Will phase focusing go the way of the dinosaur?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Historical Center at night
Next: Forget Dpreview's B.S., "diplomatic language" NEX 16mm lens is not good
From: SMS on 4 Jul 2010 00:14 On 03/07/10 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > John Navas<jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> <4c2b52c7$0$22118$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS > > [super zoom P&S] >> Actually works quite well up to ISO 400, decent at ISO 800, >> and the fast lens makes it comparable to twice the ISO in a dSLR. > > By the same standards a DSLR is quite well at ISO 6400 and decent > at 12800 (underexpose RAW and push in post process if your camera > doesn't offer the settings). > > So your decent at 800 and a fast lens comes to ISO 1600 in a > DSLR --- according to you --- and is beaten hands down. Oh, > you show me a 300mm f/2 lens or a 1200mm f/4 lens on a super > zoom P&S, just to prove your "fast lens" argument. Remember, > adapters don't count: you can mount them to DSLR lenses just as > well (and they work just as well). Actually that's not true. All the experts agree that lens adapters on P&S cameras work especially poorly, while adapters on D-SLR lenses work fairly well.
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 4 Jul 2010 01:00 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:14:37 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 03/07/10 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >> John Navas<jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> <4c2b52c7$0$22118$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS >> >> [super zoom P&S] >>> Actually works quite well up to ISO 400, decent at ISO 800, >>> and the fast lens makes it comparable to twice the ISO in a dSLR. >> >> By the same standards a DSLR is quite well at ISO 6400 and decent >> at 12800 (underexpose RAW and push in post process if your camera >> doesn't offer the settings). >> >> So your decent at 800 and a fast lens comes to ISO 1600 in a >> DSLR --- according to you --- and is beaten hands down. Oh, >> you show me a 300mm f/2 lens or a 1200mm f/4 lens on a super >> zoom P&S, just to prove your "fast lens" argument. Remember, >> adapters don't count: you can mount them to DSLR lenses just as >> well (and they work just as well). > >Actually that's not true. All the experts agree that lens adapters on >P&S cameras work especially poorly, while adapters on D-SLR lenses work >fairly well. No experts claim that. Only pretend-photographer trolls like you who have never used any cameras in your lifetime will try to claim that. You even have it backward. Teleconverters for DSLRs reduce the aperture by 2x's or more, making them useless in anything but the brightest light or using the highest and nosiest ISOs available while also degrading the image quality. Here's an image using a fisheye wide-angle adapter on a P&S camera, showing zero CA and crisp details right to the edges of the frame. <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/4759604552_167d484edf_b.jpg> Here's the same adapter but with the super-zoom lens zoomed in to 64mm EFL to give a 16mm EFL wide-angle lens. The edge sharpness and total lack of CA continues throughout the camera's zoom range, right up to where the camera then can take over on its own without the adapter lens. <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/4759604556_45aa9ce1ff_b.jpg> Here's a (very rare, white Tiger-Swallowtail) butterfly shot from 7 feet away using a +2 diopter close-up filter stacked with a 1.7x teleconverter on a P&S camera. <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/4759604536_a636a7603c_b.jpg> Here's detail from the wing showing that that adapter-lens stack is able to resolve the wing-scales from 7 feet away down to pixel-level details. (Don't be an idiot, like someone else recently proved themselves to be, and try to claim there's CA in this image, those reddish and bluish shadings in one small area are wing-scale colors. If the blue and red were CA then it would also exist around the other white scales right next to them.) <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4075/4759604548_9f43006412.jpg> Here's an image where someone used two 1.7x teleconverters stacked on a 432mm (EFL) super-zoom P&S camera lens. For a 35mm equivalent optical focal-length of 1249mm. From his original posting he also mentioned using an additional 1.7x step of digital zoom to take advantage of the in-camera upsampling from the RAW sensor data (better than doing it in post-processing if you only have JPG available). For a total effective focal length of 2,122mm @ f/3.5. The teleconverters on a P&S camera causing no aperture loss (unlike how they always reduce aperture on DSLRs). He even took this hand-held. <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg> Thanks for giving me the opportunity to out you yet again, SMS. For you being the lying, deceptive, role-playing, pretend-photographer, fool and troll that you are, and always will be.
From: David J Taylor on 4 Jul 2010 03:22 "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:0rr4g7-ul3.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... [] [in reply to John Navas] > Just for example, you insist that your 2-speed-zoom is as fast > as ring twist zoom. Are you prepared to post the time your zoom > takes from end to end --- measured, not invented time? Nope. > And you know why, because even at fast and inacurate speeds > your camera can't match any not grossly misdesigned ring twist > infinitely-many-speeds immediate-control zoom. [] > -Wolfgang My own informal tests show about 1/3s zoom on Nikon 16-85, 70-300, and 18-200mm zoom lenses, and about 3s on a Panasonic FZ5 and the same, about 3s, on a Panasonic TZ3. Likely the DSLR lenses are faster, but someone would need to make a video and do a frame by frame analysis to confirm this. When my wife and I were at an air-show a few years back, she missed quite a few shots because the camera could not zoom quickly enough to cope with a fast-moving aircraft making an overhead, low-level pass. Cheers, David
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 4 Jul 2010 03:42 On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:22:27 +0100, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >news:0rr4g7-ul3.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... >[] >[in reply to John Navas] >> Just for example, you insist that your 2-speed-zoom is as fast >> as ring twist zoom. Are you prepared to post the time your zoom >> takes from end to end --- measured, not invented time? Nope. >> And you know why, because even at fast and inacurate speeds >> your camera can't match any not grossly misdesigned ring twist >> infinitely-many-speeds immediate-control zoom. >[] >> -Wolfgang > >My own informal tests show about 1/3s zoom on Nikon 16-85, 70-300, and >18-200mm zoom lenses, and about 3s on a Panasonic FZ5 and the same, about >3s, on a Panasonic TZ3. Likely the DSLR lenses are faster, but someone >would need to make a video and do a frame by frame analysis to confirm >this. > >When my wife and I were at an air-show a few years back, she missed quite >a few shots because the camera could not zoom quickly enough to cope with >a fast-moving aircraft making an overhead, low-level pass. > So you blame the camera? Typical excuse for a DSLR-TROLL who doesn't know the first thing about how to operate any camera properly.
From: John Navas on 4 Jul 2010 11:02
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:22:27 +0100, in <i0pcrk$rns$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >news:0rr4g7-ul3.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... >[] >[in reply to John Navas] >> Just for example, you insist that your 2-speed-zoom is as fast >> as ring twist zoom. Are you prepared to post the time your zoom >> takes from end to end --- measured, not invented time? Nope. >> And you know why, because even at fast and inacurate speeds >> your camera can't match any not grossly misdesigned ring twist >> infinitely-many-speeds immediate-control zoom. >My own informal tests show about 1/3s zoom on Nikon 16-85, 70-300, and >18-200mm zoom lenses, and about 3s on a Panasonic FZ5 ... "There you go again." Your FZ5 is now 5 (five) generations obsolete. In other words, that's meaningless and irrelevant. Current generations are much faster. Never let facts get in the way of a good bashing. >Likely the DSLR lenses are faster, but someone >would need to make a video and do a frame by frame analysis to confirm >this. It speaks volumes that insecure dSLR owners have to stoop to meaningless benchmarks to justify their purchases. >When my wife and I were at an air-show a few years back, she missed quite >a few shots because the camera could not zoom quickly enough to cope with >a fast-moving aircraft making an overhead, low-level pass. She might want to try a less obsolete camera, or practice more with what she has. All that matters is how well a particular zoom works for a particular person. The fast multi-speed power zoom on current Panasonic superzoom cameras works great for me. That you don't think it would work for you is your loss, not mine. -- Best regards, John "Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston] |