I would quite happily use, while retaining > the generic term P&S to cover both. Ultra-compact seems clumsy (to me) - > what about pocket camera? "Pocket camera" is fine with me. I don't think there's necessarily just *one* correct term for any of these camera styles. But I still balk at "P&S" because that term was coined to describe a rather specific kind of 35mm camera, which the cameras we are talking about are not really proper examples of (regardless of whether they're film or digital). I have previously mentioned that I do have a digital camera that's reasonable to call P&S -- my very first digital camera, an Agfa CL-30. That really is the digital equivalent of the 35mm P&S cameras of yesteryear.
From: nospam on 8 Jul 2010 19:55 In article <mrnc36dmrbs81svog846rg5kqmk78h9d4k(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > I don't. You obviously lack real experience with power zoom. > You also seem to lack experience with macro modes. why do you keep attacking people? you must be threatened. > >> 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. it's been done, even using the sources you provided. you dismiss anything that says you're wrong, regardless of the source, just like you dismiss the laws of physics when it comes to sensor sizes. > 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. have you used that particular lens? no? then you aren't in a position to comment. the double-standard rears its head again. furthermore, some tamron lenses are outstanding. some are not. what matters is how well a particular lens performs. some nikon and canon lenses are outstanding and some are not. > >> 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. you aren't in a position to judge a lens he mentioned or how he uses it. > All you can say with any (but not much) validity is that you > personally don't like it. Anything more is disparaging. which means that your comments about tamron are exactly that.
From: Neil Harrington on 8 Jul 2010 20:00 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:7p5c36tcvs50bg11vumc1dpr3as3f5eha5(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:11:55 +0100, in > <i154dd$gtr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >>"Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message >>news:seydnXXzTc7lYKjRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>[] >>> 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). >> >>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. Your continuing insistence that everyone you have any disagreement with must be "insecure and threatened" is beginning to make you a bit of a bore, John. Or is it projection? Do *you* feel insecure and threatened in these discussions?
From: nospam on 8 Jul 2010 20:14 In article <Bq6dneo6n904-6vRnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > > We wouldn't want to miss an opportunity for pejorative bashing, now > > would we. You must be terribly insecure and threatened. > > Your continuing insistence that everyone you have any disagreement with must > be "insecure and threatened" is beginning to make you a bit of a bore, John. > Or is it projection? Do *you* feel insecure and threatened in these > discussions? it's obvious he does.
From: Peter on 8 Jul 2010 20:17
"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:rivb36hvsa4pf8tkj2l8apm0danejbm9jc(a)4ax.com... > > The kind of photography I do, where a single, easy to handle, superzoom > meets my needs in ways no dSLR I know of can. I've posted many > specifics here, and if you haven't seen them, then "Google is your > friend." For example, when I'm shooting racing on the water, the > handling advantages of the superzoom, the ability to easily protect it > from the environment when not actually shooting, and the lack of need to > change lenses, are overwhelming advantages that have allowed me to > consistently get better images than dSLR pros working the same events. A > case in point is the image I posted here recently of the start of the > Clipper Round the World race. > IMHO that was a really nice capture. One of the best horse racing shots I've seen was captured by a P&S. If your camera does what you want, by all means use it. There is no reason for you to change. However, that doesn't mean your camera would work for others. There is also no reason to accuse anyone who finds your camera inadaquate for their needs, of having a lack of artistic ability. I have consistently maintained that one can get great shots with less expensive equipment. However, if my own style requires either lower noise at higher ISO and/or the ability to work well with super low ISO, that doesn't make your camera bad. Just mechanically unsuitable for what I like to do. -- Peter Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn. |