Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: nospam on 3 Nov 2009 15:32 In article <7k71f59li00aq632tpmrf3d7dehg8smr2t(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > When upgrading a dslr body, the owner can continue to benefit from the > investment because the upgrades can be used on other bodies purchased > in the future. The upgrades you mention are good for that car only. not true! you can take the engine out just as easy as you put it in!
From: John Navas on 3 Nov 2009 17:16 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:19:06 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in <dt61f5h8fu406qfigajd9hblgff1g2nhds(a)4ax.com>: >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. You presume to put down a photo from a small compressed sample. Why am I not surprised. You truly are a waste of time. >Why do you feel that this is better than a dslr can do? "The best camera is the one you have with you." >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 No Exif or other information provided. Why am I not surprised. -- Best regards, 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
From: John Navas on 3 Nov 2009 17:17 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:28:14 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in <7k71f59li00aq632tpmrf3d7dehg8smr2t(a)4ax.com>: >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:12:56 -0800, 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. > >I'm a bit nonplussed that someone can think that adding things like >the above to a car is upgrading it, but adding lenses, filters, flash >units, teleconverters, extension tubes, etc to a dslr is not also >upgrading the camera. > >When upgrading a dslr body, the owner can continue to benefit from the >investment because the upgrades can be used on other bodies purchased >in the future. The upgrades you mention are good for that car only. Sorry, but no -- difference in kind, not degree. Unless you've mastered swapping out the CPU? ;) -- Best regards, 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
From: -hh on 3 Nov 2009 17:26 Ray Fischer wrote: > John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in > >>John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>> Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote > >>> >John Navas wrote: > >>> >> tony cooper wrote: > >>> >>> Chickens, perhaps. Turkeys, ostriches, > >>> >>> emus, and caged birds maybe. > >>> >>> Large birds that you can close enough to touch. > > >>> >> Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm, > > >>Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 .. > > >What lens (including price, size and weight, > >and how long you've owned it)? You don't recall? I've mentioned it repeatedly before. But to address your other questions: Price: <5% of the cost of vacations I've already taken it on Size: <5% of the baggage for vacations I've already taken it on Weight: <5% (but ~10% of my bush plane flights) baggage weight limits Ownership: a half decade and counting Apologies for using different metrics than what you were expecting: its simply a matter of priorities and perspective, andI know that mine are different than yours. For you, the answers are quite predictable: Price: can't afford it Size: too big Weight: too heavy Ownership: "never", because you've sworn that you'll never trust anything from Canon ever, ever, ever (sic) again > A 70-300 zoom can be had for $200. That's a 112-480 equivalent on a > 1.6x crop body. I've had one for many years now, although I don't use > it anymore since I prefer better lenses and my camera le's me upgrade > to a better lens. The Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III sells for $160, although it is f/ 5.6 whereas John is curious because I specifically mentioned it having an f/4.0 solution. Naturally, choosing to pick up that extra stop doesn't come about for free...but then again, I also get the benefit from the same system of having a 300mm focal length at f/2.8 when I want that. FWIW, I did think about an f/5.6 aperature long telephoto system, and the Canon lens that I would have gone with on a crop body would have been the EF 100-400mm IS, which yields an effective 640mm at f/5.6 And for each of the systems, if we apply a crop (aka "Extended Optical Zoom") to 1/4 area (to double the focal length), it works out to roughly 900mm at f/4 with my combination, or 1280mm at f/5.6 with the one that was my second choice. In the meantime, if I really get bitten by the birding bug, the next step up is a 400mm f/4 prime, which would give me 640mm at f/4, and ~900mm at f/5.6 ...all before any cropping. However, a higher priority for me is to modernize my underwater rig, which is still using 35mm film. The challenge there has been the "pesky" 15mm WA, for which the Copy & Paste troll still hasn't found a P&S solution that compares to the 40 year old 1970s vintage Nikkor Nikonos UW-15mm prime. -hh
From: nospam on 3 Nov 2009 17:27
In article <kta1f5t69u1pc9ngbt0rmghaeoo0bb5ksp(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >When upgrading a dslr body, the owner can continue to benefit from the > >investment because the upgrades can be used on other bodies purchased > >in the future. The upgrades you mention are good for that car only. > > Sorry, but no -- difference in kind, not degree. > Unless you've mastered swapping out the CPU? it takes a few minutes to do a firmware upgrade which in many cases adds new features. how long does it take to modify a car's engine, let alone replace it? |