Hey! P&S adherents, new DSLRs down to below $400
RichA
afraid. You might actually have to get out of your wheelchair or off your
front porch and get closer to something.
Tad Smithens
So you have to sink to these great length to prove that your chosen camera is
more worthwhile? You're really getting desperate to justify why you wasted all
that money on something less portable, less efficient, less advanced.
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that, by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
ray
wow. And my Kodak P850 cost me $250 a couple of years ago - with all the
lenses I need.
RichA
"Tad Smithens" <tsmi...@smithens.net> wrote in message
news:115ci4hfq2ctgtsmc...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:46:38 -0500, "RichA" <ob...@haslittletime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>But not with chromatically-aberrated superzooms, and dog-slow focus I'm
>>afraid. You might actually have to get out of your wheelchair or off your
>>front porch and get closer to something.
>>
>
> So you have to sink to these great length to prove that your chosen camera
> is
> more worthwhile? You're really getting desperate to justify why you wasted
> all
> that money on something less portable, less efficient, less advanced.
Many people I know had to really think hard a few years back, because they
had to plunk down $1200 or more to buy an "entry level" DSLR. But they did
it for quality. Now, the price is under $500 so the cost argument is dead.
That leave LAZINESS.
RichA
"ray" <r...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:6omjvlF...@mid.individual.net...
The Kodak line was a veritable lead balloon when it came to pricing. Top
line model starts at around $800 and before a year elapses, $200 on blow out
at big box electronic stores. Reason? 65% of Kodak customer were/are women
who want TINY cameras.
I feel sorry for Kodak, I really do. The should have stayed in the DSLR
game instead of rebranding s---- Sanyo made P&Ss as their own...
Barry Mantorr
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
Gostner Phelps
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
SMS
> Many people I know had to really think hard a few years back, because they
> had to plunk down $1200 or more to buy an "entry level" DSLR. But they did
> it for quality. Now, the price is under $500 so the cost argument is dead.
> That leave LAZINESS.
The number one reason that people don't buy D-SLRs is not laziness, or
cost, or that they don't understand that the photo quality will be much
bettter. It's that they're not willing to carry around such a large
camera. Maybe that's what you meant by being lazy, maybe not.
The number one reason that most people upgrade from a P&S to a D-SLR is
not image quality (that's #2) it's auto-focus/shutter lag.
mianileng
"RichA" <ob...@haslittletime.com> wrote in message
news:CvadnfDlU5J4j7vU...@giganews.com...
> But not with chromatically-aberrated superzooms, and dog-slow focus I'm
> afraid. You might actually have to get out of your wheelchair or off your
> front porch and get closer to something.
>
>
Alfred Molon
stylish little camera for one of those big DSLR monsters. She will laugh
at you.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Dave Cohen
> Sure, talk to my wife and see if you can convince her to give up her
> stylish little camera for one of those big DSLR monsters. She will laugh
> at you.
And hopefully, unlike us she isn't dopey enough to be reading this silly
nonsense in the first place.
Obviously there is a market for both (many probably own both). A ng is a
vehicle for discussing problems, we don't need unsolicited advice,
particularly when accompanied by undisguised disdain for our choices by
people unwilling to be honest about who they are.
Dave Cohen
steve cartwright
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
Pete D
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gg6861$smd$1...@news.albasani.net...
Standing on a chair can help.
RandyChase
wrote:
If your latitude is north of the Tropic of Cancer: wait for the moon to reach
the zenith while it also coincides with the peak of its perigee during the
Winter Solstice and its orbital inclination to the ecliptic is also most
northerly. Doing so while in a high-altitude aircraft or weather-balloon will
also slightly decrease your distance. Or move to the equatorial-belt regions and
wait for the moon to reach the zenith during its perigee. Which provides for
much greater chance of getting closer than if further north than the Tropic of
Cancer, or further south than the Tropic of Capricorn.
The closer the moon is to the zenith (the point in the sky vertically above you)
during its perigee (when the moon is closest to the earth), the closer you'll
be. Northern and southern inhabitants must wait for the moon's orbital
inclination and its orbit along the ecliptic to coincide with their latitude to
allow for the moon's passage closest to their zenith. Those living in the
equatorial-belt of earth are not as greatly encumbered by those extra required
alignments.
Or join one of the many countries' space programs and train to be an
astro/cosmonaut. Hope to get on a waiting list for any upcoming lunar excursion.
Increase your chances by rallying local governments to support your wishes to
get closer to the moon.
mianileng
"RandyChase" <rch...@addresseeunknown.com> wrote in message
news:7j3ei4tjs6aaj2f5a...@4ax.com...
mianileng
"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:4926fad3$0$7562$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
soccer goal post? Or a distant mountain peak? Or ...........
Rich
> "RandyChase" <rch...@addresseeunknown.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7j3ei4tjs6aaj2f5a...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:35:13 +0530, "mianileng"
Leica glass...yeah, sure. Like Schneider made all Kodak lenses. HA
HA HA HA !!!!
Think.....Cosina plant in Japan...best case scenario. More likely,
Sanyo in China.
Rich
Earnest Hobbs
wrote:
Then you'll need a Lumix DMC-FZ28 P&S camera. With an excellent 2.89X
teleconverter you can change your 486mm f/4.4 (35mm eq.) lens into a 1,405mm
f/4.4 lens for excellent wildlife photography in low-light conditions where no
DSLR lens can ever hope to reach no matter what ISO that they want to try using.
Getting that zoom at that aperture is never going to happen on any DSLR on earth
no matter how much money that you want to throw away in trying.
Let's now hear all the DSLR-trolls' usual comments about how that will greatly
degrade the image. That's already been proved totally untrue too many times to
count. <YAWN>
Andrew Dayer
>There is nothing wrong with a P&S...that a good 7-iron can't solve.
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
mianileng
"Rich" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84eff41e-c72a-4181...@l14g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
And what does it matter where it was actually manufactured? Maybe it matters
to a snob, but not to me. As long as the image is tack-sharp with negligible
CA, constant f/2.8 throughout a 12x zoom range, I don't care if it was made
in Biafra.
tony cooper
wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with a P&S...that a good 7-iron can't solve.
I'd use a 2-iron. I'd hate to damage my 7-iron, but my 2-iron is of
no other use to me.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Roy G
"Dave Cohen" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:gg6osa$ioo$1...@news.motzarella.org...
He doesn't know who he is. He has long since lost touch with reality.
Roy G
RandyChase
possible brain power)
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:33:31 +0530, "mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Yes, that will also help. But there's a minor correction to the information
above. I now realize that in order to get closest to the moon from a terrestrial
position, along with all the other earth-moon alignment conditions needing to be
met (noted above), you'll have to be on the highest vantage point of the
equatorial-bulge. According to Wiki: "An often-cited result of Earth's
equatorial bulge is that the highest point on Earth, measured from the center
outwards, is the peak of Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador, rather than Mount
Everest." You'll have to move to Ecuador with your Leica lens. Don't forget to
pack a supply of oxygen for that climb.
I wonder if there's an online calculator that predicts, like eclipses, when
you'll be closest to the moon while at your position on earth. Would make for a
fun web-page. It could also let you know when to start packing to get to Mt.
Chimborazo. It might not be 10 centuries from now when all those alignments come
to pass (exactly when the moon is at the zenith of that mountain during the
moon's nearest possible perigee). You'd have plenty of time to get an even
better P&S.
:-)
Come to think of it, this better happen sooner than 10 centuries. The moon is
slowly moving away from the earth every day.
As Alice might say, "This just gets more curiouser and curiouser."
We now know the location, we just have to find out when the moon will be closest
to that mountain-peak as it irrevocably increases in distance.
This could also make for a major day to party. The day the moon will never be
closer to any point on earth. A world-wide "Lunar Bon-voyage Party". With
millions making a pilgrimage to Mount Chimborazo (The tourist industry of
Ecuador should get in on this.). :-)
Anyone care to calculate this exact moment in time?
It might not even be at that location if the moon will be closer to some other
point on earth due to the moon's nearest possible perigee happening over some
other high-altitude point on earth long before it will happen directly over that
mountain. Quite the complex puzzle.
When, and where, will some point on earth never be any closer to the moon again?
Please forward this to someone with more time on their hands than I, who can
also run the best orbital calculations possible. Report back. Thanks.
anthony-parks
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
Deep Reset
"anthony-parks" <apa...@domainwithheld.org> wrote in message
news:21hei4lb1jfvj14kj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:22:01 -0000, "Roy G" <roy.g...@virgin.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dave Cohen" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
>>news:gg6osa$ioo$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> Sure, talk to my wife and see if you can convince her to give up her
>>>> stylish little camera for one of those big DSLR monsters. She will
>>>> laugh
>>>> at you.
>>>
>>> And hopefully, unlike us she isn't dopey enough to be reading this silly
>>> nonsense in the first place.
>>> Obviously there is a market for both (many probably own both). A ng is a
>>> vehicle for discussing problems, we don't need unsolicited advice,
>>> particularly when accompanied by undisguised disdain for our choices by
>>> people unwilling to be honest about who they are.
>>> Dave Cohen
>>
>>He doesn't know who he is. He has long since lost touch with reality.
>>
>>Roy G
>>
He doesn't know who he is, but 21KB nails him good!
Deep
RandyChase
RichA
"Earnest Hobbs" <eho...@withheldforspam.com> wrote in message
news:1gaei41f79ilkvqt8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:41:00 +0530, "mianileng"
> <mian...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>news:4926fad3$0$7562$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>> "mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:gg6861$smd$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>>
>>>> "RichA" <ob...@haslittletime.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:CvadnfDlU5J4j7vU...@giganews.com...
>>>>> But not with chromatically-aberrated superzooms, and dog-slow focus
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> afraid. You might actually have to get out of your wheelchair or off
>>>>> your front porch and get closer to something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> How do I get closer to the moon?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Standing on a chair can help.
>>LOL. But what about getting closer to those timid, skittish wildlife? Or a
>>soccer goal post? Or a distant mountain peak? Or ...........
>>
>
> Then you'll need a Lumix DMC-FZ28 P&S camera. With an excellent 2.89X
> teleconverter you can change your 486mm f/4.4 (35mm eq.) lens into a
> 1,405mm
> f/4.4 lens for excellent wildlife photography in low-light conditions
> where no
Complete with lots of image blurring, spherical aberration and monumental
amounts of chromatic aberration.
RichA
"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2390dd849...@news.supernews.com...
> Sure, talk to my wife and see if you can convince her to give up her
> stylish little camera for one of those big DSLR monsters. She will laugh
> at you.
Uhhhh......
RichA
Forget about "close." To get a good image of the moon you need:
1. A moon phase of 1/2 or so, to record side-lit details.
2. A night of STEADY seeing, where the stars don't twinkle.
3. A camera lens set-up that can at least fill the field of view with the
Moon. Top to bottom, you are looking at a 2000mm lens on a 35mm camera.
4. If possible, a tracking mount to counteract Earth's rotation.
5. Low ISO to preserve tonality, DR and eliminate graininess.
6. Either a DSLR, or a 1 megapixel video camera (where you'd combine a
couple thousand images in a registration software package like Registax.
RandyChase
> Forget about "close." To get a good image of the moon you need:
You never read any post that you reply to, do you. Typical for a
virtual-photographer DSLR-troll online.
The question was more geared to finding out when the moon will be physically
closest to a point on earth, more than it was about photographing it.
Now go hijack some other discussion thread, you troll.
Ned-D-Dawson
Oh, you mean like the DSLR on this page has?
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
Sjouke Burry
of a moon shot.
I get an acceptable picture at 1/50 th second.
I even get problems with dark adaption when looking at the
moon in my telescope.(10 inch Celestron)
John Smith
Richard
"RandyChase" <rch...@addresseeunknown.com> wrote in message
news:54gei499a53mbsj43...@4ax.com...
Thad Floryan
Nah.
Just use a good DLSR (e.g., Nikon) with a 200000mm FL scope as a lens
and take a shot from your backyard like this:
<http://saltyandsweet.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/
footprint_on_the_moon.jpg>
:-)
Toby
"RandyChase" <rch...@spamstopper.com> wrote in message
news:nrhei4deosoruga5u...@4ax.com...
Not me. If you are so interested in it you do it.
Toby
Robert Coe
: Yes, that will also help. But there's a minor correction to the information
Note that for any given point on earth or for all points, it's a single day
only in the context of when you begin to count. Since the moon was once much
closer to the earth than it is now, that event must have occurred, for every
point on earth, many times in the past.
But how do you define "every point on earth" anyway? The earth's surface is
constantly changing. Geologic features come and go, and in the time frame
under discussion that could make a considerable difference. For example,
because the Indian subcontinent is crashing into Asia, Mt Everest has been
getting measurably taller. I'm not aware of any ongoing process doing the same
thing to Mt Chimborazo. Is it possible that before the moon gets out of range,
Mt Everest will have caught up?
So much to calculate, so little computing power. And if Mt Chimborazo were to
erupt again, it could all go for naught. ;^)
Bob
Alan Browne
> (thread started in rec.photo.digital, now including sci.astro.amateur for their
> possible brain power)
I don't know the answer but the pbs dude was going on about Jupiter and
Venus (which I've seen lately in the evening sky) eventually being
within a few lunar diameters (as viewed from here) with the moon nearby.
Let me fire up my old skyglobe ...
Yep, 1 Dec, AZ of about 212 true, 2210 UTC (from Montreal, IAC).
--
-- 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.
mianileng
"John Smith" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:pHLVk.3963$X11....@newsfe08.iad...
> Look here: http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
>
I think it was about two years ago that I posted a link in RPD to a graph I
made from extrapolations of data on that web
page. It shows that the moon should look significantly larger at perigee
than at apogee - significantly enough that the change in
diameter of the moon's image in pixels is more than that between shots taken
at the same time with 8MP and 10MP cameras, the two cameras being otherwise
identical.
Allen
The only difference in exposure would be caused by atmospheric
conditions. Also, the variable in distance from Earth is really
inconsequential for photography--maybe like asking a person standing 20
feet from the camera to move a sixteenth of an inch closer. In regard to
the OP's question, perhaps he should buy a cow, wait for a cat playing a
fiddle and a dog laughing; just watch out for a dish and spoon.
Allen
mianileng
"Sjouke Burry" <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote in message
news:4927609d$0$27219$ba62...@text.nova.planet.nl...
Since the shots are taken at night, some people instinctively think they
need a long exposure. Others, including personal acquaintances of mine, take
shots on full auto with scene-average metering and their camera tries to
compensate for the mostly-black background, and the overexposed moon comes
out as a blurry white blob. One such know-it-all "explained" to me that the
highest shutter speed on his Nikon D200 was still too slow to compensate for
the rotation of the moon.
I've taken photos of the moon at all shutter speeds from 1/30 to 1/640 sec,
depending on atmospheric conditions, the phase of the moon and its position
in the sky, and *partly* on ISO and aperture settings. Even at the same ISO
and aperture values, the shutter speed required for correct exposure varies
widely. The sunny-16 formula sometimes cited for taking pictures of the moon
cannot be blindly followed. Even at zenith on a fairly clear night,
reflected sunlight from the moon has to pass through the full thickness of
the atmosphere. This subjects the amount of light entering the lens to a
much wider variation than when taking pictures of relatively nearby objects.
mianileng
"Allen" <all...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oOudnV7j4dWep7XU...@giganews.com...
I'm afraid that's not quite true. Calculations and my own shots show that
the moon looks significantly bigger at perigee than at apogee. The
difference in apparent width of the moon's diameter is more than 10%. That's
like taking shots of the same person from 20 ft and from less than 18 ft.
Chris L Peterson
<mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Even at zenith on a fairly clear night,
>reflected sunlight from the moon has to pass through the full thickness of
>the atmosphere. This subjects the amount of light entering the lens to a
>much wider variation than when taking pictures of relatively nearby objects.
That's not true. The atmosphere doesn't absorb much light at all, except
when you are looking nearly at the horizon. Atmospheric extinction
doesn't reach 1 magnitude (in photographic terms, about one stop) until
you are down to 15 degrees above the horizon. Stars don't look much
different to somebody in space than they do from any good dark site on
the Earth.
The position and phase of the Moon do impact exposure time, but
atmospheric extinction doesn't generally need to be considered, any more
than it does for nearby objects.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
mianileng
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:vdigi4d6t48tffhlv...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:32:28 +0530, "mianileng"
> <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Even at zenith on a fairly clear night,
>>reflected sunlight from the moon has to pass through the full thickness of
>>the atmosphere. This subjects the amount of light entering the lens to a
>>much wider variation than when taking pictures of relatively nearby
>>objects.
>
> That's not true. The atmosphere doesn't absorb much light at all, except
> when you are looking nearly at the horizon. Atmospheric extinction
> doesn't reach 1 magnitude (in photographic terms, about one stop) until
> you are down to 15 degrees above the horizon. Stars don't look much
> different to somebody in space than they do from any good dark site on
> the Earth.
>
> The position and phase of the Moon do impact exposure time, but
> atmospheric extinction doesn't generally need to be considered, any more
> than it does for nearby objects.
>
I was not referring to absorbtion by a clean atmosphere. I was talking about
reduction of the moon's brightness caused by dust, water vapour and natural
and man-made pollutants. They do make a big difference. That's why I said
"fairly clear sky" instead of "perfectly clear sky". Perhaps I should have
said "apparently clear" or reasonably clear". I've had to use widely
different exposure values to get approximately the same image brightness in
my shots at different times.
Pete D
"Ned-D-Dawson" <nedd...@mailnotallowed.net> wrote in message
news:oqnei4htnfmh51hos...@4ax.com...
Hardly.
Allen
the sun, just like earthbound objects, and that exposure differences
would be caused by atmospheric conditions. I didn't clarify, but my
point was that conditions would have an effect on _earthbound_ objects.
Allen
Rich
The reason they don't have an effect on Moon shots is that people
shooting the Moon for the sake of obtaining detail don't do it until
the Moon is at least 30 deg above any horizon. Extinction meaning
blue scattering and attenuation of light due to airborne particulates,
water vapour and aerosols have little effect unless you are looking
through the heavy blanket of air you do when an object is near the
horizon.
Chris L Peterson
<mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>I was not referring to absorbtion by a clean atmosphere. I was talking about
>reduction of the moon's brightness caused by dust, water vapour and natural
>and man-made pollutants. They do make a big difference. That's why I said
>"fairly clear sky" instead of "perfectly clear sky".
I disagree. Unless you are going for some sort of artistic shot through
clouds or fog, any sky that is even reasonably clear will not
significantly attenuate the Moon, assuming it isn't quite close to the
horizon.
mianileng
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:32:47 +0530, "mianileng"
> <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I was not referring to absorbtion by a clean atmosphere. I was talking
>>about
>>reduction of the moon's brightness caused by dust, water vapour and
>>natural
>>and man-made pollutants. They do make a big difference. That's why I said
>>"fairly clear sky" instead of "perfectly clear sky".
>
> I disagree. Unless you are going for some sort of artistic shot through
> clouds or fog, any sky that is even reasonably clear will not
> significantly attenuate the Moon, assuming it isn't quite close to the
> horizon.
>
guesswork or some pseudo-scientific assumption. I don't have my moon shots
or my photos in general well organised, so I can't upload and post a link to
illustrative comparison shots right now, showing the difference in exposure
levels needed at different times, but I'll do it as soon as I have time.
Chris L Peterson
<mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>All I can say is that I'm talking from personal experience, not from
>guesswork or some pseudo-scientific assumption. I don't have my moon shots
>or my photos in general well organised, so I can't upload and post a link to
>illustrative comparison shots right now, showing the difference in exposure
>levels needed at different times, but I'll do it as soon as I have time.
My own experience is that the primary determinant of exposure time when
imaging the Moon is lunar phase. I usually shoot ISO 100 and f/5.6 or
so. My exposure times range from about 1/30s for a thin crescent to
1/500s for the full Moon. Those numbers hold for pretty much any
reasonable sky conditions. Of course, the exposure times can increase
quite a bit for horizon shots.
I operate a seeing monitor, so I have a long term history of extinction.
The measured difference (on stars) between my clearest nights and my
most opaque without actual clouds being visible is less than two
magnitudes. Assuming the Moon is attenuated the same as stars, which
seems reasonable, that would suggest that for lunar shots, in cloud-free
skies, you could expect about a three stop variation in exposures, for
any given lunar phase (away from the horizon).
I'd be interested in your actual results. Where do you image from? How
would you describe the range of actual sky conditions you work with?
jme...@columbus.rr.com
..
>
> Many people I know had to really think hard a few years back, because they
> had to plunk down $1200 or more to buy an "entry level" DSLR. But they did
> it for quality. Now, the price is under $500 so the cost argument is dead.
> That leave LAZINESS.
Your idea of quality is likely far different than most other
people. What you look for in a camera is likely far different than
most other people. More expensive or factors that apply to a
professional news photographer or ... Does not define quality for all
people.
How do you figure Laziness? I might buy someone suggesting they
are just too cheap to buy something more expensive (even when it is a
better choice (not considering price) for their use, but even then is
someone "cheap" because they choose to spend more money, say on a new
car, than a new camera?
Your arguments seem less and less logical.
RichA
<jme...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:e0fd16d4-44eb-4193...@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Lazy, because it takes (obviously) more effort to tote and use a DSLR
properly than to point and click and P&S.
Today I saw a mint condition open box Nikon D40 going for $220.00. Spend
$100 more and you have a kit lens. No takers. That fact that someone is
willing to spend $400 or so on a P&S instead of buying a DSLR when you can
now buy them new for about $500 with a kit lens means that like with audio
and other hobbies, there are those who like the mediocre and those who can't
stand it.
The sad part is, many of the former are proud they have tin ears.
KentJ Adams
Someone could give me a MkIII for free and I still wouldn't want it. I don't
like anything that noisy, slow to change to a new focal-length, that limited for
high-speed sync. Well, the list of drawbacks to owning a dslr are endless. I
know because I tried using them for a few years. Then I got wiser and shopped
around, finding out that a good P&S camera can easily outdo most of them in
image quality.
Here's a good example of another new P&S that shows why buying into outfitting
and dealing with a cumbersome and obnoxious DSLR again isn't worth the time nor
effort, no matter the cost.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
Some people just aren't too intelligent nor wise and will never figure it out.
Ray Fischer
A stupid person's prejudices.
> Well, the list of drawbacks to owning a dslr are endless.
You cling to that.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dave Cohen
Dave Cohen
Allen Smithee
news:7818376c-3f7e-4d4a...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Nah.
>
> Just use a good DLSR (e.g., Nikon) with a 200000mm FL scope as a lens
> and take a shot from your backyard like this:
>
> <http://saltyandsweet.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/footprint_on_the_moon.jpg>
Na. You don't even need a long lens: ;-)
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/riksgalden_the_swedish_national_dept_office_space
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/orange_r_union_orange_expo