Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Better Info on 3 Nov 2009 14:44 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:05:11 -0800, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:27:55 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> >wrote in <qofve5la7lrts5g05rif3jp6ed94cdcr6m(a)4ax.com>: > >>John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm, >>>and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm, >> >>What is "extended optical zoom"? An addon-lens? > >Automatic cropping of the image. What makes it better than cropping in >post-processing is the ability to see a magnified final image. Another reason that most people don't realize: In-camera cropping by using digital zoom is done directly from the sensor's RAW data. If you try to crop and upsize in the computer from a camera's resulting JPG file you lose some resolution and detail. Digital-zoom is not empty zoom. Unless you have access to and the editing time needed for the RAW data, the camera will do a better job at cropping and upsampling by using the camera's digital-zoom than you can do in your computer, guaranteed. For those of you that don't believe this, test it yourself. I did. That's how I know. Tested it on several makes and models of cameras using the most advanced post-processing upsampling algorithms available. Using images taken from my own ISO-12233 test chart, the very same one that dpreview uses for their resolution tests. Digital-zoom is not empty zoom if you are going to use the quality JPG file right from the camera. Those that decry digital-zoom are just blindly parroting more net misinformation that was started by morons.
From: Dudley Hanks on 3 Nov 2009 14:53 "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0sl0f51505eeikj9k8f8ajb4iea2d3v52j(a)4ax.com... > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:27:55 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> >>wrote in <qofve5la7lrts5g05rif3jp6ed94cdcr6m(a)4ax.com>: >> >>>John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>>Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm, >>>>and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm, >>> >>>What is "extended optical zoom"? An addon-lens? >> >>Automatic cropping of the image. > > And what does digital cropping have to do with "[extended] optical > zoom"? > Calling cropping zooming is plain lying (not by you but probably by > marketing). > > jue I believe Canon calls it "digital zoom," which is at least a bit more honest. Using the word "optical" implies something to do with the lens elements, which of course it is completely different. Take Care, Dudley
From: tony cooper on 3 Nov 2009 16:19 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:46:07 -0800, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:04:07 -0800, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in ><q2l0f5pfr8o5vv4ultjs5bnjhrbaps3g3o(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0500, tony cooper >><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in >><2beve558371hbukcr48a0ic6770v9aegjc(a)4ax.com>: >> >>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:21 -0800, John Navas >> >>>>Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm, >>>>and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm, >>>>quite sufficient for most birding, >>>>but those ranges are easily extended with a teleconverter >>>>to over 800 mm and over 1400 mm respectively. >>>> >>>>Much better than dSLR. :D >>> >>>And, of course, you have examples of your "better than dslr" bird >>>photographs ... >> >>I do indeed. :) > >And, making an exception to my rule: ><http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg> > >Your turn. Image you've taken yourself. I'd have taken it over. It's a decent, but not particularly good photograph. The heron's head, feathers on the head, and beak are not sharply in focus. The composition is bland. The cropping is unimaginative. Overall, it's run-of-the-mill bird photo. Why do you feel that this is better than a dslr can do? It's not a *bad* photo, but it's certainly not a photo that makes a case for your type of camera. Here's a photograph of a heron that I took, and one that I would rate to be about equal with yours. Like yours, my heron's head and beak are not sharply in focus. My lack of sharp focus extends down the neck, though. http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Birds/1000/499715774_XfCuM-X3.jpg Neither one of these are photos we should brag about or say "Buy this model camera because you can get photos like this." I understand that, though. You don't seem to. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nospam on 3 Nov 2009 15:24 In article <bg31f5tbpkdq363l9lvsc1vrs5mrpdu20v(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > Are you being disingenuous or do you simply lack car experience? > I've done a number of engine swaps (not simple replacements), and > I've added aftermarket intercooled turbo systems, suspension systems, > fuel systems, air conditioning, etc, etc. the average car owner is *not* going to swap an engine or add a turbo or any of the other stuff you list. a typical upgrade would likely be nothing more than a fancy stereo or some seat covers. meanwhile, an slr owner can *easily* pick the appropriate lens, without any effort at all.
From: nospam on 3 Nov 2009 15:24
In article <ES%Hm.50390$Db2.20586(a)edtnps83>, Dudley Hanks <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > I believe Canon calls it "digital zoom," which is at least a bit more > honest. Using the word "optical" implies something to do with the lens > elements, which of course it is completely different. yes, it's very deceptive. |