Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late...
Rich
cameras.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/760860/an/0/page/0#760860
Charles
wrote:
>We need to educate these people about the dangers of owning P&S
>cameras.
>
>http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/760860/an/0/page/0#760860
"We" do? I don't feel the need.
Ray Fischer
>We need to educate these people about the dangers of owning P&S
>cameras.
_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bob Williams
Adding a 3X auxiliary lens would bring it up to 1458mm!!!
Try purchasing one of those puppies for your F.F. DSLR.
Bob Williams
Chris Malcolm
You don't need to fiddle with extenders of questionable optical
quality when you can buy high quality 2000mm and much bigger lenses.
--
Chris Malcolm
AnthonyL
wrote:
>
>You don't need to fiddle with extenders of questionable optical
>quality when you can buy high quality 2000mm and much bigger lenses.
>
Wouldn't you need to be Rich to buy one of those?
--
AnthonyL
J. Clarke
You'd not only have to Rich to buy one but you'd have to be Ahnold to carry
it around all day.
Neil Harrington
"AnthonyL" <nos...@please.invalid> wrote in message
news:4a0bfb96...@news.zen.co.uk...
You'd have to be rich, but not Rich.
Neil Harrington
"Rich" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b1cbf44-4676-4c20...@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> We need to educate these people about the dangers of owning P&S
> cameras.
>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/760860/an/0/page/0#760860
I wouldn't call the FZ28 a "P&S" by any stretch of that term.
The owner doesn't need to be educated about "the dangers," but only about
what he can and can't reasonably expect to do with his camera. Adding a 3x
converter to his already horrendously long lens is just asking for trouble.
There's no indication he even used a tripod, and he doesn't sound
knowledgeable enough to assume he did.
Princess Tiaamii
> Rich wrote:
> > We need to educate these people about the dangers of owning P&S
> > cameras.
>
>
> The FZ-28 already has a 486mm (equivalent) lens.
> Adding a 3X auxiliary lens would bring it up to 1458mm!!!
> Try purchasing one of those puppies for your F.F. DSLR.
> Bob Williams
he needs an Olympus 590uz with a Tcon17
SneakyP
news:8OudnXOYEci27pHX...@giganews.com:
Seeing that Rich is obsessed with P&S, I'd agree with both statements.
--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.
Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
down :0)
Bob Williams
Surely, you jest!
A 2000 mm lens (actually mirror optics)will cost you about $8,800 USD.
See;
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&shs=2000+mm+Telephoto+lens&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=24&Go.y=11&Go=submit
Also note that the carrying case is called a TRUNK and will set you back
another $669.
Bob Williams.
Chris Malcolm
We're talking 2000mm (equivalent) here. Not quite the same thing, and
not nearly as expensive.
--
Chris Malcolm
Martin Brown
Only if you buy one dedicated as a telephoto camera lens.
OTOH you can buy a fairly decent almost diffraction limited optics Meade
or Celestron SCT for considerably less including a tripod and motor
drive. At this size you hang the camera off the lens/telescope and they
are of limited use terrestrially because of haze and thermals. eg
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=1-600-603-619-7853
The other point to make here is that a whole bunch of after market guys
make adapters to allow any P&S to be put behind the eyepiece of a
telescope to photograph wild birds and the like. Digiscoping will get
you plenty of good leads. BCF and SRB in the UK offer suitable adaptors.
I presume this thread originated from a "Rich" troll.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bob Williams
And if you are using a F.F. DSLR (as I mentioned in my post) A 2000 mm
(equivalent) and a 2000 mm (actual) ARE indeed, the same thing.
Bob Williams
Bob Williams
I have a Meade compact Astronomical Telescope with the adapters to use
with my Canon A-1 film camera.
I hardly ever use it in that manner because of the hassle factor.
Definitely not easy to use in the field.
Bob
Ray Fischer
Already have one. 2450mm. Add some optics and that can be taken up
to about 15,000mm f.l.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bob Williams
What do you use such a system for? Astronomical photography?
Is that a typo or is there really a 15,000 mm f 1 lens somewhere?
It's got to be a mirror, right? How about a reference and some details.
Bob
David J Taylor
> Ray Fischer wrote:
[]
>> Already have one. 2450mm. Add some optics and that can be taken up
>> to about 15,000mm f.l.
>>
> OMG!!
> What do you use such a system for? Astronomical photography?
> Is that a typo or is there really a 15,000 mm f 1 lens somewhere?
> It's got to be a mirror, right? How about a reference and some
> details. Bob
f.l. = F L = focal length
Wretched sans-serif fonts!
David
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Bob Williams <mytbob...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> We need to educate these people about the dangers of owning P&S
>>>> cameras.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/760860/an/0/page/0#760860
>>>>
>>> The FZ-28 already has a 486mm (equivalent) lens.
>>> Adding a 3X auxiliary lens would bring it up to 1458mm!!!
>>> Try purchasing one of those puppies for your F.F. DSLR.
>>
>> Already have one. 2450mm. Add some optics and that can be taken up
>> to about 15,000mm f.l.
>>
>OMG!!
>What do you use such a system for? Astronomical photography?
Well, yes. It's a 10" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope. 2450mm f10.
>Is that a typo or is there really a 15,000 mm f 1 lens somewhere?
Not f1. f.l. Focal length. And with eyepeice projection it does
indeed go up to around 15,000mm, although once you get up into that
range it's more common to refer to it as 300x magnification.
>It's got to be a mirror, right? How about a reference and some details.
It's a Meade 10" telescope.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bob Williams
AH!
Not exactly a P/S :-) but it must be fun to work with.
I have a Meade 4" but use it mainly for viewing rather than photography.
Bob
Doug Jewell
use one of those questionable extenders if you want cheap
but questionable image quality. Or you can use a real 2000mm
lens if you want to part with a lot of cash but get very
good image quality.
People keep talking about those cheap tele/wide adaptors
with their small size & cost as one of the advantages of P&S
over SLR, but forget that the adaptors can be used on SLR
also - with exactly the same advantages/disadvantages.
The key feature of SLR is that you have choice - you have
the choice of an expensive, heavy, but good quality lens. Or
you can choose cheap, light, and questionable quality, or a
couple of other points in between (eg convertors that go
between the lens and the body).
--
The Australian Labor Party couldn't run a pay dunny. They'd
have a queue half a mile long, and no-one on the seat.
Ray Fischer
That's the point. It's not a P&S.
>I have a Meade 4" but use it mainly for viewing rather than photography.
Photography is _really_ hard. Or expensive. Or both. For me it's
just hard which is why I usually do just viewing. For it to be easier
I'd have to spend another $2000 for a wedge, a focuser, and an
automatic tracker.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bob Williams
In life, there is always a trade off involved in every decision we make.
To quote the famous bard, "To be or not to be. That is the question."
To go DSLR or to go Ultra Zoom , or to go P/S.....That is the question.
Bob
John Navas
wrote in <G1OPl.63294$9J5....@newsfe13.iad>:
>Doug Jewell wrote:
>> The key feature of SLR is that you have choice - you have the choice of
>> an expensive, heavy, but good quality lens. Or you can choose cheap,
>> light, and questionable quality, or a couple of other points in between
>> (eg convertors that go between the lens and the body).
The key feature of super-zoom bridge camera is that you don't need to
make a choice -- you always have a relatively inexpensive, light and
compact, excellent quality lens.
>All True!
>In life, there is always a trade off involved in every decision we make.
>To quote the famous bard, "To be or not to be. That is the question."
>To go DSLR or to go Ultra Zoom , or to go P/S.....That is the question.
Not really a question for the majority of people given the handling
advantages of a super-zoom with little or no difference in image
quality.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
House of Frauds
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 23:21:28 -0700, Bob Williams <mytbobnos...@cox.net>
> wrote in <G1OPl.63294$9J5.53...@newsfe13.iad>:
why did u chose the Panasonic over Olympus ?
David J Taylor
[]
> The key feature of super-zoom bridge camera is that you don't need to
> make a choice -- you always have a relatively inexpensive, light and
> compact, excellent quality lens.
Jack of all trades - excels at none. But it may be good enough, depending
on the users' criteria.
David
House of Frauds
more important is an 'eye' for a photo
JimW
After readling all the rants and raves here, I have decided on the Nikon P90
The best of both worlds.
JimW
David J Taylor
> After readling all the rants and raves here, I have decided on the
> Nikon P90 The best of both worlds.
> JimW
I've had and used several Nikon "P&S" cameras, and in general been very
pleased with them, although my most recent P&S camera was the very compact
Panasonic TZ3. Do let us know how you get on with the P90.
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<4MrRl.32187$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
Actually excels at most trades, and
more than good enough for almost all purposes.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that,
but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." -Mark Twain
John Navas
<michael...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<783c2c03-3ee0-4d2c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>On May 22, 3:39�am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
>why did u chose the Panasonic over Olympus ?
Better lens
Better handling
Better image quality
David J Taylor
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 06:38:56 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> Jack of all trades - excels at none. But it may be good enough,
>> depending on the users' criteria.
>
> Actually excels at most trades, and
> more than good enough for almost all purposes.
P&S doesn't excel at most of the things I want to do, particularly with
operating speed, lens quality, small depth-of-field and low-light
performance. One example - zooming is /much/ quicker twisting a
mechanical ring on the lens rather than pressing zoom-in and zoom-out
buttons, and this makes a real difference in action shooting (children,
airshows etc.). But, as you know, I do also take a Panasonic TZ3 for the
times when its compact size or movie capability are required.
David
Look Above! It's Not a Bird! Not a Plane! It's a Stupid Fucking Troll!
Then get a P&S camera with a zoom-ring on the lens if you are always that
technically crippled. But then, you're so experienced (in your
pretend-photographer's mind only) that you already knew that some excellent
P&S cameras come that way, didn't you. What a fucking moron.
rwalker
Plane! It's a Stupid Fucking Troll! <noco...@noaddress.com> wrote:
snip
>>David
>
>Then get a P&S camera with a zoom-ring on the lens if you are always that
>technically crippled. But then, you're so experienced (in your
>pretend-photographer's mind only) that you already knew that some excellent
>P&S cameras come that way, didn't you. What a fucking moron.
Jesus, what a psychopath.
"Dear Resident Troll, blah blah, woof woof......"
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<CSLTl.35259$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Actually excels at most trades, and
>> more than good enough for almost all purposes.
>
>P&S doesn't excel at most of the things I want to do, particularly with
>operating speed,
Operating speed of the FZ28 is quite fast, and not an issue for me.
>lens quality,
Lens quality of the FZ28 is superb.
>small depth-of-field
Depth of field of the FZ28 is sufficient for my needs.
>and low-light
>performance.
Presuming you actually mean high ISO performance, I'll give you that,
but for me it's much less important than the advantages of the FZ28.
>One example - zooming is /much/ quicker twisting a
>mechanical ring on the lens rather than pressing zoom-in and zoom-out
>buttons, and this makes a real difference in action shooting (children,
>airshows etc.).
For you, but not for me.
>But, as you know, I do also take a Panasonic TZ3 for the
>times when its compact size or movie capability are required.
Nice camera, but much less capable than the FZ28.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<CSLTl.35259$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Actually excels at most trades, and
>> more than good enough for almost all purposes.
>
>P&S doesn't excel at most of the things I want to do, particularly with
>operating speed, lens quality, small depth-of-field and low-light
>performance. One example - zooming is /much/ quicker twisting a
>mechanical ring on the lens rather than pressing zoom-in and zoom-out
>buttons, and this makes a real difference in action shooting (children,
>airshows etc.). But, as you know, I do also take a Panasonic TZ3 for the
>times when its compact size or movie capability are required.
p.s. The Panasonic FZ28 compact super-zoom excels at things that matter
most to me, including compact size, light weight, fast handling, auto
focus tracking, and a superb wide to super-zoom lens that's unmatched in
the dSLR world even at many times the price. Things like HD movie with
zoom are frosting on the cake.
p.p.s. "P&S" is a pejorative when applied to cameras like the FZ28, as
I'm sure you know -- since I'm not stooping to pejoratives like "dSLR
bigot", how about according me the same respect?
David J Taylor
I have found that the DSLR / compact TZ3 combination suits me better than
a ZLR/bridge camera for the reasons I gave. The bridge camera does not
"excel at most trades", but it is a compromise which suits many people,
including you. As you know, I have used a variety of ZLRs in the past.
Cheers,
David
David J Taylor
[]
> p.s. The Panasonic FZ28 compact super-zoom excels at things that
> matter most to me, including compact size, light weight, fast
> handling, auto focus tracking, and a superb wide to super-zoom lens
> that's unmatched in the dSLR world even at many times the price.
> Things like HD movie with zoom are frosting on the cake.
My DSLR already has as wide a zoom range as the FZ28, and I can extend
that at any time, should I wish. You choose what suits you, and I choose
what suits me. Why be so defensive?
> p.p.s. "P&S" is a pejorative when applied to cameras like the FZ28, as
> I'm sure you know -- since I'm not stooping to pejoratives like "dSLR
> bigot", how about according me the same respect?
I was just using the term in the title of the thread: "Re: Poor, poor P&S
owner learns too late..."
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<_MJVl.37667$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 07:09:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote
>>> But, as you know, I do also take a Panasonic TZ3 for the
>>> times when its compact size or movie capability are required.
>>
>> Nice camera, but much less capable than the FZ28.
>
>I have found that the DSLR / compact TZ3 combination suits me better than
>a ZLR/bridge camera for the reasons I gave. The bridge camera does not
>"excel at most trades", but it is a compromise which suits many people,
>including you. As you know, I have used a variety of ZLRs in the past.
We'll have to agree to disagree on "excel at most trades", but I do
agree the TZ-series is the right balance for many people -- I often
recommend the TZ5/TZ4 (which are significantly improved over the TZ3
IMHO), and am looking forward to trying the new ZS3/ZS1, which I just
might get myself for times when I want something smaller than my FZ28.
John Navas
in <em2f25tejkd8uq0r7...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:04:57 -0700, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>Lens quality of the FZ28 is superb.
>Rather extraordinary.
Yep, it part due to sophisticated processing by Venus Engine IV, which
corrects for most distortion and color fringing in camera. It's very
nice not to have to do this in post-processing.
>As a very happy FZ28 owner I have to say that I'd be much happier if
>it had a mechanical zoom but my use of the fiddly switch may improve
>with practice.
It did take some learning to master the two-speed zoom, but I'm now
comfortable with how it works, especially with Zoom Resume engaged.
Two zoom speeds make a big difference over single speed zoom.
>Now may be a good time to bring up the subject of battery life again
>and the tiny little thing in the FZ28 seems to last forever. The
>makers must have worked wonders with consumption recently. I had a
>Polaroid compact years ago that would have been lucky to get a dozen
>shots out of alkalines and didn't even work on ni-mh's. It was soon
>pensioned off but even other cameras used to run batteries down at a
>solid rate. This FZ28 renders battery life a non-issue anymore, even
>if it is worse than a non-EVF job it's good enough not to be an issue
>anymore.
Agreed -- I've not had a battery issue even in days of hard shooting on
a 4 GB memory card, including lots of flash.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<lUJVl.37669$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> p.s. The Panasonic FZ28 compact super-zoom excels at things that
>> matter most to me, including compact size, light weight, fast
>> handling, auto focus tracking, and a superb wide to super-zoom lens
>> that's unmatched in the dSLR world even at many times the price.
>> Things like HD movie with zoom are frosting on the cake.
>
>My DSLR already has as wide a zoom range as the FZ28, and I can extend
>that at any time, should I wish.
Not with comparable speed, optical quality, size, weight, and handling
ease. It's not an apples and apples comparison when you ignore these
factors. I lugged a complete 35 mm kit around Europe long ago, and it's
not something I'd ever want to do again, even for local outings.
>You choose what suits you, and I choose
>what suits me. Why be so defensive?
It's not defensive when you list the things that attract you to dSLR,
just when I list the things that attract me to compact super-zoom? ;)
>> p.p.s. "P&S" is a pejorative when applied to cameras like the FZ28, as
>> I'm sure you know -- since I'm not stooping to pejoratives like "dSLR
>> bigot", how about according me the same respect?
>
>I was just using the term in the title of the thread: "Re: Poor, poor P&S
>owner learns too late..."
That doesn't make it OK.
David J Taylor
[]
> We'll have to agree to disagree on "excel at most trades", but I do
> agree the TZ-series is the right balance for many people -- I often
> recommend the TZ5/TZ4 (which are significantly improved over the TZ3
> IMHO), and am looking forward to trying the new ZS3/ZS1, which I just
> might get myself for times when I want something smaller than my FZ28.
I have the TZ3 for those times when I want a very small, pocket-sized
camera, and yet not compromise too much on capabilities. I also find it
handy for movies. I haven't felt the need to upgrade just yet, but I
would expect the newer models to be even better. Within the size and
sensitivity constraints, I've been pleased with the results.
David
David J Taylor
[]
> Not with comparable speed, optical quality, size, weight, and handling
> ease. It's not an apples and apples comparison when you ignore these
> factors. I lugged a complete 35 mm kit around Europe long ago, and
> it's not something I'd ever want to do again, even for local outings.
Yes, the DSLR offers much faster operation, better optical quality, and
handling ease. I found that the single DSLR and two lenses weighed about
the same as the two P&S cameras I had to carry before.
I, too, have used a 35mm outfit with multiple lenses in the past, and also
found the size and weight more than I wanted. The reduction in size and
weight with today's compact DSLRs, the DX (reduced circle of coverage)
zoom lenses, and lighter materials in construction makes carrying a
two-lens outfit a much different proposition than it was 20 years ago. I
still find room for the Panasonic TZ3, though, and I can have the best of
both worlds.
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<d7VVl.37945$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> Not with comparable speed, optical quality, size, weight, and handling
>> ease. It's not an apples and apples comparison when you ignore these
>> factors. I lugged a complete 35 mm kit around Europe long ago, and
>> it's not something I'd ever want to do again, even for local outings.
>
>Yes, the DSLR offers much faster operation, better optical quality, and
>handling ease. I found that the single DSLR and two lenses weighed about
>the same as the two P&S cameras I had to carry before.
Not as compared to my single FZ28.
>I, too, have used a 35mm outfit with multiple lenses in the past, and also
>found the size and weight more than I wanted. The reduction in size and
>weight with today's compact DSLRs, the DX (reduced circle of coverage)
>zoom lenses, and lighter materials in construction makes carrying a
>two-lens outfit a much different proposition than it was 20 years ago.
My 35 mm kit was/is much more complete than just two zoom lenses.
>I
>still find room for the Panasonic TZ3, though, and I can have the best of
>both worlds.
A single FZ28 is the current best for most of my needs.
"Different strokes for different folks."
David J Taylor
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:19:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> I, too, have used a 35mm outfit with multiple lenses in the past,
>> and also found the size and weight more than I wanted. The
>> reduction in size and weight with today's compact DSLRs, the DX
>> (reduced circle of coverage) zoom lenses, and lighter materials in
>> construction makes carrying a two-lens outfit a much different
>> proposition than it was 20 years ago.
>
> My 35 mm kit was/is much more complete than just two zoom lenses.
My point was that twenty years back, the SLR cameras were heavier and you
would have needed to carry more lenses to achieve the same optical
coverage. With today's lighter-weight cameras, lighter materials, and
better, wider-range zoom lenses, the weight penalty incurred from the
faster speed of operation, better optical quality and higher-sensitivity
of today's DSLRs is much less.
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<zm2Wl.38080$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> My 35 mm kit was/is much more complete than just two zoom lenses.
>
>My point was that twenty years back, the SLR cameras were heavier and you
>would have needed to carry more lenses to achieve the same optical
>coverage. With today's lighter-weight cameras, lighter materials, and
>better, wider-range zoom lenses, the weight penalty incurred from the
>faster speed of operation, better optical quality and higher-sensitivity
>of today's DSLRs is much less.
The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom on
my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four Thirds
(e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much closer
than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other compromises. There
is no magic.(c)
"Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
Preview
<http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
David J Taylor
[]
> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>
> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
> Preview
> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays you
money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<4BbXl.39647$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays you
>money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
Agreed.
Greg Amstead
That's something that I'll never understand. Why people would pay more for
compromised photography gear that prevents them from getting 70% of their
shots because they're busy swapping lenses, can't use fill-flash outdoors
because their slow-sync focal-plane shutters prevent it, can't use them for
hand-held available-light macro photography because none of their lenses
can provide enough DOF, can't frame and focus in dim light because their
OVF image can't be electronically amplified, finding out days later that
all their shots are ruined because of crud on their sensor, losing shots
because of badly designed auto-exposure system and they can't see the
blown-out lights and darks in a real-time preview in their viewfinder
before they even press the shutter, not being allowed into 80% of all
public events and buildings because their camera is so obnoxiously loud and
intrusive. But then ... they pays their money and takes their greatly
reduced chances with their severely limited photography opportunities. I'd
rather have a camera that can be used anywhere at a moment's notice under
the widest variety of conditions without all the above-mentioned, real, and
huge set of drawbacks. I'd rather not have to fumble around being some
pretentious gear-head. Some people mistakenly and misguidedly think their
trying to be a gear-head makes them into a photographer. Content trumps
quality every time if you are the silliest worried about very minor quality
issue differences. I capture content worth seeing when using any camera, if
that camera can be used when needed that is. I reject all those that slow
or weigh me down or prevent me from getting the shots I need and want
because I'm too busy trying to swap lenses or having to put that heavy gear
on a cumbersome and expensive tripod to try to hold it steady enough to
even use that overpriced, poorly figured, monster hunk of glass. That's way
too much compromise for me just to get to use a couple of extra steps of
ISO. Big deal, my longer zoom lens reach at widest aperture easily makes up
for that pittance of difference. It's not even a compromise.
Bob Larter
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>> []
>>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>>
>>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>>> Preview
>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>>
>> The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays you
>> money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>> FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>>
>> David
>
> That's something that I'll never understand.
What a shock.
Can we expect to see any of your amazing P&S shots any time soon?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
John Navas
wrote in <4a2db4e6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>Greg Amstead wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>> []
>>>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>>>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>>>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>>>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>>>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>>>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>>>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>>>
>>>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>>>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>>>> Preview
>>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>>>
>>> The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays you
>>> money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>>> FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>> That's something that I'll never understand.
>
>What a shock.
>
>Can we expect to see any of your amazing P&S shots any time soon?
Been there; done that. Please keep up. ;)
Deep Reset
"Greg Amstead" <gams...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:lh8r2596dqsd2q4h9...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>[]
>>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>>
>>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>>> Preview
>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>>
>>
>>The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays you
>>money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>>FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>>
>>David
>
> That's something that I'll never understand. Why people would pay more for
> compromised photography gear that prevents them from getting 70% of their
> shots because they're busy swapping lenses, can't use fill-flash outdoors
Of course, those of who plan our shoots can enjoy our DSLRs' big, juicy
photosites that are virtual photon-magnets, don't need over-amplifying,
suffer virtually zero shutter lag, really *do* have seamless zoom ranges
(rather than what the mfrs of our P&S allow us to have)...need I go on?
Of course I don't you silly, silly troll.
John Navas
wrote in <FOydnaKIfpAsCrPX...@bt.com>:
>
>"Greg Amstead" <gams...@xyz.com> wrote in message
>news:lh8r2596dqsd2q4h9...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>[]
>>>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>>>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>>>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>>>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>>>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>>>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>>>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>>>
>>>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>>>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>>>> Preview
>>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>>>
>>>
>>>The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays you
>>>money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>>>FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>> That's something that I'll never understand. Why people would pay more for
>> compromised photography gear that prevents them from getting 70% of their
>> shots because they're busy swapping lenses, can't use fill-flash outdoors
>
>Of course, those of who plan our shoots can enjoy our DSLRs' big, juicy
>photosites that are virtual photon-magnets, don't need over-amplifying,
>suffer virtually zero shutter lag, really *do* have seamless zoom ranges
>(rather than what the mfrs of our P&S allow us to have)...need I go on?
Only if you're that desperate to justify your equipment.
>Of course I don't you silly, silly troll.
Name calling only serves to concede the point.
Deep Reset
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:rh6t255f40ej8sjob...@4ax.com...
Justify, no.
Rebuff part-truths, yes.
Yes, DSLRs have their drawbacks - dirt on the sensor is one of them.
I don't pretend that that they're perfect.
But for versatility, nothing touches them.
Seriously, hand-on-heart, can you say that a P&S doesn't give you grief when
it comes to shutter lag?
>>Of course I don't you silly, silly troll.
>
> Name calling only serves to concede the point.
Names, where I come from, have a capital letter at the front.
Therefore, that wasn't name-calling (note the hyphen).
A troll simply isn't worth a capital.
Caught Another Moron DSLR-TROLL - YEE HA!
Fuck, the idiot doesn't even realize how his camera works. Those larger
photosites aren't going to do squat for you to help with composing and
focusing in dim light. Get a freakin' clue you moron DSLR-TROLL. But then,
only real morons buy DSLRs today. Anyone more intelligent and creative now
knows better. You, just like all the other DSLR-TROLLS are self-evident
proof that only ignorant idiots buy DSLRs. Thanks for providing the
121,238th data point to prove it again.
>suffer virtually zero shutter lag
Shutter lag on my latest P&S camera is 45ms. Yours times in at about, what?
150ms, because it has to slowly slap that noisy mirror and slow shutter out
of the way, while it's also shaking your camera so you can't even attain
the advertised optical resolution with it. Very very few DSLRs have shutter
lags less than 100ms, and the few that do aren't as fast as 45ms. I know of
another model of P&S camera with a recorded shutter-lag of only 32ms.
>, really *do* have seamless zoom ranges
So do mine. One going seamlessly from 9mm EFL to 550mm EFL, F/2.0 at the
wide-end and F/2.4 at 550mm. Another going from 8mm at F/2.7 to 1249mm at
F/3.5 You couldn't even haul glass with that much aperture and zoom range
for any DSLR cinder-block POS. My rigs conveniently fit all in one roomy
windbreaker pocket. Are you this ignorant to what's out there? Of course
you are. You're that stupid to invest in archaic DSLR gear, it only follows
that you'd be this fuckingly ignorant about all other cameras too.
>(rather than what the mfrs of our P&S allow us to have)...need I go on?
Oh please do share more direct evidence of your untapped amounts of
ignorance. You're only barely scratching the surface I bet.
Deep Reset
"Caught Another Moron DSLR-TROLL - YEE HA!" <cam...@camdtya.com> wrote in
message news:376t255m0cge65cb9...@4ax.com...
"composing"?
That's knowing what your zoom range is, where your camera is pointing, and
/knowing/ that camera so well that the image is going to be pretty much how
you want it.
Meanwhile you're wobbling around, holding the camera at arm's length,
squinting at that blurry LCD.
Really, it's not a pretty sight.
Learn, and I mean really learn, all about your camera.
Then, and only then come back and call me an idiot.
I have a P&S.
A Canon G9.
It's quite good, and in some cases (mostly the clear-plastic one I use below
water-level down to about 40metres) it is better than my DSLR.
But that's only because I can't justify the cost of the dive enclosure for
my DSLR.
But above sea-level, really, not so good.
It has visible noise, even on clear sunny days at ISO100.
> only real morons buy DSLRs today. Anyone more intelligent and creative now
> knows better. You, just like all the other DSLR-TROLLS are self-evident
> proof that only ignorant idiots buy DSLRs. Thanks for providing the
> 121,238th data point to prove it again.
You're counting then?
That's a start.
>>suffer virtually zero shutter lag
>
> Shutter lag on my latest P&S camera is 45ms.
And how long does it take to power-up?
> 150ms, because it has to slowly slap that noisy mirror and slow shutter
> out
> of the way, while it's also shaking your camera so you can't even attain
> the advertised optical resolution with it. Very very few DSLRs have
> shutter
> lags less than 100ms, and the few that do aren't as fast as 45ms. I know
> of
> another model of P&S camera with a recorded shutter-lag of only 32ms.
Wow! steps back in astonishment.
Can I use a proper flashgun (> 150V) with that, on a proper hot-shoe?
>>, really *do* have seamless zoom ranges
>
> So do mine. One going seamlessly from 9mm EFL to 550mm EFL, F/2.0 at the
> wide-end and F/2.4 at 550mm. Another going from 8mm at F/2.7 to 1249mm at
> F/3.5 You couldn't even haul glass with that much aperture and zoom range
> for any DSLR cinder-block POS. My rigs conveniently fit all in one roomy
Actually, with my 30 year-old 40mm pancake, my DSLR also fits conveniently
in my jacket pocket.
How about that?
I invested in "archaic" DSLR technology precisely because I could continue
to enjoy my scalpel-sharp glass collected over the years.
> windbreaker pocket. Are you this ignorant to what's out there? Of course
> you are. You're that stupid to invest in archaic DSLR gear, it only
> follows
> that you'd be this fuckingly ignorant about all other cameras too.
No, really, I'm not.
>>(rather than what the mfrs of our P&S allow us to have)...need I go on?
>
> Oh please do share more direct evidence of your untapped amounts of
> ignorance. You're only barely scratching the surface I bet.
No, really, we're all just *dying* to see the evidence of the brilliance of
your skills.
Have been for quite some time. <taps watch>
John Navas
wrote in <2NWdnVPHk6oxAbPX...@bt.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:rh6t255f40ej8sjob...@4ax.com...
>> Only if you're that desperate to justify your equipment.
>
>Justify, no.
>Rebuff part-truths, yes.
>
>Yes, DSLRs have their drawbacks - dirt on the sensor is one of them.
>I don't pretend that that they're perfect.
>But for versatility, nothing touches them.
In your opinion. Not in the opinions of many others, including me.
>Seriously, hand-on-heart, can you say that a P&S doesn't give you grief when
>it comes to shutter lag?
I don't have a "P&S" -- I have an excellent compact super-zoom -- and
shutter lag just isn't an issue -- response (in the proper mode) is near
instantaneous.
"P&S" is a pejorative when applied to cameras like my FZ28, as
I'm sure you know -- since I'm not stooping to pejoratives like "dSLR
bigot", how about according me the same respect?
>>>Of course I don't you silly, silly troll.
>>
>> Name calling only serves to concede the point.
>
>Names, where I come from, have a capital letter at the front.
>Therefore, that wasn't name-calling (note the hyphen).
Of course it was, and all it served/serves is to make you less credible.
John Navas
wrote in <eo6dnd_iLdbUObPX...@bt.com>:
>"composing"?
>That's knowing what your zoom range is, where your camera is pointing, and
>/knowing/ that camera so well that the image is going to be pretty much how
>you want it.
No problem with my FZ28.
>Meanwhile you're wobbling around, holding the camera at arm's length,
>squinting at that blurry LCD.
I'm actually using the excellent EVF with OIS (optical image
stabilization).
>Really, it's not a pretty sight.
>Learn, and I mean really learn, all about your camera.
Again, no problem with my FZ28.
>I have a P&S.
>A Canon G9.
>It's quite good, and in some cases (mostly the clear-plastic one I use below
>water-level down to about 40metres) it is better than my DSLR.
>But that's only because I can't justify the cost of the dive enclosure for
>my DSLR.
>But above sea-level, really, not so good.
>It has visible noise, even on clear sunny days at ISO100.
Then try something better.
>And how long does it take to power-up?
Not long enough for me to care about, and takes much less time than
dragging a big SLR out of its case/holster and switching to the right
lens.
>Can I use a proper flashgun (> 150V) with that, on a proper hot-shoe?
I use digital slaves, which work fine.
>Actually, with my 30 year-old 40mm pancake, my DSLR also fits conveniently
>in my jacket pocket.
>How about that?
Must be a really, really big pocket!
Most of my pockets aren't that big.
>I invested in "archaic" DSLR technology precisely because I could continue
>to enjoy my scalpel-sharp glass collected over the years.
Wasn't an option for me, since Canon orphaned its excellent FD mount
lenses, but the Leica-branded lens on my FZ28 is likewise excellent.
Don't get me wrong -- there is a place for dSLR, but it's not in size,
weight, ease of handling, or single lens capability.
Deep Reset
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:32:21 +0100, "Deep Reset" <Deep...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in <2NWdnVPHk6oxAbPX...@bt.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:rh6t255f40ej8sjob...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Only if you're that desperate to justify your equipment.
>>
>>Justify, no.
>>Rebuff part-truths, yes.
>>
>>Yes, DSLRs have their drawbacks - dirt on the sensor is one of them.
>>I don't pretend that that they're perfect.
>>But for versatility, nothing touches them.
>
> In your opinion. Not in the opinions of many others, including me.
>
>>Seriously, hand-on-heart, can you say that a P&S doesn't give you grief
>>when
>>it comes to shutter lag?
>
> I don't have a "P&S" -- I have an excellent compact super-zoom -- and
I'm sorry, I thought from the title of ths thread that we *were* discussing
P&S cameras.
I just assumed that you'd read the title too.
Oh dear.
John Navas
wrote in <JeGdnZPghazLN7PX...@bt.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:6m9t25h34vgrderu5...@4ax.com...
>> I don't have a "P&S" -- I have an excellent compact super-zoom -- and
>
>I'm sorry, I thought from the title of ths thread that we *were* discussing
>P&S cameras.
>I just assumed that you'd read the title too.
>Oh dear.
Oh insults -- why am I not surprised.
The Subject is of course a pejorative that's applied to cameras like my
FZ28 by those trying to put it down (a sign of insecurity).
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that,
but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." -Mark Twain
Deep Reset
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:30:31 +0100, "Deep Reset" <Deep...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in <JeGdnZPghazLN7PX...@bt.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:6m9t25h34vgrderu5...@4ax.com...
>
>>> I don't have a "P&S" -- I have an excellent compact super-zoom -- and
>>
>>I'm sorry, I thought from the title of ths thread that we *were*
>>discussing
>>P&S cameras.
>>I just assumed that you'd read the title too.
>>Oh dear.
>
> Oh insults -- why am I not surprised.
Point out to me the insult, please?
> The Subject is of course a pejorative that's applied to cameras like my
> FZ28 by those trying to put it down (a sign of insecurity).
Remind me at what point I directed any pejorative terms at your camera?
I think it was you who brought it up.
What does *that* say?
Really, if you're happy with 36Mpix per cm^2, who am I to argue?
Caught Another Moron DSLR-TROLL - YEE HA!
wrote:
Translation: Shooting blind and hoping something showed up in his camera's
FOV later.
>Meanwhile you're wobbling around, holding the camera at arm's length,
>squinting at that blurry LCD.
>Really, it's not a pretty sight.
What a pity that that's the only kind of P&S camera that you were too
ignorant to buy. There's better out there. Get some experience. Then again,
you probably don't know that using a camera with an LCD-only can be used to
effectively halt all camera-motion. It's a fun trick of mine that I use
when on boats, jeeps, trains, snowmobiles, and other fast moving vehicles.
Tack-sharp images all due to knowing how to use an LCD display properly.
I'll spare you the details, I wouldn't want to offend your "intelligence".
LOL!! But then, that's the only time I use the LCD, for my
camera-stabilization trick. Or when trying to capture a macro shot of a 5mm
long insect in flight at greater than 1:1 magnification, or when having to
take a macro shot of the underside of a mushroom-cap while it is still
growing in place on the ground. You couldn't even fit your lens under there
let alone compose properly with your POS DSLR.
Oh ye of little experience, talent, and creativity! You're revealing all
facets of these facts.
>Learn, and I mean really learn, all about your camera.
>Then, and only then come back and call me an idiot.
>
>I have a P&S.
>A Canon G9.
>It's quite good, and in some cases (mostly the clear-plastic one I use below
>water-level down to about 40metres) it is better than my DSLR.
>But that's only because I can't justify the cost of the dive enclosure for
>my DSLR.
>But above sea-level, really, not so good.
>It has visible noise, even on clear sunny days at ISO100.
>
>> only real morons buy DSLRs today. Anyone more intelligent and creative now
>> knows better. You, just like all the other DSLR-TROLLS are self-evident
>> proof that only ignorant idiots buy DSLRs. Thanks for providing the
>> 121,238th data point to prove it again.
>
>You're counting then?
>That's a start.
>
>>>suffer virtually zero shutter lag
>>
>> Shutter lag on my latest P&S camera is 45ms.
>
>And how long does it take to power-up?
From the time my hand touches it until I get it up to my eye to shoot, it's
ready. Doesn't have to be faster than that. Unless you're a fucked-up
gear-head moron instead of a real photographer.
>
>> 150ms, because it has to slowly slap that noisy mirror and slow shutter
>> out
>> of the way, while it's also shaking your camera so you can't even attain
>> the advertised optical resolution with it. Very very few DSLRs have
>> shutter
>> lags less than 100ms, and the few that do aren't as fast as 45ms. I know
>> of
>> another model of P&S camera with a recorded shutter-lag of only 32ms.
>
>Wow! steps back in astonishment.
>Can I use a proper flashgun (> 150V) with that, on a proper hot-shoe?
On two of my favorites. But you'll have to use an inexpensive adapter to
reduce that ANCIENT flash-trigger voltage to something that's designed for
use in this century. Don't you know how to buy better gear?
Then again, on all of my P&S cameras I'm not limited to using flash at only
1/250th of a second. I can use flash up to the top speeds on all my
cameras. Up to 1/40,000th of a second on one of them. And they're still in
perfect sync, the frame fully exposed by a single flash without loss of any
light.
Enjoy the top shutter speed of your camera being only 1/250th of a second.
That's how long it takes to traverse the sensor, so that's the true shutter
speed. Anything moving faster than that during that time will be distorted.
Oh look! Here's what you can expect from using higher than 1/250th of a
second shutter speeds on your DSLR!
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
Rubber Helicopters! Who knew they were making them out of rubber today! I
just love how the tail-rotor and its shadow are 90 degrees from each other.
DSLRs can even capture rips in the fabric of time! Aren't they speshul!
>
>>>, really *do* have seamless zoom ranges
>>
>> So do mine. One going seamlessly from 9mm EFL to 550mm EFL, F/2.0 at the
>> wide-end and F/2.4 at 550mm. Another going from 8mm at F/2.7 to 1249mm at
>> F/3.5 You couldn't even haul glass with that much aperture and zoom range
>> for any DSLR cinder-block POS. My rigs conveniently fit all in one roomy
>
>Actually, with my 30 year-old 40mm pancake, my DSLR also fits conveniently
>in my jacket pocket.
>How about that?
Yeah, how about that? ONE WHOLE FOCAL LENGTH! WOW! LOL!!!!!!!! That should
help you to compose maybe one or two photos a week. We'll all wait while
you run back to your house 5 miles away to go get another lens.....
Okay, now you just bore me. Your comments aren't even a challenge. I'll
let you continue showing more of your ignorance. All on your little own.
>I invested in "archaic" DSLR technology precisely because I could continue
>to enjoy my scalpel-sharp glass collected over the years.
Oh wait, one more. I can't resist. "Scalpel-sharp" glass? LOL!! It's not
even diffraction limited! Simple proof: If the image gets less sharp at
widest aperture then that is NOT a diffraction-limited figure in that
glass. Meaning, IT'S CRAP GLASS. The larger the aperture, the sharper the
image. That's how the best figured glass is tested. I have yet to see even
ONE piece of DSLR glass that can stand up to this simple test. This doesn't
even begin to take into account that the small amount of clarity that you
get with it is instantly ruined by the camera shaking and jarring from the
mirror and shutter slap.
LOL!!!!!!! Boy, they sure saw you coming, didn't they.
>
>> windbreaker pocket. Are you this ignorant to what's out there? Of course
>> you are. You're that stupid to invest in archaic DSLR gear, it only
>> follows
>> that you'd be this fuckingly ignorant about all other cameras too.
>
>No, really, I'm not.
>
>>>(rather than what the mfrs of our P&S allow us to have)...need I go on?
>>
>> Oh please do share more direct evidence of your untapped amounts of
>> ignorance. You're only barely scratching the surface I bet.
>
>No, really, we're all just *dying* to see the evidence of the brilliance of
>your skills.
>Have been for quite some time. <taps watch>
Keep begging, on your knees though, your favorite position. LOL!!
Now, do continue to show more of your extensive ignorance and zero talent
and total inexperience. It's all quite entertaining.
John Navas
wrote in <ea6dnSrpRKQtMbPX...@bt.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:6kat255pjq5n6qbuh...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:30:31 +0100, "Deep Reset" <Deep...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in <JeGdnZPghazLN7PX...@bt.com>:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6m9t25h34vgrderu5...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> I don't have a "P&S" -- I have an excellent compact super-zoom -- and
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, I thought from the title of ths thread that we *were*
>>>discussing
>>>P&S cameras.
>>>I just assumed that you'd read the title too.
>>>Oh dear.
>>
>> Oh insults -- why am I not surprised.
>
>Point out to me the insult, please?
Don't be disingenuous.
>> The Subject is of course a pejorative that's applied to cameras like my
>> FZ28 by those trying to put it down (a sign of insecurity).
>
>Remind me at what point I directed any pejorative terms at your camera?
>I think it was you who brought it up.
>What does *that* say?
That doesn't work either.
>Really, if you're happy with 36Mpix per cm^2, who am I to argue?
Just can't resist, can you? Insecurity is a bitch, isn't it?
To be clear, those are rhetorical questions -- I'm done --
have the last word.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
rwalker
YEE HA! <cam...@camdtya.com> wrote:
snip
>
>Now, do continue to show more of your extensive ignorance and zero talent
>and total inexperience. It's all quite entertaining.
In psychology, the above is referred to as projection.
John Navas
wrote in <phft25dsc46iovq5e...@4ax.com>:
In Usenet, the above is referred to as ad hominem.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> "P&S" is a pejorative when applied to cameras like my FZ28, as
> I'm sure you know -- since I'm not stooping to pejoratives like "dSLR
> bigot", how about according me the same respect?
only in your mind is it pejorative. numerous camera stores and even
camera makers themselves call non-dslrs point and shoot cameras. it's
nothing more than common usage. playing the pejorative card gets old.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >Actually, with my 30 year-old 40mm pancake, my DSLR also fits conveniently
> >in my jacket pocket.
> >How about that?
>
> Must be a really, really big pocket!
> Most of my pockets aren't that big.
so where do you keep your ego?
> >I invested in "archaic" DSLR technology precisely because I could continue
> >to enjoy my scalpel-sharp glass collected over the years.
>
> Wasn't an option for me, since Canon orphaned its excellent FD mount
> lenses, but the Leica-branded lens on my FZ28 is likewise excellent.
the fd mount needed an overhaul.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> The Subject is of course a pejorative that's applied to cameras like my
> FZ28 by those trying to put it down (a sign of insecurity).
nonsense.
John Navas
in <090620091843419477%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <g1at2595dh22ri7uo...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Actually, with my 30 year-old 40mm pancake, my DSLR also fits conveniently
>> >in my jacket pocket.
>> >How about that?
>>
>> Must be a really, really big pocket!
>> Most of my pockets aren't that big.
>
>so where do you keep your ego?
Presumably the same place you keep yours. ;)
>> >I invested in "archaic" DSLR technology precisely because I could continue
>> >to enjoy my scalpel-sharp glass collected over the years.
>>
>> Wasn't an option for me, since Canon orphaned its excellent FD mount
>> lenses, but the Leica-branded lens on my FZ28 is likewise excellent.
>
>the fd mount needed an overhaul.
To the contrary, arguably the most rugged and durable mount of any SLR
system, but expensive and a bit less convenient for casual users.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Wasn't an option for me, since Canon orphaned its excellent FD mount
> >> lenses, but the Leica-branded lens on my FZ28 is likewise excellent.
> >
> >the fd mount needed an overhaul.
>
> To the contrary, arguably the most rugged and durable mount of any SLR
> system, but expensive and a bit less convenient for casual users.
uh, no. canon tried to further the fd mount and quickly realized it
needed a complete overhaul. the mechanics of the fd mount made it very
difficult to extend its functionality for autofocus and other features.
there was also no wiping action to help keep electronic contacts clean.
they also took the opportunity for changing the mount to woo nikon
users. it worked out very well.
John Navas
in <090620092017260204%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
On the contrary, the breech lock mount was excellent, and original FD
glass is still highly prized. The problem came from the "new FD"
bayonet kludge meant to placate casual users, and orphaning the FD mount
very nearly cost Canon the pro market, forcing it to nearly give away
high end lenses for quite a few years.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
Bob Larter
The one time I saw him post a link, the image had been removed.
Bob Larter
Fred
news:2NWdnVPHk6oxAbPX...@bt.com...
>
> Yes, DSLRs have their drawbacks - dirt on the sensor is one of them.
> I don't pretend that that they're perfect.
> But for versatility, nothing touches them.
> Seriously, hand-on-heart, can you say that a P&S doesn't give you grief
> when it comes to shutter lag?
>
>
shoot. Not very versatile when you don't have the camera with you because
it's too big and bulky. I'd have missed out on thousands of photo
opportunities if I only had DSLR gear. DLSRs have their place, but only for
pre-planned photo trips/sessions, not for spontaneous photo taking.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >> Wasn't an option for me, since Canon orphaned its excellent FD mount
> >> >> lenses, but the Leica-branded lens on my FZ28 is likewise excellent.
> >> >
> >> >the fd mount needed an overhaul.
> >>
> >> To the contrary, arguably the most rugged and durable mount of any SLR
> >> system, but expensive and a bit less convenient for casual users.
> >
> >uh, no. canon tried to further the fd mount and quickly realized it
> >needed a complete overhaul. the mechanics of the fd mount made it very
> >difficult to extend its functionality for autofocus and other features.
> >there was also no wiping action to help keep electronic contacts clean.
> >they also took the opportunity for changing the mount to woo nikon
> >users. it worked out very well.
>
> On the contrary, the breech lock mount was excellent, and original FD
> glass is still highly prized. The problem came from the "new FD"
> bayonet kludge meant to placate casual users, and orphaning the FD mount
> very nearly cost Canon the pro market, forcing it to nearly give away
> high end lenses for quite a few years.
it has nothing at all to do with the new fd mount. stated very simply,
the fd mount limited canon's future. they tried to update it and ended
up with a kludge. they *had* to overhaul it to remain competitive,
unlike minolta who changed mounts for no apparent reason. and as i
said, it gave canon an opportunity to woo nikon users by allowing nikon
lenses to work on a canon body (complicating the ef mount) and taking
the pro market from nikon. it was a very smart move.
John Navas
in <100620091109532326%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <q8du25hgr4n333seh...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> Wasn't an option for me, since Canon orphaned its excellent FD mount
>> >> >> lenses, but the Leica-branded lens on my FZ28 is likewise excellent.
>> >> >
>> >> >the fd mount needed an overhaul.
>> >>
>> >> To the contrary, arguably the most rugged and durable mount of any SLR
>> >> system, but expensive and a bit less convenient for casual users.
>> >
>> >uh, no. canon tried to further the fd mount and quickly realized it
>> >needed a complete overhaul. the mechanics of the fd mount made it very
>> >difficult to extend its functionality for autofocus and other features.
>> >there was also no wiping action to help keep electronic contacts clean.
>> >they also took the opportunity for changing the mount to woo nikon
>> >users. it worked out very well.
>>
>> On the contrary, the breech lock mount was excellent, and original FD
>> glass is still highly prized. The problem came from the "new FD"
>> bayonet kludge meant to placate casual users, and orphaning the FD mount
>> very nearly cost Canon the pro market, forcing it to nearly give away
>> high end lenses for quite a few years.
>
>it has nothing at all to do with the new fd mount. stated very simply,
>the fd mount limited canon's future. they tried to update it and ended
>up with a kludge. they *had* to overhaul it to remain competitive,
>unlike minolta who changed mounts for no apparent reason.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>and as i
>said, it gave canon an opportunity to woo nikon users by allowing nikon
>lenses to work on a canon body (complicating the ef mount) and taking
>the pro market from nikon. it was a very smart move.
Simply not true.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >and as i
> >said, it gave canon an opportunity to woo nikon users by allowing nikon
> >lenses to work on a canon body (complicating the ef mount) and taking
> >the pro market from nikon. it was a very smart move.
>
> Simply not true.
it's exactly true.
George Kerby
On 6/10/09 11:45 AM, in article 100620091245490162%nos...@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
NavASS can't handle the Truth!
Bob Larter
The ideal solution is to have both.