Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bob Larter on 3 Nov 2009 22:17 nospam wrote: > In article <w63Im.51407$PH1.4533(a)edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks > <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >> John just likes to play his little word games, and he doesn't care if he is >> even in the same galaxy as the rest of us, let alone the same ball park. > > that's exactly what it is. word games. technically you can upgrade a > car, even though virtually nobody does it. And technically, buying a new lens for your DSLR is 'upgrading' it. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: nospam on 3 Nov 2009 21:47 In article <4af0e434$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> John just likes to play his little word games, and he doesn't care if he > >> is > >> even in the same galaxy as the rest of us, let alone the same ball park. > > > > that's exactly what it is. word games. technically you can upgrade a > > car, even though virtually nobody does it. > > And technically, buying a new lens for your DSLR is 'upgrading' it. or downgrading it, depending on the lens :) although you can't swap out the cpu in a camera, there have been memory or other hardware upgrades for some older dslrs. you can also add new features with a firmware upgrade. for example, the 2.0 firmware on the nikon d70 added all of the features in the nikon d70s that did not require a change in hardware, such as a wired remote jack.
From: nospam on 3 Nov 2009 21:47 In article <4af0e3bf$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: > By that same logic, one can upgrade one's DSLR by buying a new lens or > flash gun for it. You can't do that with your P&S. there are add on accessory lenses and if there's a hotshoe or pc socket, an external flash can be used. worst case, use a slave.
From: -hh on 3 Nov 2009 22:09 John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > -hh wrote: > [other attributions] > >> >>Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 .. > > >> >What lens (including price, size and weight, > >> >and how long you've owned it)? > > [stuff edited out by John] > > > >[another choice is] 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. ... > > Mediocre lens. No thanks. Sure, there's better (such as my f/4 solution), but this lens is adequate for all of those "typical" uses, such as 4"x6" prints and online Web presentation, that we hear justifies a P&S because proverbially no one ever needs the big dSLR/lens 'overkill' to make huge prints. -hh
From: Ray Fischer on 3 Nov 2009 22:57
John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:26:44 -0800 (PST), -hh ><recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in ><da91b729-171a-4472-b0a4-9e2f2c4fc954(a)d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>: > >>> >>Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 .. >>> >>> >What lens (including price, size and weight, >>> >and how long you've owned it)? > >>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. ... > >Mediocre lens. No thanks. But with processing such as is done with your P&S the results can be quite decent. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |