DSLR vs. P&S Smackdown -- the Answer
Douglas Johnson
http://www.classtech.com/DSLR_PS_Smackdown
to show the original out-of-the-camera JPEG's. A summary of the EXIF data is
under the mid resolution original pictures and the full EXIF data is embedded in
the originals.
Navigation help:
You can click on a thumbnail to get a medium resolution view. Then you can get
a full resolution view by clicking in the lower center of the picture or the
download icon in the lower right of the screen
As most folks figured out, A is the DSLR picture, and B is from the P&S. I
thought the one who figured it out from a tiny bit of dust was particularly
insightful.
It is clear to me that a current model P&S can produce excellent pictures when
it is operating in it's sweet spot. These pictures are right in the P&S sweet
spot. There is more than adequate light, so high ISO noise not a problem. The
subject is static, so shutter and focus lag are not an issue.
As several people have pointed out, the P&S does have more chromatic aberration
and noise even in this "easy" picture. But until you get to pretty large
prints, that's pixel peeping. Don't get me wrong, this comparison invited, even
required pixel peeping.
As you move away from the sweet spot, the DSLR starts to come into it's own. The
lack of shutter lag and high speed focus is a real asset when you are dealing
with fast moving subjects, such as 2 year olds. More difficult lighting,
macro,or long telephoto turns the P&S into a paper weight. The DSLR with it's
interchangeable lens, manual controls, and post processing of raw files will
allow a photographer to keep making pictures.
Of course, the DSLR costs more, weighs more, and bulks bigger. So the world is
full of trade offs. What's new?
This smack down has also highlighted one difference between the two that I
hadn't considered. It seems the P&S manufacturer expects most users won't do
any post processing on their pictures, while the DSLR manufacturer expect that
they will.
The P&S image is sharpened in the camera to the point of losing much of the
texture in the stonework. There doesn't appear to be a camera setting to reduce
this. The DSLR image has little sharpening in camera. There are camera
settings to increase this, but I want the camera to give me a minimally
processed image so I can get it the way I want.
For the record, I've owned both an SLR and a P&S for over 20 years. They both
have their place. I'd suggest that your average vacation and/or family
photographer will be very pleased with a modern P&S.
This has been fun. Thanks.
-- Doug
David J Taylor
[]
> The P&S image is sharpened in the camera to the point of losing much
> of the texture in the stonework. There doesn't appear to be a camera
> setting to reduce this. The DSLR image has little sharpening in
> camera. There are camera settings to increase this, but I want the
> camera to give me a minimally processed image so I can get it the way
> I want.
>
> For the record, I've owned both an SLR and a P&S for over 20 years.
> They both have their place. I'd suggest that your average vacation
> and/or family photographer will be very pleased with a modern P&S.
>
> This has been fun. Thanks.
>
> -- Doug
Thanks for posting that, Doug. I found the exposure difference too great
to make an accurate comparison, but I agree with your comments. I found
the blacks too crushed in the DSLR, but that may be just the exposure.
The lower exposure may have increased the apparent colour saturation.
I also own both types of camera, and use them as is required by my
situation. I prefer the DSLR and its results, but if I am very pushed for
size or weight, I will happily use the compact (Panasonic TZ3) and be
aware of its limitations.
Cheers,
David
Douglas Johnson
wrote:
>Thanks for posting that, Doug. I found the exposure difference too great
>to make an accurate comparison, but I agree with your comments. I found
>the blacks too crushed in the DSLR, but that may be just the exposure.
>The lower exposure may have increased the apparent colour saturation.
I discovered that the DSLR was set for a -0.3 EV exposure, which explains what
you are seeing. -- Doug
David J Taylor
I have just that setting on both my DSLR and on my compact! "I prefer the
results that way."
Cheers,
David
PeteD
"That80sGuy" <cl...@griswold.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AF2A84878...@198.186.190.61...
> In message news:mvnj94dsql7ode1ml...@4ax.com, Douglas
> Johnson <po...@classtech.com> done wrote:
>
>> It is clear to me that a current model P&S can produce excellent
>> pictures when it is operating in it's sweet spot.
>
No, it would be "its".
Cheers.
Pete
Frank ess
Your both rong. Its its.
--
Frank ess
John McWilliams
Good exposition, Doug; thanks. Hopefully it might reign in those on the
extremes, but being usenet, it won't.
A perhaps truer test would be to get RAW files from each, but
unfortunately, a lot of compacts don't allow that. At least then, all
the sharpening, tweaks in exposure, color balance, etc. could be the
same, and chromatic aberration left alone or treated the same.
--
john mcwilliams
I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
SMS
> I'd suggest that your average vacation and/or family
> photographer will be very pleased with a modern P&S.
Apparently not as pleased as in the recent past. I was just in
Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons, and I was stunned at the huge number
of D-SLRs I saw compared to just a couple of years ago. I'd say that 30%
of the cameras I saw being used were D-SLRs. I got to handle quite a few
of them as groups would ask people to take pictures of them, and I think
they felt more comfortable handing their D-SLR to someone that had one
around their neck. Almost all of the D-SLRs were Canon and Nikon. I saw
maybe three Pentax D-SLRs, but no Olympus or Sony models. Someone
actually handed me a _film_ SLR, I had no idea any of those were still
around. Can you even buy film anymore?
We came across some bears and people were taking pictures of them, and
without a D-SLR and a long telephoto lens you could forget about it, as
was the case with much of the wildlife (same thing in Alaska). There
were people with $7000 Canon 500mm lenses, and my wife said, "you need
one of those!" Actually I used the wide angle lens a lot more than the
telephoto, since we had a group of 12 people that I often took pictures
of. The EF-S 10-22 is a great lens.
Once someone uses a D-SLR, even on a vacation, they're hooked. The
wide-angle and telephoto capability combined with the lack of shutter
lag are big pluses in many situations. For kids, the P&S was still very
much in evidence. They love taking videos.
Now it's true that the type of person that vacations in a National Park
is very different than the type of person that goes to Walt Disney World
or Maui, so the relatively high number of SLRs in use was almost
certainly skewed by the location.
I do with that Canon had a lens similar to the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
G ED-IF AF-S VR DX.
ASAAR
>>> "Its", not "it's".
>>
>> No, it would be "its".
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>> Pete
>
> Your both rong. Its its.
It's too late to change it now. It sits.
Douglas Johnson
>Someone
>actually handed me a _film_ SLR, I had no idea any of those were still
>around. Can you even buy film anymore?
Sure. Every time I pick up my beloved Olympus OM-2, I get reminded how small
and light it is. But no image stabilization, no auto focus, and 100 ISO with
color. OK, I know you can get to 400 ISO, but that gets pretty grainy.
Oh, yes. Photoshop is much easier, cheaper, and more powerful than a darkroom.
And you don't end up smelling like chemicals.
>There
>were people with $7000 Canon 500mm lenses, and my wife said, "you need
>one of those!"
Say "yes". She's a prize.
>Once someone uses a D-SLR, even on a vacation, they're hooked.
If they are the kind of photo geek that hangs out here.
>I do with that Canon had a lens similar to the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
>G ED-IF AF-S VR DX.
That lens was what made me ebay my Canon 20D and buy the D300. I take pictures
while on vacation. I don't go on vacation to take pictures. A one lens
solution is important for me.
-- Doug
Alan Browne
> It may be kind of anti-climactic by now, but I've updated the website at
> http://www.classtech.com/DSLR_PS_Smackdown
I have a better smackdown for you: the shoot-in.
Current mandate is open and the subject is open as well.
You can shoot film, digital, SLR or P&S. And as a special offer, you
can submit up to 3 photos.
See yesterday's Shoot-in [SI] post to this effect along with submission
guidelines.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
tony cooper
wrote:
>There were people with $7000 Canon 500mm lenses, and my wife said, "you need
>one of those!"
What will you take for your wife?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
VernMichaels
"Douglas Johnson" <po...@classtech.com> wrote in message
news:mvnj94dsql7ode1ml...@4ax.com...
Unfortunately you've not had enough experience with enough P&S models.
Because you are wrong on nearly all counts on DSLR strengths vs. P&S
strengths.
One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5 Can you even buy that much light grasp at
that reach in a DSLR lens? I found a nice combo of add-on lenses that
affords ZERO chromatic aberrations at that focal-length. One cancels
out any minor defects of the other. Long-distance wildlife photography
even after dusk is a breeze. Capturing birds landing on a pond after
sunset are never a problem. One of them can shoot at ISO 3200. Granted
it is grainy at that speed but it can be done. ISO800 is just fine.
Shutter-lag in P&S cameras is also a thing of the past. So is EVF lag.
They are just as fast if not faster in some regards than DSLRs. You
are also wrong about macrophotography. A P&S camera's generally more
extensive DOF excels for macrophotography, far beyond anything any
DSLR can do. Macrophotography can be done without the need of any
flash to get the DOF required at those magnifications. Hand-held
macrophotography of insects _in_flight_ at true 1:1 ratios is easy,
without a flash. Putting a reverse wide-angle 24mm SLR lens on my P&S
camera affords near microphotography magnifications with no CA, no
distortion. P&S cameras can also focus faster in lower light levels
than any DSLR due to the ability to ramp up the gain on the CCD in dim
lighting. One of my P&S cameras can focus in total darkness with only
an IR illuminator, impossible with any DSLR. Not even wildlife is
alerted to your presence in the dark when taking their images. Totally
silent, invisible, and pure stealth mode. Fast focusing in daylight is
a non-issue if you are an experience photographer and have educated
yourself on the use of hyperfocal distances and manual focus. There's
not one bird-in-flight shot that I wanted to capture that I ever
failed to miss.
The only thing that you are announcing is that you really don't know
how to use any camera very well.
Please stop spreading misinformation, wive's-tales, myths, 10-year-old
drawbacks, and ignorance. Get some experience under your belt with any
of the newer top-shelf P&S cameras before you start making generalized
declarations about all P&S cameras. It appears that you know very
little, and have proved it.
Douglas Johnson
>
>One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
>Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5
What models are they?
>Shutter-lag in P&S cameras is also a thing of the past. So is EVF lag.
>They are just as fast if not faster in some regards than DSLRs.
I looked real hard for a P&S as fast as a DSLR. What models are you talking
about?
Thanks,
Doug
savvo
> "VernMichaels" <spamb...@noserver.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
>>Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5
>
> What models are they?
>
You just failed the VernMichaels test.
>>Shutter-lag in P&S cameras is also a thing of the past. So is EVF lag.
>>They are just as fast if not faster in some regards than DSLRs.
>
> I looked real hard for a P&S as fast as a DSLR. What models are you talking
> about?
>
If you haven't the insight and skill that VernMichaels has and have not
yet discovered the mythical cameras that he claims to own then you do
not deserve an answer to your question.
In other words, he's a troll who keeps posting these falsehoods just to
get questions to which he can post replies that make him look like
everyone's superior.
Short answer. He's making this up because school's finished for the
summer and he's bored.
--
savvo orig. invib. man
SMS
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Someone
>> actually handed me a _film_ SLR, I had no idea any of those were still
>> around. Can you even buy film anymore?
>
> Sure. Every time I pick up my beloved Olympus OM-2, I get reminded how small
> and light it is. But no image stabilization, no auto focus, and 100 ISO with
> color. OK, I know you can get to 400 ISO, but that gets pretty grainy.
>
> Oh, yes. Photoshop is much easier, cheaper, and more powerful than a darkroom.
> And you don't end up smelling like chemicals.
>
>> There
>> were people with $7000 Canon 500mm lenses, and my wife said, "you need
>> one of those!"
>
> Say "yes". She's a prize.
LOL, but she has no idea how much they cost. She was just very excited
at seeing the bear cub and mother.
>> I do with [wish] that Canon had a lens similar to the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
>> G ED-IF AF-S VR DX.
>
> That lens was what made me ebay my Canon 20D and buy the D300. I take pictures
> while on vacation. I don't go on vacation to take pictures. A one lens
> solution is important for me.
I'd still want a wide angle lens. I'd be content with the 10-22 EF-s and
the Canon 28-300 IS, but the latter costs $2300. I wish Canon would do a
version of that lens that is the quality of the Nikon 18-200 VR in terms
of optics, and sacrifices handling (as the Nikon lens does), and sell it
for $600. I know that these wide range lenses are a compromise but I
still want one.
Tamron just announced an 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 lens with stabilization.
Tamron seems to have a better reputation than Sigma, so maybe this lens
will be comparable in quality to the Nikon 18-200 VR.
Douglas Johnson
>On 2008-08-06, Douglas Johnson <po...@classtech.com> wrote:
>> "VernMichaels" <spamb...@noserver.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
>>>Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5
>>
>> What models are they?
>If you haven't the insight and skill that VernMichaels has and have not
>yet discovered the mythical cameras that he claims to own then you do
>not deserve an answer to your question.
He's already decided I'm incompetent and has told us so. But it's (notice the
correct use of "it's") a simple question. If he give us some model numbers,
we'll all learn something. If he doesn't answer it, or dodges it, we'll all
learn something else.
-- Doug
VernMichaels
You already have all the information in my first post to deduce what
cameras they are, minus that the 1359mm is attained with two 1.7x
extenders stacked. One of them is still presently available, the other
can only be obtained on the used-market, it originally sold for $400.
Worth every penny. Combined I found that they nicely cancelled out
each other's meager CA problems, and their larger diameters afforded
the full aperture at full-zoom. Now you have 100% of the information
that you need. You can work from focal-lengths and apertures to deduce
what cameras have them, or from the other features I mentioned.
Whichever way you approach it you can find out exactly what cameras
and lenses they are.
I fail to see why I'd want to willingly and freely help others be
better photographers and find better equipment for themselves at a
lower price. Did you all secretly take up a collection of $10,000 to
pay me for my purchasing department skills? From the posts I read here
not one of you deserve anything from anyone and most certainly not for
free. I did more than I should just by giving you direct clues. The
rest you can figure out on your own.
Learn to fish. I did and I caught the exact cameras and lenses that I
need for quite some time. May you be so fortunate in all the months of
research that's ahead of you.
It's now your choice on what you want to learn from this post or not.
I can already predict that your learning experience will be no greater
than the rest of the trollish denizens here. I jump to no one's tune
but my own, and certainly not some Usenet trolls whose only lame skill
in life is trying to hit a target at their imaginary dunk-tank. Taunts
get them nowhere but more of the same self-induced ignorance that they
have had all their lives. It's quite entertaining to watch them post
the same misinformation and ignorance in every one of their replies.
Rich
> "Douglas Johnson" <p...@classtech.com> wrote in message
3200 out of a P&S? I think I'm going to be violently ill....
David J Taylor
He has given an answer, while missing the model names and numbers out.
This does nothing for his credibility, does it?
David
Cal I Fornicate
Isn't it terrible when someone does that? Like you, you are wrong about
everything. You jerk off with the wrong hand, pick your nose with the
wrong finger, you stuck you dick into the wrong woman, and the last time
one of your kids gave you a father's day card, they gave to the wrong man.
>
> One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
> Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5 Can you even buy that much light grasp at
> that reach in a DSLR lens?
Another Lumix enthusiast.
> I found a nice combo of add-on lenses that
> affords ZERO chromatic aberrations at that focal-length.
Is ZERO more or less than zero?
> One cancels
> out any minor defects of the other. Long-distance wildlife photography
> even after dusk is a breeze. Capturing birds landing on a pond after
> sunset are never a problem. One of them can shoot at ISO 3200. Granted
> it is grainy at that speed but it can be done. ISO800 is just fine.
> Shutter-lag in P&S cameras is also a thing of the past. So is EVF lag.
> They are just as fast if not faster in some regards than DSLRs.
You still here? Hell, you are persistent.
> You
> are also wrong about macrophotography.
His wife took some naughty photos of him, that proves it.
> A P&S camera's generally more
> extensive DOF excels for macrophotography, far beyond anything any
> DSLR can do. Macrophotography can be done without the need of any
> flash to get the DOF required at those magnifications. Hand-held
> macrophotography of insects _in_flight_ at true 1:1 ratios is easy,
> without a flash. Putting a reverse wide-angle 24mm SLR lens on my P&S
> camera affords near microphotography magnifications with no CA, no
> distortion. P&S cameras can also focus faster in lower light levels
> than any DSLR due to the ability to ramp up the gain on the CCD in dim
> lighting. One of my P&S cameras can focus in total darkness with only
> an IR illuminator, impossible with any DSLR. Not even wildlife is
> alerted to your presence in the dark when taking their images. Totally
> silent, invisible, and pure stealth mode. Fast focusing in daylight is
> a non-issue if you are an experience photographer and have educated
> yourself on the use of hyperfocal distances and manual focus. There's
> not one bird-in-flight shot that I wanted to capture that I ever
> failed to miss.
>
> The only thing that you are announcing is that you really don't know
> how to use any camera very well.
You wife said something similar, only she wasn't talking about your camera.
>
> Please stop spreading misinformation, wive's-tales, myths, 10-year-old
> drawbacks, and ignorance.
Why? Someone has to help, you can't handle the load alone.
> Get some experience under your belt with any
> of the newer top-shelf P&S cameras before you start making generalized
> declarations about all P&S cameras. It appears that you know very
> little, and have proved it.
Hey, you proved something too. You proved beyond doubt that when you
were circumcised the Doctor threw away the wrong bit.
The OP didn't present as the ultimate expert on P&S cameras, he just
provide an example of the cameras he had available. Your response does
nothing other than trigger responses like mine. You are a pathetic
asshole. If you don't believe me, ask your wife.
Cal
Cal I Fornicate
Why bother? You are an asshole, assholes aren't the sort of people who
have anything to offer in the way of expertise or honesty.
>
> I fail to see why I'd want to willingly and freely help others be
> better photographers and find better equipment for themselves at a
> lower price. Did you all secretly take up a collection of $10,000 to
> pay me for my purchasing department skills?
Yes, haven't you received it yet? Damn couriers, always losing things.
From the posts I read here
> not one of you deserve anything from anyone and most certainly not for
> free. I did more than I should just by giving you direct clues. The
> rest you can figure out on your own.
That explains it!
You are in the habit of giving away clues. Now I understand everything.
>
> Learn to fish. I did and I caught the exact cameras and lenses that I
> need for quite some time. May you be so fortunate in all the months of
> research that's ahead of you.
>
> It's now your choice on what you want to learn from this post or not.
> I can already predict that your learning experience will be no greater
> than the rest of the trollish denizens here. I jump to no one's tune
> but my own,
Which hand do you use? Still the wrong one?
> and certainly not some Usenet trolls whose only lame skill
> in life is trying to hit a target at their imaginary dunk-tank. Taunts
> get them nowhere but more of the same self-induced ignorance that they
> have had all their lives. It's quite entertaining to watch them post
> the same misinformation and ignorance in every one of their replies.
You must really enjoy it - I see that you have joined right in.
Cal
-hh
>
> Once someone uses a D-SLR, even on a vacation, they're hooked. The
> wide-angle and telephoto capability combined with the lack of shutter
> lag are big pluses in many situations. For kids, the P&S was still very
> much in evidence. They love taking videos.
I saw a similar trend on a Safari in Tanzania two years ago. And
ironically, it was a 'kid' that we helped out with recharging their
batteries.
> Now it's true that the type of person that vacations in a National Park
> is very different than the type of person that goes to Walt Disney World
> or Maui, so the relatively high number of SLRs in use was almost
> certainly skewed by the location.
A pattern that is easily explained by Doug's response to this same
post:
"I take pictures while on vacation. I don't go on vacation to take
pictures."
It is logical to tailor one's equipment to the generalized need, which
also includes personal priorities.
[out of sequence]:
> ... Someone actually handed me a _film_ SLR, I had
> no idea any of those were still around. Can you even
> buy film anymore?
Yes, you can....but what I've found is that the local availability of
"good stuff" has become questionable, as well as for some forms of
developing, with the general demise of the local small family-run
photography store.
As such (and coincidentally), I'm waiting on a UPS delivery from B&H
today that includes some Provia 100F
But getting the film is only half the story. I've found that the
worst casualty has been that professional level developing of E6 has
bit the dust (at least locally). Since I now can't find local E6
developing that I can completely trust, I'm now shipping mine cross-
country out to Carl's Darkroom in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I used to
get same day turn-around from in-house operations, but now it is:
"drop it in the mail (pray that it doesn't get lost/destroyed in
transit), get it back in a week".
-hh
PS: its easier to type "it is" than to worry about its versus
it's :-)
bugbear
>
> A perhaps truer test would be to get RAW files from each, but
> unfortunately, a lot of compacts don't allow that. At least then, all
> the sharpening, tweaks in exposure, color balance, etc. could be the
> same, and chromatic aberration left alone or treated the same.
I suspect many users in the target market for P&S
consider the quality of the ob-board processing part
of the camera (or aggregate-camera-package if you like).
BugBear
bugbear
> Please stop spreading misinformation, wive's-tales, myths, 10-year-old
> drawbacks, and ignorance. Get some experience under your belt with any
> of the newer top-shelf P&S cameras before you start making generalized
> declarations about all P&S cameras. It appears that you know very
> little, and have proved it.
Right back atcha'
You got a case to make - prove it, with verifiable
statements, facts and evidence.
I ain't going googling to make YOUR case.
Make your case, or stop cluttering the place.
BugBear
SMS
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Once someone uses a D-SLR, even on a vacation, they're hooked. The
>> wide-angle and telephoto capability combined with the lack of shutter
>> lag are big pluses in many situations. For kids, the P&S was still very
>> much in evidence. They love taking videos.
>
> I saw a similar trend on a Safari in Tanzania two years ago.
Where one of the major attractions is wildlife, those that want to
photograph it will bring an SLR.
> And
> ironically, it was a 'kid' that we helped out with recharging their
> batteries.
My 11 year old really wants an SLR now. He's reached the limit of the
capability of a P&S.
One other thing I found on this trip was just how awful it is to use a
P&S with no optical viewfinder. My sister-in-law bought a new P&S to
replace the Canon S50 we bought her several years ago. Every time she
handed it to me to take a picture of her family it was a painful
experience, trying to shield the LCD from the sun in order to frame the
picture.
Frank ess
The part I hate is grabbing the P&S, whipping it up to my eye, and,
uh, trying to be subtle about moving it out to where I can focus on
the LCD. Blush.
I'm a little bit resigned to inaccurate framing because of the
invisible view on the LCD in certain circumstances. Maybe the world of
today and beyond will look different in family albums.
It took a little getting-used-to when I adopted my family's Kodak
Autographic. Now /there/ was a viewfinder experience. Every move was
counter-intuitive: a little motion to the left, and everything in the
'finder swooped the wrong way!
--
Frank ess
SMS
> He's already decided I'm incompetent and has told us so. But it's (notice the
> correct use of "it's") a simple question. If he give us some model numbers,
> we'll all learn something. If he doesn't answer it, or dodges it, we'll all
> learn something else.
Actually 1248mm is easily attained with add-on lenses and teleconverters
stacked together. You can go even further with an Olympus SP-570 Ultra
Zoom which goes out to 520mm natively. Add on two 1.7x converters and
you're at 1532mm f/13.
The problems are many. First, the quality is horrific, with terrible
chromatic aberration because the add-on lenses for digital point and
shoot cameras are invariably of mediocre quality. Also, a 1.7x
teleconverter will turn an f/3.5 lens into a useless f/6 lens. I suspect
that Vern is referring to a Canon S5 IS which natively goes to 432mm
f/3.5, and he simply doesn't understand the math of teleconverters when
he claims 1249mm/f3.5 (as well as not knowing how to round!).
Adding two 1.7x converters causes a 432mm f/3.5 lens to turn into a
1248mm f/10 lens, which is useless. You might get something half-way
passable with manual focus (because auto-focus won't work properly), on
a tripod & using the self-timer (because you must absolutely eliminate
all camera shake), and as long as the subject is stationary.
If you have a fast prime lens then a teleconverter can make sense, i.e.
a 2x teleconverter on a 50mm f/1.8 lens. still yields a somewhat usable
100mm f/3.6 lens.
Vern can begin his education on teleconverters at this site:
"http://www.camerahacker.com/stacking_teleconverters/index.php".
John McWilliams
Yes, probably the majority. But not for the likes of us'n here!
--
john mcwilliams
Paul Furman
I walked through SF's Chinatown & North Beach the other day and noticed
a lot of DSLRs, even an Oly.
> I do with that Canon had a lens similar to the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
> G ED-IF AF-S VR DX.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> For kids, the P&S was still very
> >> much in evidence. They love taking videos.
>
> > I saw a similar trend on a Safari in Tanzania
> > two years ago.
>
> Where one of the major attractions is wildlife,
> those that want to photograph it will bring an SLR.
That's what I would have thought too...and was surprised when it split
very strongly on age.
At the first lodge we stayed at (Mikumi NP), we were the only "over
40" couple there and the only SLR camera(s). There were IIRC three
young couples (all European, if that makes any difference; UK, FR,
CH), and probably age ~30 (25-34), and 100% of them had digital P&S's.
At the second lodge (Katavi NP), there were two staffmembers (our bush
pilots) who had P&Ss...that makes sense...two young couples with P&Ss
(UK, SW), ourselves, and an American gentleman in his 50s with a
dSLR.
At the third lodge (Ruaha NP), we shared our jeep with two Europen
couples older than us; CH had dSLR and DE had 35mm SLR.
> My sister-in-law bought a new P&S to replace
> the Canon S50 we bought her several years ago.
> Every time she handed it to me to take a picture
> of her family it was a painful experience,
> trying to shield the LCD from the sun in order
> to frame the picture.
A classical example of "But It Works Great in the Store!".
-hh
-hh
> [ Canon S5 IS ]
> Adding two 1.7x converters causes
> a 432mm f/3.5 lens to turn into a
> 1248mm f/10 lens, which is useless.
If we try to believe the claim at face value and run the numbers to
make it work, the same P&S sensor (a 72mm lens equivalent to 432mm:
72mm/20mm = f/3.5) after the two 1.7x converters would have to have
originally been ~3x larger in diameter -- growing from ~20mm to ~60mm
-- in order to have the claim obey the basic laws of physics.
Coincidentally, another implication of this is that the camera's
original lens wouldn't have been an f/3.5 before the addition of the
converters: at zoom, it would have been 72mm/60mm = f/1.2 ... and at
its wide angle of 6mm, its 6mm/60mm = f/0.1 Piece 'O cake! ;-)
-hh
SMS
"VernMichaels" wouldn't be the first person that didn't understand the
how conversion lenses work!
Bob Williams
> full of trade offs. What's new?
>
> This smack down has also highlighted one difference between the two that I
> hadn't considered. It seems the P&S manufacturer expects most users won't do
> any post processing on their pictures, while the DSLR manufacturer expect that
> they will.
>
> The P&S image is sharpened in the camera to the point of losing much of the
> texture in the stonework. There doesn't appear to be a camera setting to reduce
> this. The DSLR image has little sharpening in camera. There are camera
> settings to increase this, but I want the camera to give me a minimally
> processed image so I can get it the way I want.
>
> For the record, I've owned both an SLR and a P&S for over 20 years. They both
> have their place. I'd suggest that your average vacation and/or family
> photographer will be very pleased with a modern P&S.
>
>
> -- Doug
That was fun, Doug.
As a follow up I'd like to see you take a similar set of pictures......
Same cameras, same or similar exposure, but each camera on a tripod.
Then process each in Photoshop or similar to get the best image you can
from each camera. It may demonstrate the wider exposure range possible
with DSLRs shooting RAW......or not.
It introduces a bit of subjectiveness into the equation, but that is
what happens in the real world.
Bob Williams
bugbear
(lack of response noted, poster killfiled as an idiot)
BugBear
bugbear
> As most folks figured out, A is the DSLR picture, and B is from the P&S. I
> thought the one who figured it out from a tiny bit of dust was particularly
> insightful.
Heh. If the most recognisable difference
is a minor (and creatively unimportant) artefact
of the mechanism, the differences are
unimportant.
BugBear
VernMichaels
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:8aNmk.18142$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
I can't believe how stupid you virtual photographers are. Converter
lenses for P&S cameras don't go between your primary lens and the body
of the camera so you don't get the usual and disgusting loss in
quality and aperture as you do with dSLRs. This again shows that you
are living out a virtual photography life by never having owned any
cameras, nor do you even know the basics of optics. All you can do is
mindlessly repeat what you read others say about their cameras, in
situations totally unrelated to this topic.
Now both of you go do your calculations again, but this time add in
the front element diameter of the main converter lens (78mm) to the
true focal length of the lenses affixed to the camera bodies. You will
find that what I stated is 100% true. That diameter affords the full
apertures as stated. But more importantly this proves, without a
doubt, again, that you don't know what you are talking about, either
of you, as usual. Neither of you have ever had any credibility and
this proves it even more.
If everyone started to kill-filter all the virtual-photographer trolls
in this newsgroup it might be worth sharing important information here
again. But having to respond to the stupidity of the likes of you two
makes it not worth the time of any real photographers.
SMS
> I can't believe how stupid you virtual photographers are. Converter
> lenses for P&S cameras don't go between your primary lens and the body
> of the camera so you don't get the usual and disgusting loss in
> quality and aperture as you do with dSLRs.
You should make an effort to learn the correct terminology. But yes,
adding conversion lenses onto the front of a lens won't change the
aperture, only adding teleconverters between the lens mount and the lens
changes the aperture.
You're going to suffer mightily with chromatic aberration and vignetting
with conversion lenses, but the f-stop won't change.
I tried the highest quality conversion lens available on m Canon G
series. The results were passable, but not great, and it was more hassle
to take off the extension tube and the conversion lens than it was to
change lenses on an SLR. It basically turned an excellent P&S camera
into a toy.
Of course you could also add these front conversion lenses onto the
front of D-SLR lenses, they're easily available. There's a 58mm threaded
2x conversion lens that would just be perfect for my 100-300 telephoto
lens--wow, I'd get a 200-600mm lens for only $40, such a deal! The
reviews of the conversion lens gave it a solid one star (out of five
star) rating. The reviewer summed up the facts about conversion lenses
succinctly: "Sure it's cheap, but even for the price it's not nearly
worth it." The problem is that you have no understanding of optics, and
the inherent trade-offs in the use of conversion lenses.
Trying not to be unkind, but you could greatly benefit from some basic
classes in photography. The Nikon School provides a basic introduction,
and isn't too expensive. I took it back in the 1990's when I was just
getting started in photography like you.
See "http://www.nikonschool.com/schedules.html" It hasn't gone up much
in price over the years.
VernMichaels
Thanks for providing yet more proof that you don't even own any camera
nor lenses and that you don't know what you are talking about:
>
> You should make an effort to learn the correct terminology. But yes,
> adding conversion lenses onto the front of a lens won't change the
> aperture, only adding teleconverters between the lens mount and the
> lens changes the aperture.
Yes, it _can_ change the aperture, IF the conversion lens on the front
doesn't have enough diameter to compensate for the total focal length
change. Many of the inexpensive ones of low quality, the very kind
that you are pretending to own, are made like this.
>
> You're going to suffer mightily with chromatic aberration and
> vignetting with conversion lenses, but the f-stop won't change.
More proof that you've never tried any of these lenses. Some of them
cost well more than $400 and are built to finer precision than dSLR
glass. They have to be to afford enough resolution for the smaller
sensor-sites on the smaller sensors. Which, by the way, and against
all usual bullshit myths perpetuated on this newsgroup, can have even
more dynamic range than larger sensor dSLR cameras. One of my P&S
cameras has a dynamic range that beats all APS-C sensors, by more than
3EV stops up to and including ISO1600.
>
> I tried the highest quality conversion lens available on m Canon G
> series. The results were passable, but not great, and it was more
> hassle to take off the extension tube and the conversion lens than
> it was to change lenses on an SLR. It basically turned an excellent
> P&S camera into a toy.
You mean it turned your imaginary camera into an imaginary toy. This
again proves that you don't know what you are talking about. No one
conversion lens for P&S cameras is best for all cameras, not even from
the same company. Example, the best conversion lens for Canon P&S
cameras comes from Sony. It matches the Canon's lens optics better.
You have to mix and match from various manufacturers to find which
ones provide for no extra or even less CA than the camera's own lens.
My two teleconverter combo has managed to clean up the meager CA in
two of my P&S cameras, when stacked in the proper order. Both lenses
are from different companies. Stacking 2 from the same company will
only exacerbate the minor CA in that design. And again too it matters
to which camera-lens they are affixed. On one camera the CA gets
mildly worse, on two others it disappears.
Go buy some REAL cameras and lenses some day and test them extensively
with high-resolution test targets, as I do. Until then you are proving
that you're just talking out of your ass just like all the rest of
these moronic virtual-photographer-trolls do around here.
>
> Of course you could also add these front conversion lenses onto the
> front of D-SLR lenses, they're easily available. There's a 58mm
> threaded 2x conversion lens that would just be perfect for my
> 100-300 telephoto lens--wow, I'd get a 200-600mm lens for only $40,
> such a deal! The reviews of the conversion lens gave it a solid one
> star (out of five star) rating. The reviewer summed up the facts
> about conversion lenses succinctly: "Sure it's cheap, but even for
> the price it's not nearly worth it." The problem is that you have no
> understanding of optics, and the inherent trade-offs in the use of
> conversion lenses.
I bought one of those, not for the lenses which I knew were going to
be crap, but for the housing. I needed to make my own lens design and
those had front filter threads on them. Just what I needed and at 1/2
to 1/3rd of the cost it would take to buy an empty lens cell from an
optics supply house. But before I tore it apart I tested the lens.
Those makers label their converter power by area instead of linear. A
2.2x lens from those companies is actually a 1.5x lens. Inside are
nothing more than single element glass components, not one achromat
among them.
So again you prove you are an idiot who has never held any of these
cameras nor lenses. Thanks too for proving to all others what I saw
long ago.
>
> Trying not to be unkind, but you could greatly benefit from some
> basic classes in photography. The Nikon School provides a basic
> introduction, and isn't too expensive. I took it back in the 1990's
> when I was just getting started in photography like you.
>
> See "http://www.spam_link_deleted.com/schedules.html" It hasn't gone
> up much in price over the years.
All that I see is that YOU can go to a virtual photography school to
go along with your virtual cameras and virtual lenses. To top it off
you even choose one of the worst manufacturers of cameras to teach
you. REAL photographers don't go to school, they teach themselves. At
least those who will ever make any mark in the world. Snapshooters go
to photography schools. Thanks again for proving what I already know,
that you are a monkey-mimicking virtual photographer troll who only
has virtual photography equipment and virtual photography classes in
your psychotic role-playing Usenet world.
You lost.
You lose.
Find a new virtual photographer identity to see if you can fake out
all these other people again.
SMS
> You lost.
>
> You lose.
>
> Find a new virtual photographer identity to see if you can fake out
> all these other people again.
No one will think any worse of you if you admit your mistakes and take
steps to correct them.
Busted Frog
> VernMichaels wrote:
>
>> You lost.
No he didn't.
>>
>> You lose.
No he doesn't.
>>
>> Find a new virtual photographer identity to see if you can fake out
>> all these other people again.
>
> No one will think any worse of you if you admit your mistakes and take
> steps to correct them.
I haven't seen evidence of a mistake yet, just you going nyah, nyah,
you're wrong, without offering anything remotely realistic to support
your claim.
I have been following this thread with a good degree of interest. So far
Vern although possibly not likely to be winning any prizes from Dale
Carnegie, comes across as more knowledgeable than any of those attacking
him.
The reason for my interest is that I have found similar results when
using both a couple of Fujis and a Lumix FZ50. I use some old ('80's &
90's) Olympus teleconverters plus a Ricoh TC-200M on a Lumiz FZ50 and I
get fantastic results. As I also own both a Canon and a Nikon DLSR, with
some good lenses, and can compare the results so no amount of smoke
blown by you guys is going degrade the quality of the images I have
already taken.
It is like this. You could design the world's best chocolate cake. you
could provide all manner of theoretic proof that this recipe will be
better than any other cake ever made, and when you make your cake and
put it on sale, some will buy it based purely on how convincing your
description of your theory. Me, I am going to buy the cake that tastes best.
That is an overly involved way of saying "the proof is in the pudding".
You got no pudding.
DSLRs will eventually disappear, that is inevitable. A mechanical,
problematic device in an all digital solid state world is already an
anachronism. As sensors improve, as EVFs improve, as the world moves on,
SLRs, film and digital, will fade away.
The camera of the future will be full HD motion as well as still,
something that is beyond the capability if SLRs. The market is driven by
Mr & Mrs average, not camera or photo enthusiast, and they want simple
operation, no lenses to change, and a movie or still option.
Get used to it.
Ribbit
David J Taylor
[]
> I tried the highest quality conversion lens available on m Canon G
> series. The results were passable, but not great, and it was more
> hassle to take off the extension tube and the conversion lens than it
> was to change lenses on an SLR. It basically turned an excellent P&S
> camera into a toy.
SMS,
Whilst I wouldn't use the term "toy", using conversion lenses is certainly
slower than changing lenses on a DSLR so, whilst I did buy both wide-angle
and telephoto converters for one of my early compact cameras, I found that
I hardly ever used them, and bought no more. As you say, the optical
quality was not great, even though these were lenses from the camera
supplier. It was probably one factor which made the image-stabilised,
high-zoom-range lenses on cameras from Panasonic more attractive.
Cheers,
David
David J Taylor
[]
> I have been following this thread with a good degree of interest. So
> far Vern although possibly not likely to be winning any prizes from
> Dale Carnegie, comes across as more knowledgeable than any of those
> attacking him.
> Ribbit
.. and yet when asked direct questions like "which camera are you making
these claims about", there is no answer forthcoming from "Vern".
"knowledgeable" ?
David
Chris Malcolm
> SMS,
What you say is not necessarily true of converters. For example, I use
the very large expensive and high quality wide angle convertor on my
Sony R1 a lot. It's geometrically good and has little chromatic
aberration, and what little there is simple and easily removed by
lens aberration correction programs. If I leave the lens cradle on,
which I usually do of I need the WA at all, then it is more than twice
as fast to add or remove it than switching lenses on a DSLR.
It's basically twice as fast because instead of changing one lens for
another I simply add or remove the converter. The fitting operation is
the same kind of align, twist, click. It's more than twice as fast
because I also don't have to worry about dust etc. getting into the
camera, and I don't have to find somewhere safe to park the other
lens, and I don't have to stow the extra lens. I have to find a safe
place or stance to switch DSLR lenses, whereas I can add or remove the
converter on the move.
Having got used to the quick and easy quick use of the wide angle
converter on the R1 I find the time and fiddliness of switching
between wide and long zooms on the DSLR a real pain by comparison. My
reluctance to swich DSLR lenses in such circumstances as a gusty wind
which is whipping up dust and leaves does lose me shots.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
ASAAR
>> Find a new virtual photographer identity to see if you can fake out
>> all these other people again.
>
> No one will think any worse of you if you admit your mistakes and
> take steps to correct them.
Too true. But like the guy that kept unreasonably insisting that
his borrowed P&S could only get about 10 shots from a set of AA
batteries, some people are slaves to their agendas.
David J Taylor
[]
> What you say is not necessarily true of converters. For example, I use
> the very large expensive and high quality wide angle convertor on my
> Sony R1 a lot. It's geometrically good and has little chromatic
> aberration, and what little there is simple and easily removed by
> lens aberration correction programs. If I leave the lens cradle on,
> which I usually do of I need the WA at all, then it is more than twice
> as fast to add or remove it than switching lenses on a DSLR.
>
> It's basically twice as fast because instead of changing one lens for
> another I simply add or remove the converter. The fitting operation is
> the same kind of align, twist, click. It's more than twice as fast
> because I also don't have to worry about dust etc. getting into the
> camera, and I don't have to find somewhere safe to park the other
> lens, and I don't have to stow the extra lens. I have to find a safe
> place or stance to switch DSLR lenses, whereas I can add or remove the
> converter on the move.
>
> Having got used to the quick and easy quick use of the wide angle
> converter on the R1 I find the time and fiddliness of switching
> between wide and long zooms on the DSLR a real pain by comparison. My
> reluctance to swich DSLR lenses in such circumstances as a gusty wind
> which is whipping up dust and leaves does lose me shots.
Indeed, you are talking about top-quality (and top cost and weight)
optics. My main use was the wide-angle as well, but at the time (1998)
programs performing the required corrections were not readily available.
However, the screw-fitting was a pain, and not anything like as easy as
lens changing on a DSLR. Another thing to watch out for when choosing a
camera.
David
-hh
>
> Now both of you go do your calculations again, but this time add in
> the front element diameter of the main converter lens (78mm) to the
> true focal length of the lenses affixed to the camera bodies.
So lets get the facts straight:
your "mystery" camera has a ~20mm diameter lens that you're able to
mount (by threading on?) two adaptors, each of which is a 1.7x
teleconverter and are positionally interchangeable ("Brand A first,
then Brand B", as well as "B first, then A"), which is what allowed
you to solve CA problems, and that the f/stop of the system wasn't
trashed because after everything is said and done, the final diameter
of is 78mm, thereby achieving an awesome fast telephoto equivalent to
a ~1248mm f/3.5
-hh
VernMichaels
"-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:56ab0611-20a9-409c...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
You are, without a doubt, the most clueless brain-dead moron I have
ever had the displeasure to have to correct on the internet.
You mindless idiot, you have to use the true focal lengths, not their
35mm equivalents, to base that aperture on.
For one of the cameras that would be:
72mm x 1.7 x 1.7 = 208.08mm
208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.5mm
The main lens aperture doesn't have to be any larger than 59.5mm to
achieve that f/3.5 aperture at that 1248mm (35mm equivalent)
focal-length for that lens combination and sensor. My pocket-size P&S
converter lenses are more than adequate to cover any aperture up to
and including f/2.0 with zero aperture loss and with no vignetting
whatsoever.
Go back to grade-school and get off of your mommy's computer before
someone hunts you down and shoots you for wasting the time of people
who are more valuable than anything that's crawling, or has crawled,
out of your useless genetic pool.
Don't bother to read any more online camera data upon which you have
based your sum-total of photography experience. It's obvious that you
cannot grasp anything that they might convey. The next time that your
mommy takes you to the grocery store and pushes you around while you
are sitting in the cart, ask her to buy you a nice new disposable
camera. You might finally learn what a shutter-button is for.
SMS
> SMS,
>
> Whilst I wouldn't use the term "toy", using conversion lenses is certainly
> slower than changing lenses on a DSLR so, whilst I did buy both wide-angle
> and telephoto converters for one of my early compact cameras, I found that
> I hardly ever used them, and bought no more. As you say, the optical
> quality was not great, even though these were lenses from the camera
> supplier. It was probably one factor which made the image-stabilised,
> high-zoom-range lenses on cameras from Panasonic more attractive.
On my G2, I did a lot of research prior to buying conversion lenses and
found that the lenses offered by the camera manufacturer (Canon) were
not the best ones. I spent a little more and got higher quality lenses,
that had other advantages besides optical quality in that the lens tube
they used didn't block the viewfinder or the AF assist lamp as the Canon
tube did. I used the conversion lenses infrequently, it was just too
much of a hassle, though at times they were mildly useful.
What "Vern" (and other newbies) doesn't understand is the loss of
optical quality, through both CA and vignetting from conversion lenses.
I find it's common for newbies to believe that they can pile on multiple
adapters and converters and filters and that somehow if it's physically
possible to do this than they're somehow guaranteed of good results.
Combine a noisy P&S with a 10x zoom, with some conversion lenses, and
some people are convinced that they've saved the cost of a D-SLR and
they'll get results that are nearly as good. Unfortunately the world
doesn't work that way.
No wonder he's scared to reveal the camera and the conversion lenses (if
they exist at all, which I seriously doubt).
-hh
> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > So lets get the facts straight:
>
> > your "mystery" camera has a ~20mm diameter lens that you're able to
> > mount (by threading on?) two adaptors, each of which is a 1.7x
> > teleconverter and are positionally interchangeable ("Brand A first,
> > then Brand B", as well as "B first, then A"), which is what allowed
> > you to solve CA problems, and that the f/stop of the system wasn't
> > trashed because after everything is said and done, the final
> > diameter of is 78mm, thereby achieving an awesome fast
> > telephoto equivalent to a ~1248mm f/3.5
>
> ever had the displeasure to have to correct on the internet.
Yet I'm not the one who claimed it was a 78mm diameter.
> For one of the cameras that would be:
>
> 72mm x 1.7 x 1.7 = 208.08mm
>
> 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.5mm
Correct, which I rounded off to ~60mm in a previous post. Perhaps now
you see why I was asking for you to verify your claims.
So to restate once more...with your error now corrected:
your "mystery" camera has a ~20mm diameter lens that you're able to
mount (by threading on?) two adaptors, each of which is a 1.7x
teleconverter and are positionally interchangeable ("Brand A first,
then Brand B", as well as "B first, then A"), which is what allowed
you to solve CA problems, and that the f/stop of the system wasn't
trashed because after everything is said and done, the final diameter
of is 59.5mm (~60mm), thereby achieving an awesome fast telephoto
equivalent to a ~1248mm f/3.5
Is this now a fully correct summary?
-hh
-hh
VernMichaels
> "VernMichaels" <spambloc...@noserver.com> wrote:
>> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > So lets get the facts straight:
>>
>> > your "mystery" camera has a ~20mm diameter lens that you're able
>> > to
>> > mount (by threading on?) two adaptors, each of which is a 1.7x
>> > teleconverter and are positionally interchangeable ("Brand A
>> > first,
>> > then Brand B", as well as "B first, then A"), which is what
>> > allowed
>> > you to solve CA problems, and that the f/stop of the system
>> > wasn't
>> > trashed because after everything is said and done, the final
>> > diameter of is 78mm, thereby achieving an awesome fast
>> > telephoto equivalent to a ~1248mm f/3.5
>>
>> You are, without a doubt, the most clueless brain-dead moron I have
>> ever had the displeasure to have to correct on the internet.
>
> Yet I'm not the one who claimed it was a 78mm diameter.
>
I stated that it has a 78mm primary lens diameter. Which it does.
Don't you idiots pay attention? So how is stating that again going to
correct some perceived error on your part? The only errors here are
the ones between your ears and the one your parents made in not
aborting you, or using more stringent birth-control devices.
Sterilization would have been my suggestion.
>
>> For one of the cameras that would be:
>>
>> 72mm x 1.7 x 1.7 = 208.08mm
>>
>> 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.5mm
>
> Correct, which I rounded off to ~60mm in a previous post. Perhaps
> now
> you see why I was asking for you to verify your claims.
>
No, I don't see why you are asking me to restate what I had already
stated. Only a really lame newsgroup troll would do something like
that. I made no errors in anything that I stated, except for one
slightly mistyped focal length, 1359mm vs. 1249mm, in one reply. Which
was senseless to correct since none of you trolls actually read the
posts that you reply to. And as you have proven once again you don't
even comprehend the small parts that you actually do read.
>
> So to restate once more...with your error now corrected:
The only error I made was in replying to you idiot
virtual-photographer trolls.
Let me correct that after this ...
Douglas Johnson
>The only error I made was in replying to you idiot
>virtual-photographer trolls.
>
>Let me correct that after this ...
Please. It would make everyone happier.
-- Doug
-hh
> "VernMichaels" <spambloc...@noserver.com> wrote:
> >The only error I made was in replying to you idiot
> >virtual-photographer trolls.
>
> >Let me correct that after this ...
>
> Please. It would make everyone happier.
It would be preferred, but this troll can't not respond.
It is revealing in how he dances around to avoid making any firm
commitment to what he has claimed he supposedly has.
Yet the bottom line to the whole matter is simple:
Let A = whatever the diameter is of the lens on his P&S
Let B = whatever the 'output' diameter is on his two 1.7x
teleconverters. And B has been defined by "Vern" as incurring no loss
of f/stop, so thus, B=1.7*A.
Let C = the 'input' diameter on his two 1.7x teleconverters.
Obviously, C=A, for otherwise, the teleconverter can't fit on the
camera.
Thus, his claimed stack is:
P&S-(A) + (C)-TC#1-(B) + (C)-TC#2-(B)
See the problem yet?
-hh
VernMichaels
Oh look, another idiot virtual-photographer troll replies:
"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle...@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:q5myjlm...@anakin.ifi.uio.no...
> "VernMichaels" <spamb...@noserver.com> writes:
>> For one of the cameras that would be:
>> 72mm x 1.7 x 1.7 = 208.08mm
>>
>> 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.5mm
>
> Hmmm ... f/3.5 @ 72 mm true focal length, 6x crop factor.
> The "mystery camera" must be a Canon Powershot S2 IS.
>
>> The main lens aperture doesn't have to be any larger than 59.5mm to
>> achieve that f/3.5 aperture at that 1248mm (35mm equivalent)
>
> True.
>
> However, the Canon Powershot S2 IS main lens aperture happens to be
> 20.57 mm in diameter. Stacking it with two 1.7x converters does not
> change that.
>
>> focal-length for that lens combination and sensor. My pocket-size
>> P&S converter lenses are more than adequate to cover any aperture
>> up to and including f/2.0 with zero aperture loss and with no
>> vignetting whatsoever.
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Your converter lenses can
> be
> humongous, but the speed of your combo will still be the true focal
> length divided by diameter of the camera's aperture. If the
> "mystery camera" is the Canon Powershot S2 IS, this works out as:
>
> 208.08 mm / 20.57 mm = f/10.
>
> As the saying goes: TANSTAFL.
(spam snipped)
I guess this means that the light-gathering power of the Keck
telescope is no greater than the diameter of an eyepiece affixed to
it.
Turn off your computer you stupid moron, you're just wasting valuable
electricity.
Mark Thomas
> "VernMichaels" <spamb...@noserver.com> writes:
>> "Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle...@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
>>>> ... My pocket-size
>>>> P&S converter lenses are more than adequate to cover any aperture
>>>> up to and including f/2.0 with zero aperture loss and with no
>>>> vignetting whatsoever.
>
>>> Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Your converter lenses can
>>> be humongous, but the speed of your combo will still be the true
>>> focal length divided by diameter of the camera's aperture. If the
>>> "mystery camera" is the Canon Powershot S2 IS, this works out as:
>>>
>>> 208.08 mm / 20.57 mm = f/10.
>
>> telescope is no greater than the diameter of an eyepiece affixed to
>> it.
>
You beat me to it, Gisle. Time for 'Vern' to do a little more research.
'Vern' (who also posts under multiple other aliases, often promotes CHDK
(a Canon P&S hack), has never posted an image and is often referred to
as the 'anti-dslr troll') is not worth a lot of your time.
He also doesn't understand basic exposure concepts, as proven on a
recent thread. Now, sticking to form, he will just post abuse.
It's nice to see you still lurk here, by the way!
ASAAR
> He also doesn't understand basic exposure concepts, as proven on a
> recent thread. Now, sticking to form, he will just post abuse.
Oh, he does understand. But a troll is a troll is a troll, and
being true to his anti-DSLR agenda means that fudging the facts is
of little consequence. He doesn't mind making idiotic statements
because his goal isn't really to convince anyone (other than the
occasional gull), but to stir the pot. It's in the troll's DNA.
Plants of this type are hard to weed out because they have their own
unlimited supply of fertilizer.
Scott W
> "VernMichaels" <spambloc...@noserver.com> writes:
> > For one of the cameras that would be:
> > 72mm x 1.7 x 1.7 = 208.08mm
>
> > 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.5mm
>
> The "mystery camera" must be a Canon Powershot S2 IS.
>
> > achieve that f/3.5 aperture at that 1248mm (35mm equivalent)
>
>
> However, the Canon Powershot S2 IS main lens aperture happens to be
> 20.57 mm in diameter. Stacking it with two 1.7x converters does not
> change that.
>
> > P&S converter lenses are more than adequate to cover any aperture
> > up to and including f/2.0 with zero aperture loss and with no
> > vignetting whatsoever.
>
> humongous, but the speed of your combo will still be the true focal
> length divided by diameter of the camera's aperture. If the
> "mystery camera" is the Canon Powershot S2 IS, this works out as:
>
> 208.08 mm / 20.57 mm = f/10.
>
A much as it pains me, and believe me is does, I think in this case
Vern might be correct. If the primary lens is f/3.5, as long as the
converters in front of it don’t limit the light falling on its
aperture, then the system remains an f/3.5 system.
Think about the cone of light hitting the sensor, as long as the angle
of this cone stays the same the f/number stays the same, if there is
no vignetting then this cone stays the same.
The real question is if his statement that “My pocket-size P&S
converter lenses are more than adequate to cover any aperture up to
and including f/2.0 with zero aperture loss and with no vignetting
whatsoever.”
It is certainly possible, but I would have to see the specs on the
converters to know for sure.
Scott
SMS
>>> Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Your converter lenses can
>>> be humongous, but the speed of your combo will still be the true
>>> focal length divided by diameter of the camera's aperture. If the
>>> "mystery camera" is the Canon Powershot S2 IS, this works out as:
>>>
>>> 208.08 mm / 20.57 mm = f/10.
>
>> I guess this means that the light-gathering power of the Keck
>> telescope is no greater than the diameter of an eyepiece affixed to
>> it.
>
> No. But it means that you don't know what an aperture is.
Yeah, this is true, there's nothing complicated here, the f-number is
simply "focal length/aperture diameter," so it really doesn't matter if
the converters are before the camera lens or after it, I don't know what
I was thinking earlier.
The real problem may be that he doesn't know what an f-number is (as
well as not knowing what an aperture is). Of course since he made all of
this up, and has none of the equipment in question, it's all moot.
Scott W
> Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On Aug 9, 11:13 pm, Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+n...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> >> "VernMichaels" <spambloc...@noserver.com> writes:
> >>> For one of the cameras that would be:
> >>> 72mm x 1.7 x 1.7 = 208.08mm
> >>> 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.5mm
> >> Hmmm ... f/3.5 @ 72 mm true focal length, 6x crop factor.
> >> The "mystery camera" must be a Canon Powershot S2 IS.
>
> >>> The main lens aperture doesn't have to be any larger than 59.5mm to
> >>> achieve that f/3.5 aperture at that 1248mm (35mm equivalent)
>
> >> True.
>
> >> However, the Canon Powershot S2 IS main lens aperture happens to be
> >> 20.57 mm in diameter. Stacking it with two 1.7x converters does not
> >> change that.
>
> >>> focal-length for that lens combination and sensor. My pocket-size
> >>> P&S converter lenses are more than adequate to cover any aperture
> >>> up to and including f/2.0 with zero aperture loss and with no
> >>> vignetting whatsoever.
>
> >> Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Your converter lenses can be
> >> humongous, but the speed of your combo will still be the true focal
> >> length divided by diameter of the camera's aperture. If the
> >> "mystery camera" is the Canon Powershot S2 IS, this works out as:
>
> >> 208.08 mm / 20.57 mm = f/10.
> > Vern might be correct.
>
> Well, I for one would have been utterly delighted if he was right.
>
> > If the primary lens is f/3.5, as long as the converters in front of
> > it don't limit the light falling on its aperture, then the system
> > remains an f/3.5 system.
>
> fast, long lenses - as soon as the lens designers learn about Vern's
> amazing discovery: By designing lenses so that they are made up of
> several detachable parts, you can have the maximum f-stop determined
> by the rear, non-detachable part - and /keep/ that large f-stop while
> you make the focal length arbitrary large by attaching one or more
> elements to the front.
There is not magic here, the converters need to have ever increasing
apertures to keep the system f/number the same.
Think about it this way, looking through a telescope is effectively
increasing the FL of your eye, but as long as the exit pupil is larger
then your eye pupil there is not loss of f/number in your eye.
Let's say I have a 10x converter, which is really nothing more then, a
telescope. If I want to use this will a camera that has a 20mm dia
lens then the converter needs to have at least a 200mm aperture at
front end and a 20mm at the rear.
Scott
Alan Browne
Ignoring trolls is the only known remedy. Trolls occasionally morph
into reasonable people, however this takes more energy that they can
muster and they eventually revert to form.
Your newsreader probably has filters, use them and the trolls oxygen
supply is cut and they wither away.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
SMS
> Ignoring trolls is the only known remedy. Trolls occasionally morph
> into reasonable people, however this takes more energy that they can
> muster and they eventually revert to form.
>
> Your newsreader probably has filters, use them and the trolls oxygen
> supply is cut and they wither away.
Yeah, it was amusing for a while, but "Vern" has now earned an honored
entry in the filter list, along with Rita, ASAAR, and "Alex H" (who is
of course yet another identity of Vern).
Scott W
> lens element"?
There may be a stop that is smaller then the front element, but the
front element has to be as large as I have given or converter will
limit the f/number of the system. For long lenses or teleconverter
the front element is normally the limited aperture, for wide angle
lenses if rarely is.
The bigger problem is that the entrance pupil is often inside the lens
or converter, which makes using a teleconveter pretty hard. When the
exit pupil of the converter missed the entrance of the camera the
required f/number of the converter must be less then if they matched.
Scott
John McWilliams
> Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>> "VernMichaels" <spamb...@noserver.com> writes:
>>> "Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle...@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
>>>> "VernMichaels" <spamb...@noserver.com> writes:
>>>>> ... My pocket-size
>>>>> P&S converter lenses are more than adequate to cover any aperture
>>>>> up to and including f/2.0 with zero aperture loss and with no
>>>>> vignetting whatsoever.
>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Your converter lenses can
>>>> be humongous, but the speed of your combo will still be the true
>>>> focal length divided by diameter of the camera's aperture. If the
>>>> "mystery camera" is the Canon Powershot S2 IS, this works out as:
>>>>
>>>> 208.08 mm / 20.57 mm = f/10.
>>
>>> I guess this means that the light-gathering power of the Keck
>>> telescope is no greater than the diameter of an eyepiece affixed to
>>> it.
>>
>> No. But it means that you don't know what an aperture is.
>
> You beat me to it, Gisle. Time for 'Vern' to do a little more research.
>
> 'Vern' (who also posts under multiple other aliases, often promotes CHDK
> (a Canon P&S hack), has never posted an image and is often referred to
> as the 'anti-dslr troll') is not worth a lot of your time.
Wasn't there a "Vern" who was an 'associate' of D-Mac. Didn't he
'participate in the Shoot-IN?
> He also doesn't understand basic exposure concepts, as proven on a
> recent thread. Now, sticking to form, he will just post abuse.
>
>
> It's nice to see you still lurk here, by the way!
Yes, a sane voice with knowledge, ever rarer these days.
--
john mcwilliams
Paul Furman
> Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On Aug 9, 11:13 pm, Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+n...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>> "VernMichaels" <spambloc...@noserver.com> writes:
>
>>>> For one of the cameras that would be:
>>>> 72mm x 1.7 x 1.7 = 208.08mm
>
>>>> 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.5mm
>
>>> Hmmm ... f/3.5 @ 72 mm true focal length, 6x crop factor.
>>> The "mystery camera" must be a Canon Powershot S2 IS.
>>>
>>>> The main lens aperture doesn't have to be any larger than 59.5mm to
>>>> achieve that f/3.5 aperture at that 1248mm (35mm equivalent)
>>> True.
>>>
>>> However, the Canon Powershot S2 IS main lens aperture happens to be
>>> 20.57 mm in diameter. Stacking it with two 1.7x converters does not
>>> change that.
>>>
>>>> focal-length for that lens combination and sensor. My pocket-size
>>>> P&S converter lenses are more than adequate to cover any aperture
>>>> up to and including f/2.0 with zero aperture loss and with no
>>>> vignetting whatsoever.
>>> Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Your converter lenses can be
>>> humongous, but the speed of your combo will still be the true focal
>>> length divided by diameter of the camera's aperture. If the
>>> "mystery camera" is the Canon Powershot S2 IS, this works out as:
>>>
>>> 208.08 mm / 20.57 mm = f/10.
>
>
>> Vern might be correct.
>
>
>> it don't limit the light falling on its aperture, then the system
>> remains an f/3.5 system.
>
> fast, long lenses - as soon as the lens designers learn about Vern's
> amazing discovery: By designing lenses so that they are made up of
> several detachable parts, you can have the maximum f-stop determined
> by the rear, non-detachable part - and /keep/ that large f-stop while
> you make the focal length arbitrary large by attaching one or more
> elements to the front.
I think this idea comes from front screw-on 'diopter' closeup filters
which do not change the f/stop (or the focal length), just how close you
can focus where an extension tube loses light. It's obviously not
possible to design a 1248mm f/3.5 lens on a pocket sized budget or
probably even on a NASA budget.
>> Think about the cone of light hitting the sensor, as long as the
>> angle of this cone stays the same the f/number stays the same, if
>> there is no vignetting then this cone stays the same.
>
> Are more polite person than me would probably call your understanding
> of basic optical principles "interesting".
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
VernMichaels
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:3N9ok.19827$uE5....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
I really wish that you newsgroup virtual-photographer trolls would go
educate yourselves. I design my own optical devices as needed, have
had several designs patented for catadioptric telescope arrays, one
method still in popular use for Celestron's consumer telescopes. I
know what I'm talking about. The amount of ignorance spewed by you
trolls so far would fill up the Grand Canyon. Your problem is that
none of you have ever held
any real cameras nor lenses. You don't even know how they work. The
most that you have to go on are all the specs and advertising that you
read online and basing your education on what all the other ignorant
virtual-photographer trolls have drummed into your beady little brains
all your lives. Monkey-see, monkey-do. Really, do everyone a favor and
quit making fools of yourselves. At least read some primer in optics
designs. You'll find out just how foolish you've been. But no, you'd
rather continue to make fools of yourselves. That's what trolls do.
Paul Furman -- just another one for the troll-filter.
Scott W
There is of course a cheat to what Vern is doing, the 1248mm is not
the real focal length, if is the equivalent to a full frame 35mm. I
don’t recall what crop factor his camera had, but if it was 4x then
the real focal lens of the whole shooting match would be 312mm, long
for a f/3.5 lens, but within the realm of possibility.
Of course all of this is not helped by the fact that Vern goes out of
his way to be obscure.
Scott
Scott W
> designing a 208.08 mm f/3.5 should be a piece of cake.
>
> Joining such a lens to a 5.3 Mpx digicam with a 1/2.5" sensor and
> you've created 5.3 Mpx camera with f/3.5 maximum aperture and the
> equivalent FOV of 1248mm. (The result would not be pocket sized,
> tho' :-).
>
> You can even simulate this (sort off) by putting the EF 200 mm f/1.8
> on a Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII DSLR and crop so you only use a 5.76 mm x
> 4.29 mm sized portion (969 x 624 pixels) of the middle of the frame.
> That would result in a (very expensive) 0.6 Mpx camera with a f/1.8
> lens with the equivalent FOV of 1200 mm.
>
> However, Vern's original claim was that he can /retain/ the maximum
> aperture of an existing digicam's primary lens while adding to its
> focal length by stacking his tele-converter lenses in front. That
> claim is pure bull****.
> --
I believe it was the f/number he was going to retain, which with the
right tele-converter you can do. Let's take a simple case, a camera
with a 20 aperture running at f/3.5. Now we add a tele-converter to
it, which has a 40mm entrance pupil and a 20mm exit pupil and is a 2X
converter. As long as I can place the exit pupil of the converter at
the entrance pupil of the camera I will double its focal lens and keep
my f/3.5. The main lens and converter now act as one lens with the
longer FL.
I have a 2X converter for my Nikon 995, with the converter on I have
the same range of f/numbers that I did with it off.
Scott
Scott
David J Taylor
[]
> I believe it was the f/number he was going to retain, which with the
> right tele-converter you can do. Let's take a simple case, a camera
> with a 20 aperture running at f/3.5. Now we add a tele-converter to
> it, which has a 40mm entrance pupil and a 20mm exit pupil and is a 2X
> converter. As long as I can place the exit pupil of the converter at
> the entrance pupil of the camera I will double its focal lens and keep
> my f/3.5. The main lens and converter now act as one lens with the
> longer FL.
>
> I have a 2X converter for my Nikon 995, with the converter on I have
> the same range of f/numbers that I did with it off.
>
> Scott
Yes, I had a similar front-of-lens converter (TC-E2) for my Nikon 900, and
the specifications had a similar statement about the f/number, which I am
happy to accept. In reality, the converter's bulk, and the inconvenience
of use meant that it was left at home more often than not.
The claims made earlier here about cameras and converters have so far been
lacking in model numbers, thus making the claims rather more difficult to
substantiate.
Cheers,
David
-hh
bit.co.uk> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> >
> > I believe it was the f/number he was going to retain, which with the
> > right tele-converter you can do. Let's take a simple case, a camera
> > with a 20 aperture running at f/3.5. Now we add a tele-converter to
> > it, which has a 40mm entrance pupil and a 20mm exit pupil and is a 2X
> > converter. As long as I can place the exit pupil of the converter at
> > the entrance pupil of the camera I will double its focal lens and keep
> > my f/3.5. The main lens and converter now act as one lens with the
> > longer FL.
And what may work for one TC then becomes a challenge for stacking
two, as the second would have to be 40mm exit and 80mm entrance .. but
that then means that their stacking order can't be reversed (which was
YA of the claims made)
> The claims made earlier here about cameras and converters have so far been
> lacking in model numbers, thus making the claims rather more difficult to
> substantiate.
There are none, since he built them all himself, carving them out of
ivory and wood. And his chip is unique, as he designed it himself and
paid for his own foundry run. :-)
FWIW, I think I found <g> his 'before' and 'after' shots on the web:
Before modifications:
<http://farm1.static.flickr.com/118/363547396_d0ebcd61da.jpg?v=0>
After modifications:
<http://www.noise-to-signal.com/2006/02/mammoth-camera-post.jpg>
-hh
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
>
> I think this idea comes from front screw-on 'diopter' closeup filters
> which do not change the f/stop (or the focal length), just how close you
> can focus where an extension tube loses light. It's obviously not
> possible to design a 1248mm f/3.5 lens on a pocket sized budget or
> probably even on a NASA budget.
>
>
>
> Paul Furmanwww.edgehill.netwww.baynatives.com
>
> all google groups messages filtered due to spam
But supplemental (plus) lenses DO change the focal length. That is
how they work. They shorten the focal length. So at a given position
of the main lens, the result is that the object distance is shorter.
Scott W
hidden, likely there is a good reason for that.
Scott
SMS
> Yes, I had a similar front-of-lens converter (TC-E2) for my Nikon 900, and
> the specifications had a similar statement about the f/number, which I am
> happy to accept. In reality, the converter's bulk, and the inconvenience
> of use meant that it was left at home more often than not.
It also blocked the optical viewfinder, it blocked the internal flash,
andit blocked the flash sensor. Since it was only usable at focal
lengths longer than 60mm, you had to take it on and off a lot.
I was always amused at what one guy did with his 950/990 and TC-E2:
"http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/Odd-Stuff/Reversed-Nikkor/reverse-closeup.html"
SMS
> Yes indeed, Very seems to want to keep everything confused and
> hidden, likely there is a good reason for that.
Hey, he achieved his goal, which was to get a lot of responses to his
troll posts. He may also have learned something about aperture, f-stops,
and focal length, so his next troll won't be so lame.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
> > Yes, I had a similar front-of-lens converter (TC-E2) for my Nikon 900, and
> > the specifications had a similar statement about the f/number, which I am
> > happy to accept. In reality, the converter's bulk, and the inconvenience
> > of use meant that it was left at home more often than not.
>
> It also blocked the optical viewfinder,
the optical viewfinder couldn't show what an accessory lens would
capture, whether it's a 2x telephoto or a 0.63x wide angle.
> it blocked the internal flash,
someone using a 2x lens is not likely to be using the internal flash,
especially since the flash is not that powerful.
> andit blocked the flash sensor.
see above.
> Since it was only usable at focal
> lengths longer than 60mm, you had to take it on and off a lot.
kind of like swapping lenses on a dslr...
David J Taylor
> In article <fpjok.18057$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I had a similar front-of-lens converter (TC-E2) for my Nikon
>>> 900, and the specifications had a similar statement about the
>>> f/number, which I am happy to accept. In reality, the converter's
>>> bulk, and the inconvenience of use meant that it was left at home
>>> more often than not.
>> Since it was only usable at focal
>> lengths longer than 60mm, you had to take it on and off a lot.
>
> kind of like swapping lenses on a dslr...
No, as it was screw mount compared to bayonet on a DSLR. Much /worse/
than swapping DSLR lenses!
David
SMS
<snip>
> kind of like swapping lenses on a dslr...
No it isn't. All the conversion lenses I've seen for P&S are screw
mount, and usually need a lens tube. The amount of time just to remove a
conversion lens is at least 10x the time to swap a D-SLR lens, and if
you're putting on another conversion lens it's 20x.
VernMichaels
"David J Taylor"
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
message news:nZjok.41599$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Just like all virtual-photographer trolls that comment on things
they've never owned nor used. Why don't you actually buy some cameras
some day so you won't be making a fool of yourself when posting on
newsgroups. My lenses attach by the bayonet mount on the adapter. In
fact they attach faster than any dSLR lens because any of the 3
positions where the bayonet tabs match up are good enough. I can
attach them in the dark if need be. I don't have to sit there trying
to find some light to find the dot on the barrel of a lens and then
find the corresponding dot on the camera to make sure I'm not
stripping the hell out of dSLR lens or body.
What fools these trolls be. Still trying to justify why they think
their POS dSLRs _must_ be a better camera. When I've already proven
that they are not, no way, no how.
David Taylor = Just another dSLR-troll for the filter bin.
David J Taylor
> "David J Taylor"
[]
>> No, as it was screw mount compared to bayonet on a DSLR. Much
>> /worse/ than swapping DSLR lenses!
>>
>> David
>
> Just like all virtual-photographer trolls that comment on things
> they've never owned nor used. Why don't you actually buy some cameras
> some day so you won't be making a fool of yourself when posting on
> newsgroups. My lenses attach by the bayonet mount on the adapter. In
> fact they attach faster than any dSLR lens because any of the 3
> positions where the bayonet tabs match up are good enough. I can
> attach them in the dark if need be. I don't have to sit there trying
> to find some light to find the dot on the barrel of a lens and then
> find the corresponding dot on the camera to make sure I'm not
> stripping the hell out of dSLR lens or body.
>
> What fools these trolls be. Still trying to justify why they think
> their POS dSLRs _must_ be a better camera. When I've already proven
> that they are not, no way, no how.
>
> David Taylor = Just another dSLR-troll for the filter bin.
I'm afraid you mis-read my posting - it was about my teleconverter, and
not yours. You also appear to have missed that I use both DSLR and
compact cameras, as the need arises.
David
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Yes, I had a similar front-of-lens converter (TC-E2) for my Nikon
>> 900, and the specifications had a similar statement about the
>> f/number, which I am happy to accept. In reality, the converter's
>> bulk, and the inconvenience of use meant that it was left at home
>> more often than not.
>
> It also blocked the optical viewfinder, it blocked the internal flash,
> andit blocked the flash sensor. Since it was only usable at focal
> lengths longer than 60mm, you had to take it on and off a lot.
Yes.
> I was always amused at what one guy did with his 950/990 and TC-E2:
>
> "http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/Odd-Stuff/Reversed-Nikkor/reverse-closeup.html"
Fascinating! Thanks.
David
-hh
>
> My lenses attach by the bayonet mount on the adapter.
On Aug 8, 8:20 pm, troll "VernMichaels" wrote:
>
> ... and those had front filter threads on them.
> Just what I needed ...
-hh
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
although it's a screw mount, adding or removing the adapters on a 990
is not *that* big of a deal and no tubes are required. and on the
camers that do require tubes, those can generally stay on.
nospam
Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote:
> >> Since it was only usable at focal
> >> lengths longer than 60mm, you had to take it on and off a lot.
> >
> > kind of like swapping lenses on a dslr...
>
> No, as it was screw mount compared to bayonet on a DSLR. Much /worse/
> than swapping DSLR lenses!
true, it reminded me of using old pentax cameras. :)
however, my point is that a dslr user with kit lenses that don't have a
lot of overlap, such as an 18-70 and 70-300, will be swapping a lot
too.
SMS
> although it's a screw mount, adding or removing the adapters on a 990
> is not *that* big of a deal and no tubes are required. and on the
> camers that do require tubes, those can generally stay on.
Generally you don't want to leave the tubes on, as they will interfere
with either the flash, flash sensor, and/or AF assist sensor.
In any case the bottom line is that Vern is trying to promote a kludge
of conversion lenses on a P&S as an alternative to a D-SLR, without
understanding critical factors such as f/stop, aperture, focal length,
vignetting, and chromatic aberration. He apparently believes that if
it's physically possible to attach something to a point and shoot that
by default it must work perfectly.
Well to be fair, he really isn't trying to promote anything. He made up
a story about a 1249mm focal length at f/3.5, and several of us were
lured into responding even though he clearly has no experience with
either P&S or D-SLR cameras, and has no understanding of photography.
Somewhere along the line the 1249mm morphed into 1359mm!
DaveSmith
Actually, what he managed to do what make all of you trolls look like the
complete fools that you are. He's been right on every count. He even corrected
that focal-length typo in a follow-up reply.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
> > although it's a screw mount, adding or removing the adapters on a 990
> > is not *that* big of a deal and no tubes are required. and on the
> > camers that do require tubes, those can generally stay on.
>
> Generally you don't want to leave the tubes on, as they will interfere
> with either the flash, flash sensor, and/or AF assist sensor.
depends on the camera. often, it provides protection for an extending
lens and also allows for better lens caps and protective filters.
Mark Thomas
(sockpuppet support deleted)
Hi, Vern.
How many sockpuppets does that make? Isn't it embarrassing (even to
you) to have to create a (lone) supporter..?
Bye, Vern.
Paul Furman
I used to hold an old projector lens to the front of my Oly C3030 (circa
2000) with pretty amazing results for macro. These days macro and
astronomy folks use DSLRs for best results.
David J Taylor
> In article <nZjok.41599$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>>> lengths longer than 60mm, you had to take it on and off a lot.
>>>
>>> kind of like swapping lenses on a dslr...
>>
>> No, as it was screw mount compared to bayonet on a DSLR. Much
>> /worse/ than swapping DSLR lenses!
>
>
> however, my point is that a dslr user with kit lenses that don't have
> a lot of overlap, such as an 18-70 and 70-300, will be swapping a lot
> too.
Yes, if you aren't using the 18-200mm, then something like 18-100mm and
35-200mm would mean less swapping, although it might be more expensive and
not provide quite a good optical performance. Of course, as DSLR bodies
are no longer /that/ expensive, a second body for the second lens is what
some might consider...
Cheers,
David
Dave Martindale
>On Aug 9, 11:13 pm, Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+n...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Your converter lenses can be
>> humongous, but the speed of your combo will still be the true focal
>> length divided by diameter of the camera's aperture. If the
>> "mystery camera" is the Canon Powershot S2 IS, this works out as:
>> 208.08 mm / 20.57 mm = f/10.
>A much as it pains me, and believe me is does, I think in this case
>Vern might be correct. If the primary lens is f/3.5, as long as the
>converters in front of it don’t limit the light falling on its
>aperture, then the system remains an f/3.5 system.
I believe Scott is right. Gisle's reasoning isn't that far off, but the
flaw is that the "aperture" of the lens is actually the diameter of its
entrance pupil. When you stack an afocal converter on the *front* of a
lens, it magnifies the diameter of the entrance pupil of the "main"
lens, so the entrance pupil of the combination of all the glass can be
substantially larger than that of the main lens alone. (It can't be
larger than the diameter of the front element of the converter, but
that's often quite a bit larger than the front element of the main lens.
So yes, in the best case, the f/number of the lens remains the same but
the aperture gets larger when you add a converter to the front.
On the other hand, a teleconverter added to the *rear* of a SLR lens
does indeed change the f/number, because the entrance pupil does not
change size but the effective focal length does.
Though both of these "converters" increase magnification, they operate in
completely different ways.
Dave
Paul Furman
If front mount teleconverters worked well they would probably be more
common for 35mm lenses where people spend 100's of thousands of dollars
on specialty telephoto lenses but I've never heard of one instance of
such a device.
In any case it is a simple matter to test the transmission by taking a
photo & measuring the exposure time, compared with the converter on &
off, pointing at a white wall.
Scott W
They don't really work very well, they work ok but not as good as a
lens that is designed from the ground up for a given FL. Having said
that a telescope is really a teleconverter, and when you get dealing
with really long FL a telescope is the way to go.
They are also good for cases where you can't remove the main lens,
which was the case for the Nikon 995.
I don't know what Vern is using, but I found the teleconverter to be a
bit of a pain to deal with.
Scott
-hh
> Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> >
> > If front mount teleconverters worked well they would probably be more
> > common for 35mm lenses where people spend 100's of thousands of
> > dollars on specialty telephoto lenses but I've never heard of one
> > instance of such a device.
There's a few around. And although it isn't for a telephoto
application, I have one made by Nikon for one of their 35mm systems
that I'm still using.
> They don't really work very well, they work ok but not as good as a
> lens that is designed from the ground up for a given FL.
In general, one of the things to remember is the criticality of
optical alignment of the add-on. This refers to all of the degrees of
freedom: the distance between elements, concentricity (to the optical
path's centerline), canting, etc, which in general reduces the overall
optical quality of the system...a classical "get what you paid for"
trade-off, although there can sometimes can be other compensating
considerations, which was an old claim of the Sea&Sea WA adaptors for
the Nikonos, instead of the more likely rationalization that it was
$1000 cheaper than the UW 15mm Nikkor lens.
-hh
-hh
>
> In any case the bottom line is that Vern is trying to promote a kludge
> of conversion lenses on a P&S as an alternative to a D-SLR, without
> understanding critical factors such as f/stop, aperture, focal length,
> vignetting, and chromatic aberration. He apparently believes that if
> it's physically possible to attach something to a point and shoot that
> by default it must work perfectly.
>
> Well to be fair, he really isn't trying to promote anything. He made up
> a story about a 1249mm focal length at f/3.5, and several of us were
> lured into responding even though he clearly has no experience with
> either P&S or D-SLR cameras, and has no understanding of photography.
> Somewhere along the line the 1249mm morphed into 1359mm!
Here's another fairy tale, but on the dSLR side, as part of the
ongoing hunt for clues on the Canon 5D replacement:
<http://www.upcdatabase.com/item/0002513465529>
Yup, an EF 10-2000mm L glass ... 7 ounces! Whoo Hoo!
And apparently, its going to have a street price under $300 too :-)
-hh
John McWilliams
I just found a great retailer on the 'Net who's guaranteed me delivery
on the first two hundred, and I had to deposit only $ 100 per lens! I
can't wait!!!!! OMG!!!!!!
Any one who wants one, send me $295 and I will forward soon as I get 'em!!!!
--
john mcwilliams