Olympus EP-1 focusing may doom it for DSLR users
RichA
reasons why people dumped P&S's to go with DSLRs? It's a bit odd
though since Panasonic's G1 focusing is very quick.
Steven Wandy
camera. And I think that is the audience that Olympus is "shooting"
for. People who have already invested in the 4/3 system and lens that
want something extra.
Also, most people that have P&S cameras are used to the slower CDAF,
so it will not come as big a disappointment to them.
John Navas
wrote in <mk2a45lalv5rfgtk9...@4ax.com>:
Some perhaps, but better compact digitals now have very fast focusing.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
Steven Wandy
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>Some perhaps, but better compact digitals now have very fast focusing.
The only ones that I have heard that have very fast focusing is the
two m4/3 from Panasonic.
This article
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2009/06/olympus-e-p1-london-launch-hands-on.html
even compared the EP1's focusing very favorably against two of the
more advanced P&S cameras.
Steve
John Navas
wrote in <12ba45lg13o666tig...@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:50:54 -0700, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>Some perhaps, but better compact digitals now have very fast focusing.
>
>The only ones that I have heard that have very fast focusing is the
>two m4/3 from Panasonic.
>...
Then you need to get out more. For example, Digital Photography Review
said of the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, "the actual delay between pressing the
button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous".
Scott W
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:17:20 -0400, Steven Wandy <swa...@si.rr.com>
>
> >On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:50:54 -0700, John Navas
> ><spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >>Some perhaps, but better compact digitals now have very fast focusing.
>
> >The only ones that I have heard that have very fast focusing is the
> >two m4/3 from Panasonic.
> >...
>
> Then you need to get out more. For example, Digital Photography Review
> said of the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, "the actual delay between pressing the
> button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous".
You mean here
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page5.asp
Where they say the full press lag is around 0.7 seconds?
And they say
"*2 Focus speed at the long end of the zoom varies quite widely - from
0.4 to 1.0 seconds, depending on the mode used and the subject matter.
"
Steven Wandy
<bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You mean here
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page5.asp
>
>Where they say the full press lag is around 0.7 seconds?
>
>And they say
>"*2 Focus speed at the long end of the zoom varies quite widely - from
>0.4 to 1.0 seconds, depending on the mode used and the subject matter.
Yeah - I would certainly say that sounds like "almost instantaneous."
Steven Wandy
wrote:
Not meaning to sound sarcastic in the previous post, but I think
people are making a bigger deal out of the AF of the EP1 - certainly
before they get to actually USE the camera.
SMS
The disappointment will be to those current P&S owners that expect the
EP-1 to solve the slow CDAF problem.
Bob Larter
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:17:20 -0400, Steven Wandy <swa...@si.rr.com>
> wrote in <12ba45lg13o666tig...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:50:54 -0700, John Navas
>> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some perhaps, but better compact digitals now have very fast focusing.
>> The only ones that I have heard that have very fast focusing is the
>> two m4/3 from Panasonic.
>> ...
>
> Then you need to get out more. For example, Digital Photography Review
> said of the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, "the actual delay between pressing the
> button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous".
Yeah, sure.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
SMS
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:18:48 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> The disappointment will be to those current P&S owners that expect the
>> EP-1 to solve the slow CDAF problem.
>
> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.
The EP2 is probably worth waiting for. Don't be an early adopter of this
kind of thing.
Steven Wandy
wrote:
>The disappointment will be to those current P&S owners that expect the
>EP-1 to solve the slow CDAF problem.
Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
Charles
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> The EP2 is probably worth waiting for. Don't be an early adopter of this
> kind of thing.
No proof of that.
--
Charles
Charles
<swa...@si.rr.com> wrote:
> Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.
P&S may be getting better but their shutter lag is still deficient. The
main pro of DSLR's over P&S, and also the EP-1 over P&S from the looks
of the samples, is the IQ as you say. Point and Shoots can have great
results in daylight, often can't see the difference from a DSLR, but in
low light conditions Point and Shoots are poor.
--
Charles
Sigh ... More Morons To Educate
Too bad that you missed the moonlight shot and starlight-only shots that
were posted from a P&S camera about a week ago. A photographer who is
unable to get decent starlight photos from a P&S camera is only showing
that they know nothing about how to use any camera. As you just proved
again yourself.
Rich
wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:51:51 -0400, Charles <fort...@mac.com> wrote:
> >In article <fgfc45hrndge6k7l9edgruervvuq9ei...@4ax.com>, Steven Wandy
Starlight photos? What does that mean, illumination of a scene only
by starlight? If so, you are looking at an exposure of a hour at
least.
Caught Another DSLR-Troll! Ye-Ha!
wrote:
Thanks for just now proving that you've never used any camera in your
lifetime.
SMS
> Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.
Yeah, for shots where fast AF doesn't matter, the IQ will likely be better.
There's generally three reasons that people get fed up enough with P&S
cameras that they'll get a D-SLR. First is poor low light performance on
indoor shots, because they were used to much better quality indoors
using 400 speed film. Second is the CDAF on the P&S models which results
in agonizingly long lag times. Third is the need for more wide angle
than the P&S can provide. Anyone's that tried to solve the wide-angle
problem with some of those add-on adapters for P&S cameras quickly
realizes that they need to get a D-SLR!
Perhaps the EP-1 will solve two of these issues, we'll see.
Troll Killer
Dear Resident Pretend-Photographer DSLR-Troll,
Many (new & improved) 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 (telextender) 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 telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. 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 usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S 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 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses 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, by the obnoxious
clattering 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 pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly 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 at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done 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. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
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!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. 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. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. 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. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.
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."
Bob Larter
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:51:51 -0400, Charles <for...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <fgfc45hrndge6k7l9...@4ax.com>, Steven Wandy
>> <swa...@si.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
>>> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
>>> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.
>> P&S may be getting better but their shutter lag is still deficient. The
>> main pro of DSLR's over P&S, and also the EP-1 over P&S from the looks
>> of the samples, is the IQ as you say. Point and Shoots can have great
>> results in daylight, often can't see the difference from a DSLR, but in
>> low light conditions Point and Shoots are poor.
>
> Too bad that you missed the moonlight shot and starlight-only shots that
> were posted from a P&S camera about a week ago.
Which shots were those?
Bob Larter
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:08:23 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rande...@gmail.com>
>> Starlight photos? What does that mean, illumination of a scene only
>> by starlight? If so, you are looking at an exposure of a hour at
>> least.
>
> Thanks for just now proving that you've never used any camera in your
> lifetime.
<makes popcorn>
Bob Larter
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:44:16 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steven Wandy wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
>>> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
>>> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.
>> Yeah, for shots where fast AF doesn't matter, the IQ will likely be better.
>>
>> There's generally three reasons that people get fed up enough with P&S
>> cameras that they'll get a D-SLR. First is poor low light performance on
>> indoor shots, because they were used to much better quality indoors
>> using 400 speed film. Second is the CDAF on the P&S models which results
>> in agonizingly long lag times. Third is the need for more wide angle
>> than the P&S can provide. Anyone's that tried to solve the wide-angle
>> problem with some of those add-on adapters for P&S cameras quickly
>> realizes that they need to get a D-SLR!
>>
>> Perhaps the EP-1 will solve two of these issues, we'll see.
>
>
> Dear Resident Pretend-Photographer DSLR-Troll,
>
> Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual
Gee, I never could've sen this response coming...
bugbear
>
>> In article <fgfc45hrndge6k7l9...@4ax.com>, Steven Wandy
>> <swa...@si.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
>>> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
>>> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.
>> P&S may be getting better but their shutter lag is still deficient. The
>> main pro of DSLR's over P&S, and also the EP-1 over P&S from the looks
>> of the samples, is the IQ as you say. Point and Shoots can have great
>> results in daylight, often can't see the difference from a DSLR, but in
>> low light conditions Point and Shoots are poor.
>
> Too bad that you missed the moonlight shot and starlight-only shots that
> were posted from a P&S camera about a week ago.
Link?
BugBear
Paul Furman
He posted a few pics last week and pulled them before I got a chance to
see them. If anyone saved copies, I'd be interested in an email... just
remove hyphens around the -@-.
John Navas
<b4353146-a326-4b5e...@p21g2000prn.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jun 26, 12:10�pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:17:20 -0400, Steven Wandy <swa...@si.rr.com>
>> wrote in <12ba45lg13o666tigkp3tt3nfcqkhjg...@4ax.com>:
>>
>> >On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:50:54 -0700, John Navas
>> ><spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Some perhaps, but better compact digitals now have very fast focusing.
>>
>> >The only ones that I have heard that have very fast focusing is the
>> >two m4/3 from Panasonic.
>> >...
>>
>> Then you need to get out more. �For example, Digital Photography Review
>> said of the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, "the actual delay between pressing the
>> button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous".
>
> You mean here ...
I mean here: <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page5.asp>
"Again focus (using the high speed AF mode) is very fast. Shutter lag
is marginally slower than the FZ7 - the difference is down to the
video lag on the live preview (the actual delay between pressing the
button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous). Continuous
shooting, though not quite as good as the FZ7, is impressive for a
camera in this class."
Alfred Molon
@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
> Starlight photos? What does that mean, illumination of a scene only
> by starlight? If so, you are looking at an exposure of a hour at
> least.
If you take an image of the star sky, 15 or 30 seconds is enough at F8
and ISO 100. That will give you the stars with the sky solid black.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
John Navas
Slow CDAF problem = urban legend promulgated by dSLR bigots and those
with no real experience with better CDAF systems.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn."
-Benjamin Franklin
John Navas
<270620091951512722%for...@mac.com>:
>In article <fgfc45hrndge6k7l9...@4ax.com>, Steven Wandy
><swa...@si.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
>> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
>> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.
>
>P&S may be getting better but their shutter lag is still deficient.
Some are; others aren't.
>The
>main pro of DSLR's over P&S, and also the EP-1 over P&S from the looks
>of the samples, is the IQ as you say. Point and Shoots can have great
>results in daylight, often can't see the difference from a DSLR, but in
>low light conditions Point and Shoots are poor.
Some are; others aren't. Depends on the camera, the settings, and the
subject.
John Navas
wrote in <AFB1m.1503$cl4...@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>:
Total nonsense.
Paul Furman
> In article <c6309829-0621-480c-b5de-a7af011a4193
> @r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>
>> Starlight photos? What does that mean, illumination of a scene only
>> by starlight? If so, you are looking at an exposure of a hour at
>> least.
>
> If you take an image of the star sky, 15 or 30 seconds is enough at F8
> and ISO 100. That will give you the stars with the sky solid black.
Here's a few with clear high-desert sky:
D200 at ISO 1600
30 seconds at 35mm f/1.4
http://edgehill.net/Southwest/12-21-07-az/12-26-07-stars
D200 at ISO 1600
1 minute at 12mm f/4.5
http://edgehill.net/Southwest/12-21-07-az/12-26-07-stars/pg1pc1
D700 at ISO 1600
30 seconds at 12mm f/4.5
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3497152594/sizes/o/
Ancient Oly C3030 maxed out:
http://edgehill.net/2001-leonids.jpg
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Unimpressed
wrote:
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <c6309829-0621-480c-b5de-a7af011a4193
>> @r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>>
>>> Starlight photos? What does that mean, illumination of a scene only
>>> by starlight? If so, you are looking at an exposure of a hour at
>>> least.
>>
>> If you take an image of the star sky, 15 or 30 seconds is enough at F8
>> and ISO 100. That will give you the stars with the sky solid black.
>
>Here's a few with clear high-desert sky:
>
>D200 at ISO 1600
>30 seconds at 35mm f/1.4
>http://edgehill.net/Southwest/12-21-07-az/12-26-07-stars
That's a really badly figured hunk of glass. If I saw one of my lenses
perform like that I'd throw it in a junk-box and never visit it again. I
wouldn't even try to re-sell something like that to someone, I'd feel too
guilty trying to pawn that off on some unsuspecting soul. Proving yet again
that no SLR lens ever made will ever reach diffraction-limited precision,
as exists on all better quality P&S cameras.
>
>D200 at ISO 1600
>1 minute at 12mm f/4.5
>http://edgehill.net/Southwest/12-21-07-az/12-26-07-stars/pg1pc1
>
>D700 at ISO 1600
>30 seconds at 12mm f/4.5
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3497152594/sizes/o/
Your cameras seem to be rated at a higher ISO than they actually are. All
those images I can get at about 30-45 seconds at f2.0 (2.3 stops larger
than 4.5) at noise-free ISO200 on my P&S zoom cameras, dark clear skies
permitting. Without any of that dreadfully bad coma. I've never seen coma
that bad as that one lens in anything before, especially not in any prime
lens, that's just *really* sad. Might as well just use an image destroying
"Lens Baby". I'm getting about the same amount of noise and light
sensitivity at ISO200 or ISO400 as your ISO1600 images just by using a
larger aperture higher-quality lens. Again, proving that high ISO is only
needed by DSLRs because their zoom lenses are so limited in aperture. Could
be that my cameras are rated a bit lower in ISO than they actually perform.
Which is not uncommon between camera makers, by as much as a 2/3rd ISO
stops at times. Could be the lens design too. When constructed well with
very good multi-coatings this can make up for quite the difference in light
through-put, as much as 25-30% in some designs. Fewer groups means fewer
air-to-glass light-robbing surfaces. Zeiss does a mighty fine job on lens
design in my P&S cameras.
Needless to say, I am still left totally unimpressed by any lens on any
DSLR and the not-much-difference performance of any DSLR. It certainly
wouldn't be worth the cumbersome weight, cost, and the vastly greater
inconveniences of any DSLR in real-world uses, that's for sure.
Thanks for showing me proof of that again. I still stand correct.
Eric Stevens
<noco...@noaddress.com> wrote:
-- snip ---
>>
>>Ancient Oly C3030 maxed out:
>>http://edgehill.net/2001-leonids.jpg
That's a puzzle. Some stars fixed in space. Three others moving in
slightly different directions - artificial satellites? And all
projected on a background resembling an ancient worsted blanket. With
the vertical stripes I thought it might even have been from my great
grandfather's suit.
Eric Stevens
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Rich says...
>>>
>>>> Starlight photos? What does that mean, illumination of a scene only
>>>> by starlight? If so, you are looking at an exposure of a hour at
>>>> least.
>>>
>>> If you take an image of the star sky, 15 or 30 seconds is enough at F8
>>> and ISO 100. That will give you the stars with the sky solid black.
>> Here's a few with clear high-desert sky:
>>
>> D200 at ISO 1600
>> 30 seconds at 35mm f/1.4
>> http://edgehill.net/Southwest/12-21-07-az/12-26-07-stars
>
> That's a really badly figured hunk of glass. If I saw one of my lenses
> perform like that I'd throw it in a junk-box and never visit it again. I
> wouldn't even try to re-sell something like that to someone, I'd feel too
> guilty trying to pawn that off on some unsuspecting soul. Proving yet again
> that no SLR lens ever made will ever reach diffraction-limited precision,
> as exists on all better quality P&S cameras.
Show me your 50mm eq 30-second comparison shot.
Ya, it's got big quirks wide open but it gets a brilliant scene
unobtainable otherwise. Did you see the video? Got anything comparable?
>> D200 at ISO 1600
>> 1 minute at 12mm f/4.5
>> http://edgehill.net/Southwest/12-21-07-az/12-26-07-stars/pg1pc1
>>
>> D700 at ISO 1600
>> 30 seconds at 12mm f/4.5
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3497152594/sizes/o/
>
> Your cameras seem to be rated at a higher ISO than they actually are. All
> those images I can get at about 30-45 seconds at f2.0 (2.3 stops larger
> than 4.5) at noise-free ISO200 on my P&S zoom cameras, dark clear skies
> permitting. Without any of that dreadfully bad coma. I've never seen coma
> that bad as that one lens in anything before, especially not in any prime
> lens, that's just *really* sad.
The coma is on the 35mm lens, not the 12mm. Yes it's bad but what have
you got to compare? The first 12mm DX shot shows star trails at one
minute exposures. What have you got at 18mm eq? That's what the 12mm
shots are. The FX 12mm shows star trails in the corners, no coma.
> Might as well just use an image destroying
> "Lens Baby". I'm getting about the same amount of noise and light
> sensitivity at ISO200 or ISO400 as your ISO1600 images just by using a
> larger aperture higher-quality lens.
Show me your 50mm eq f/1.4.
Show me your 18mm eq f/4.5.
Show me your 12mm anything.
> Again, proving that high ISO is only
> needed by DSLRs because their zoom lenses are so limited in aperture. Could
> be that my cameras are rated a bit lower in ISO than they actually perform.
> Which is not uncommon between camera makers, by as much as a 2/3rd ISO
> stops at times. Could be the lens design too. When constructed well with
> very good multi-coatings this can make up for quite the difference in light
> through-put, as much as 25-30% in some designs.
You are full of it.
> Fewer groups means fewer
> air-to-glass light-robbing surfaces. Zeiss does a mighty fine job on lens
> design in my P&S cameras.
>
> Needless to say, I am still left totally unimpressed by any lens on any
> DSLR and the not-much-difference performance of any DSLR. It certainly
> wouldn't be worth the cumbersome weight, cost, and the vastly greater
> inconveniences of any DSLR in real-world uses, that's for sure.
The 35/1.4 is a very compact old lens.
> Thanks for showing me proof of that again. I still stand correct.
>
>> Ancient Oly C3030 maxed out:
>> http://edgehill.net/2001-leonids.jpg
Paul Furman
Leonid meteor showers in 2001 on an old P&S with bad banding issues.
I'll admit I did fake in two of the three shooting stars, same framing &
setup though.
Unimpressed
wrote:
>
>Show me your 50mm eq f/1.4.
Now why would I need 50mm f/1.4 when I have 50mm f/2.0 without any of that
really disgusting coma that your lens has? Why on earth would I want to
waste as much money as you have wasted to get such terrible images as you
get?
>Show me your 18mm eq f/4.5.
You know? I was just preparing to show you two of them. I have two that I
did when testing a 0.25x add-on lens. A remarkable performer. Quite
surprising in fact. Zero chromatic aberration in it. It doesn't limit the
camera lens' aperture one bit. One of the images of the sky area containing
the constellation of Cygnus bathed in the Milky-Way. Done at 22mm EQ f/2.0
setting on my zoom lens.
>Show me your 12mm anything.
And the other is at a 12mm zoom setting at f/2.0 of an all-sky view. Quite
a remarkable sky-shot. Stars down to magnitude 9.6 in both of them. No
distortion edge to edge, no CA edge to edge. I specifically found this
combo to take all-sky images of meteor showers.
>>
>You are full of it.
But since you already believe that. Keep on believing it. Why should I
waste my time trying to convince you otherwise? Even if I post them you'd
do like every last one of you useless DSLR troll's do, claim I stole them
or didn't use the P&S camera that I actually used. You useless DSLR trolls
are all alike. Even seeing is not believing to you wastes of flesh. I came
so close to playing into your troll's attempt to show you my images. Until
I read this from you.
Your camera and lenses are a waste of money and time after seeing how badly
they perform compared to the images I get for so much less money, so fewer
inconveniences.
I repeat:
>>
>> Needless to say, I am still left totally unimpressed by any lens on any
>> DSLR and the not-much-difference performance of any DSLR. It certainly
>> wouldn't be worth the cumbersome weight, cost, and the vastly greater
>> inconveniences of any DSLR in real-world uses, that's for sure.
>
>> Thanks for showing me proof of that again. I still stand correct.
Nothing you have done will ever change my mind that I didn't make the right
hardware decisions. In fact, your images prove even more that I made better
choices than you've ever made in your lifetime.
THANKS! :-)
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Show me your 50mm eq f/1.4.
>
> Now why would I need 50mm f/1.4 when I have 50mm f/2.0 without any of that
> really disgusting coma that your lens has? Why on earth would I want to
> waste as much money as you have wasted to get such terrible images as you
> get?
For the clean ISO 1600.
>> Show me your 18mm eq f/4.5.
>
> You know? I was just preparing to show you two of them. I have two that I
> did when testing a 0.25x add-on lens. A remarkable performer. Quite
> surprising in fact. Zero chromatic aberration in it. It doesn't limit the
> camera lens' aperture one bit. One of the images of the sky area containing
> the constellation of Cygnus bathed in the Milky-Way. Done at 22mm EQ f/2.0
> setting on my zoom lens.
Go ahead.
>> Show me your 12mm anything.
>
> And the other is at a 12mm zoom setting at f/2.0 of an all-sky view. Quite
> a remarkable sky-shot. Stars down to magnitude 9.6 in both of them. No
> distortion edge to edge, no CA edge to edge. I specifically found this
> combo to take all-sky images of meteor showers.
Post it.
>> You are full of it.
>
> ...Why should I waste my time trying to convince you otherwise?
Credibility?
I've posted settings and full pixel crops for years.
D-Mac
> Credibility?
> I've posted settings and full pixel crops for years.
Are they the Panasonic P&S ones you stole off me, altered them to make
them look bad and posted them on your web site trying to make out they
were copyright research?
You really are a suck, Paul. Trying to claim creditability when you
simply don't have any.
Whenever anyone else produces evidence that relatively cheap consumer
cameras produce as good a results as a DSLR, you seem to go to an
enormous amount of effort to discredit them... Even to the point of
stealing their example images and tampering with them so they look as
bad as some of your DSLR stuff.
Why is that? Are you so insecure about your hobby you have to justify
owning expensive gear?
--
D-Mac...
J. Clarke
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:58:27 -0500, Unimpressed
> <noco...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>
> -- snip ---
>>>
>>> Ancient Oly C3030 maxed out:
>>> http://edgehill.net/2001-leonids.jpg
>
> That's a puzzle. Some stars fixed in space. Three others moving in
> slightly different directions - artificial satellites?
Uh, why is that a "puzzle" in an image entitled "2001-leonids"? Google
"leonids".
Bob Larter
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:13:07 -0700, Paul Poorman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Show me your 50mm eq f/1.4.
>
> Now why would I need 50mm f/1.4 when I have 50mm f/2.0 without any of that
> really disgusting coma that your lens has? Why on earth would I want to
> waste as much money as you have wasted to get such terrible images as you
> get?
>
>> Show me your 18mm eq f/4.5.
>
> You know? I was just preparing to show you two of them.
And yet you haven't. What a surprise.
Unimpressed
wrote:
>Unimpressed wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:13:07 -0700, Paul Poorman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Show me your 50mm eq f/1.4.
>>
>> Now why would I need 50mm f/1.4 when I have 50mm f/2.0 without any of that
>> really disgusting coma that your lens has? Why on earth would I want to
>> waste as much money as you have wasted to get such terrible images as you
>> get?
>>
>>> Show me your 18mm eq f/4.5.
>>
>> You know? I was just preparing to show you two of them.
>
>And yet you haven't. What a surprise.
Posting them wouldn't entertain me as much as not posting them now does.
:-)
(Fuck-all, is this guy ever dense! LOL)
Eric Stevens
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:58:27 -0500, Unimpressed
>> <noco...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>>
>> -- snip ---
>>>>
>>>> Ancient Oly C3030 maxed out:
>>>> http://edgehill.net/2001-leonids.jpg
>>
>> That's a puzzle. Some stars fixed in space. Three others moving in
>> slightly different directions - artificial satellites?
>
>Uh, why is that a "puzzle" in an image entitled "2001-leonids"? Google
>"leonids".
Brain fade. I know of the Leonid meteor shower (and the remains of
comet Temple Tuttle). For some reason I locked on the name as
referring only to the stars of the constellation Leo (from where the
meteor shower gets its name).
>
>> And all
>> projected on a background resembling an ancient worsted blanket. With
>> the vertical stripes I thought it might even have been from my great
>> grandfather's suit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Slow CDAF problem = urban legend promulgated by dSLR bigots and those
> with no real experience with better CDAF systems.
Ah, that must be the reason all P&S cameras must be delivered
with terrible CDAF systems.
-Wolfgang
SMS
Ricoh did have one higher end P&S with PDAF, the GX100 (actually it had
both CDAF and PDAF).
If there's a better CDAF system then there must be conspiracy by the
camera manufacturers to prevent its use in order to get people to buy
D-SLRs with fast AF. If they got rid of the AF lag in P&S cameras it
would negatively effect sales of D-SLRs and lenses and flashes, etc.
John Navas
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
<c4ath6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
The actual "reason" is false premise leading to false conclusion.
John Navas
wrote in <8aT2m.10965$aX1....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>:
>Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Slow CDAF problem = urban legend promulgated by dSLR bigots and those
>>> with no real experience with better CDAF systems.
>>
>> Ah, that must be the reason all P&S cameras must be delivered
>> with terrible CDAF systems.
>
>Ricoh did have one higher end P&S with PDAF, the GX100 (actually it had
>both CDAF and PDAF).
>
>If there's a better CDAF system then there must be conspiracy by the
>camera manufacturers to prevent its use in order to get people to buy
>D-SLRs with fast AF.
The only conspiracy is to keep them away from you so you can keep making
absurd claims based on ignorance.
>If they got rid of the AF lag in P&S cameras it
>would negatively effect sales of D-SLRs and lenses and flashes, etc.
In fact compact cameras far outsell dSLR cameras.
Paul Furman
I was just clarifying a debate here and made my point handily.
Bob Larter
Oh please. It's completely obvious to everyone that you don't have any
decent P&S images.
Alfred Molon
says...
> Here's a few with clear high-desert sky:
>
> D200 at ISO 1600
> 30 seconds at 35mm f/1.4
> http://edgehill.net/Southwest/12-21-07-az/12-26-07-stars
>
> D200 at ISO 1600
> 1 minute at 12mm f/4.5
> http://edgehill.net/Southwest/12-21-07-az/12-26-07-stars/pg1pc1
>
> D700 at ISO 1600
> 30 seconds at 12mm f/4.5
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3497152594/sizes/o/
Why you need 30-60 seconds at ISO1600 is a mystery. I took a set of
images F5-F7, 15-30 seconds, at ISO 100 (on top of a mountain at night,
clear sky). They show the stars quite nicely. Not all stars of course,
probably only the brighter ones.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:28:39 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>>If there's a better CDAF system then there must be conspiracy by the
>>camera manufacturers to prevent its use in order to get people to buy
>>D-SLRs with fast AF.
> The only conspiracy is to keep them away from you so you can keep making
> absurd claims based on ignorance.
So how comes that about every test comparing cameras using
CDAF versus cameras using PDAF notes that those using CDAF
focus slower and are only partially, if at all, usable for
e.g. sport photography due to their slowish AF?[1]
Yes, must be that conspiracy. CDAF focusses instantly and
even without light, right?
>>If they got rid of the AF lag in P&S cameras it
>>would negatively effect sales of D-SLRs and lenses and flashes, etc.
> In fact compact cameras far outsell dSLR cameras.
Nice non sequitur, it proves that you think you are witty.
It's even true, for all it doesn't matter at all.
Unfortunately it lets you look like you knew nothing at all.
-Wolfgang
[1] Yes, you can prefocus. Want to make anything out of it?
John Navas
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
<rpsuh6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:28:39 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>
>>>If there's a better CDAF system then there must be conspiracy by the
>>>camera manufacturers to prevent its use in order to get people to buy
>>>D-SLRs with fast AF.
>
>> The only conspiracy is to keep them away from you so you can keep making
>> absurd claims based on ignorance.
>
>So how comes that about every test comparing cameras using
>CDAF versus cameras using PDAF notes that those using CDAF
>focus slower and are only partially, if at all, usable for
>e.g. sport photography due to their slowish AF?[1]
If that were true (it's not), then those of us using compact cameras
wouldn't be able to get so many great sports action shots, yet we do,
often better than those with dSLR cameras because of the handling
advantages of compact cameras. <http://sail.navas.us/>
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >So how comes that about every test comparing cameras using
> >CDAF versus cameras using PDAF notes that those using CDAF
> >focus slower and are only partially, if at all, usable for
> >e.g. sport photography due to their slowish AF?[1]
>
> If that were true (it's not), then those of us using compact cameras
> wouldn't be able to get so many great sports action shots, yet we do,
> often better than those with dSLR cameras because of the handling
> advantages of compact cameras. <http://sail.navas.us/>
you're absolutely right. at the olympics and countless other sporting
events, all of the pro photographers had compact cameras with contrast
autofocus because they're so much better. not only that, they saved
their companies a lot of money in the process.
here's some pictures of them using nikon coolpix, canon powershot and
sony cybershot cameras, possibly some other brands too. i think i even
see a casio in there.
<http://www.stantonchampion.com/2008/08/12/nikon-vs-canon-the-olympics/>
<http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9314-9563>
<http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/in_focus/setting_up_the_olympics/capt
ion_004.jpg>
<http://www.livingroom.org.au/photolog/images/thumbnails/32911353.Man100
MFinals5.jpg>
<http://www.bigplastichead.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/olympic_camera
s.jpg>
Dave Martin
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:28:39 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>
>>>If there's a better CDAF system then there must be conspiracy by the
>>>camera manufacturers to prevent its use in order to get people to buy
>>>D-SLRs with fast AF.
>
>> The only conspiracy is to keep them away from you so you can keep making
>> absurd claims based on ignorance.
>
>So how comes that about every test comparing cameras using
>CDAF versus cameras using PDAF notes that those using CDAF
>focus slower and are only partially, if at all, usable for
>e.g. sport photography due to their slowish AF?[1]
>
>Yes, must be that conspiracy. CDAF focusses instantly and
>even without light, right?
Yes, some do. Check out any of the Sony P&S cameras that focus in the
complete dark by using built-in IR LED emitters for the light-source. Or
those that used to use the cross-hatch pattern laser LED projected on all
surfaces. Near instant focusing in the complete dark, whichever method you
decide to turn on in the options. They stopped making cameras with the
laser-assist method though. Too many complaints from law enforcement, the
camera looking like an illuminated laser-sight on a hand-gun at night. I'm
glad I bought one of those before they stopped making them to appease the
paranoid masses.
You keep forgetting one important thing. CDAF will *always* be more
accurate than any PDAF camera. I'd rather have accuracy over speed, any
day. Better to get 1 good shot in focus than 10 times that many which are
always blurred and useless.
SMS
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:28:39 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>
>>> If there's a better CDAF system then there must be conspiracy by the
>>> camera manufacturers to prevent its use in order to get people to buy
>>> D-SLRs with fast AF.
>
>> The only conspiracy is to keep them away from you so you can keep making
>> absurd claims based on ignorance.
>
> So how comes that about every test comparing cameras using
> CDAF versus cameras using PDAF notes that those using CDAF
> focus slower and are only partially, if at all, usable for
> e.g. sport photography due to their slowish AF?[1]
It's not just sports photography, it's parents trying to take photos of
active kids, and indoor photography in less than ideal light. D-SLRs are
selling more to the mass market nowadays than to the professionals and
amateurs that already went that route. The two biggest complaints about
P&S cameras are the AF lag (often incorrectly dubbed shutter lag) and
the poor low light performance. Neither of these were problems on P&S
film cameras.
> Yes, must be that conspiracy. CDAF focusses instantly and
> even without light, right?
LOL, it's not just the speed, it's also the accuracy.
>>> If they got rid of the AF lag in P&S cameras it
>>> would negatively effect sales of D-SLRs and lenses and flashes, etc.
>
>> In fact compact cameras far outsell dSLR cameras.
>
> Nice non sequitur, it proves that you think you are witty.
LOL, "thinks" is the key word.
Actually D-SLR sales are going up at a much faster rate than P&S sales,
and one of the major reasons is the AF lag.
> It's even true, for all it doesn't matter at all.
> Unfortunately it lets you look like you knew nothing at all.
You're just figuring out that he knows nothing at all?!
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Actually D-SLR sales are going up at a much faster rate than P&S sales,
> and one of the major reasons is the AF lag.
actually they've slowed down quite a bit, according to thom hogan.
John Navas
in <020720091346093104%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
Probably because of the worldwide recession and because the small
enthusiast market is now saturated and mature, with sales now more
replacements and upgrades than new users.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:28:43 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Yes, must be that conspiracy. CDAF focusses instantly and
>>even without light, right?
> Yes, some do. Check out any of the Sony P&S cameras that focus in the
> complete dark by using built-in IR LED emitters for the light-source.
I'd not call that "without light", and certainly not instantly.
And, of course, there's a reason better lenses sport an IR
correction mark ... care to tell us why?
> Or those that used to use the cross-hatch pattern laser LED projected
> on all surfaces.
As seen in many good flashes for DSLRs. Though it's not a laser.
Stupid, isn't it, to assume such trappings only work with CDAF?
> You keep forgetting one important thing. CDAF will *always* be more
> accurate than any PDAF camera.
You're right. After all, with a tiny sensor and hence very
short and not too fast lenses, you've got great margins till any
errors show.
> I'd rather have accuracy over speed, any day.
Wuss. I have accuracy and speed. For those times when just
accuracy isn't enough.
> Better to get 1 good shot in focus than 10 times that many which are
> always blurred and useless.
Yes, of course, you only see blurred and useless shots out
of those terrible DSLRs used by pros at, say, the olympics.
You'd wait till the award ceremony, right?
You probably are really unaware what diffraction is and how it
blurs your CDAF camera's AF and images. Go do some calculations
and tell us how many pixels the diffraction spot covers at the
tele end. It's rather educating.
-Wolfgang
Dave Martin
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>Dave Martin <dma...@thatplace.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:28:43 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>
>>>Yes, must be that conspiracy. CDAF focusses instantly and
>>>even without light, right?
>
>> Yes, some do. Check out any of the Sony P&S cameras that focus in the
>> complete dark by using built-in IR LED emitters for the light-source.
>
>I'd not call that "without light", and certainly not instantly.
>And, of course, there's a reason better lenses sport an IR
>correction mark ... care to tell us why?
Why should I tell you? Are you that amazingly stupid? And what does that
have to do with a P&S camera that can focus extremely accurately in the
complete dark? Something that no dSLR will ever accomplish.
>
>> Or those that used to use the cross-hatch pattern laser LED projected
>> on all surfaces.
>
>As seen in many good flashes for DSLRs. Though it's not a laser.
On the older Sony P&S cameras it *IS* a laser.
No sense replying to the rest of your nonsense. Just the above alone proves
I'm dealing with a moron troll who has never used any cameras. You don't
even realize that diffraction-limited optics provide more clarity than any
dSLR glass in existence. Diffraction spreads as a function of distance.
DSLR glass has to have about 6x's the physical focal length over most P&S
lenses, so P&S lenses spread 1/6th the diffraction onto their sensors that
your dSLR glass spreads onto your sensor. Even if your lenses were of
diffraction-limited precision, which they are not. Superior
diffraction-limited optics always gets sharper the wider you open them.
That's the single most easy to perform test to find out if your optics have
been ground and polished to diffraction-limited precision--the best that
optics can ever get. No dSLR glass will ever do that because they're that
poorly figured. They'll only perform fairly well at only one aperture stop,
if that. You've been scammed marketers and ignorant camera owners, and you
don't even realize it.
This is of course assuming that you have ever even held a camera or lens in
your lifetime. Judging by all your comments that scenario is highly
doubtful.
Bob Larter
Nice rant, kook.
John Navas
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
<hc50i6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
>You probably are really unaware what diffraction is and how it
>blurs your CDAF camera's AF and images. Go do some calculations
>and tell us how many pixels the diffraction spot covers at the
>tele end. It's rather educating.
Indeed, because it's not an issue unless the lens is stopped all the way
down.
nospam
<dma...@thatplace.net> wrote:
> >>>Yes, must be that conspiracy. CDAF focusses instantly and
> >>>even without light, right?
> >
> >> Yes, some do. Check out any of the Sony P&S cameras that focus in the
> >> complete dark by using built-in IR LED emitters for the light-source.
> >
> >I'd not call that "without light", and certainly not instantly.
> >And, of course, there's a reason better lenses sport an IR
> >correction mark ... care to tell us why?
>
> Why should I tell you? Are you that amazingly stupid? And what does that
> have to do with a P&S camera that can focus extremely accurately in the
> complete dark? Something that no dSLR will ever accomplish.
actually, quite a few dslrs can do that.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 04:01:21 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
> <hc50i6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
>>You probably are really unaware what diffraction is and how it
>>blurs your CDAF camera's AF and images. Go do some calculations
>>and tell us how many pixels the diffraction spot covers at the
>>tele end. It's rather educating.
> Indeed, because it's not an issue unless the lens is stopped all the way
> down.
Do the calculation. Name the camera, the values you took for
granted, the formulas or whatever computing frontend you used
and the results. Then talk. Stop handwaving, grow up already.
-Wolfgang
Educating the Moron Trolls
Let's see, a small sensor camera has a photosite width of about 2um (for a
common average). An average DSLR sensor has a photosite width of about 5um.
The diffraction spreads out as a linear rate with distance from the imaging
optics/aperture.
Let us assume that a diffraction-limited lens (if one could even be made
for a DSLR) at 6mm focal-length for the P&S camera has a diffraction spread
of 1.8um by the time it reaches the sensor. Now let's use the same
high-quality optics on the DSLR. Impossible to obtain, but for the sake of
argument, equal quality glass needs to be compared here. We're only showing
what happens to diffraction, not the other deleterious effects from poorly
figured DSLR glass which only performs well at one f-stop, if lucky. That
DSLR lens will have to have a 36mm focal-length to get the very same FOV as
on the 6mm focal-length lens on the P&S camera's sensor. A difference of
1:6.
6 * 1.8um diffraction spread = 10.8um diffraction spread. A 10.8um spread
of diffraction at the DSLR's sensor plane with photosites only 5um wide.
This is of course, again, presuming that glass as sharp and finely figured
as exists on the P&S camera could even be made available for the DSLR.
Results:
Diffraction successfully contained within the size of a P&S sensor
photosites by having to use shorter focal-length lenses.
Diffraction spills over into more than 2 adjoining photosites on the larger
DSLR sensor because longer focal-lengths are required for the very same
FOV.
Yes folks, it's really just that simple to show how diffraction is a MUCH
greater problem with all DSLRs than it will ever be with P&S cameras.
All just due to the focal-lengths needed to fill that larger sensor with
the same FOV. Even *IF* you could ever obtain glass of diffraction-limited
precision for that POS DSLR, at what would be astronomically high costs.
Diffraction-limited optics on P&S cameras is not only common, quality of
that high standard is required or they wouldn't be able to sell those
cameras.
Even if it was a full-frame DSLR sized sensor with 8.24um photosite sizes,
the diffraction will still spill over into adjoining photosites,
diffraction that wouldn't even begin to phase the images on a smaller P&S
sensor.
Yeah, you can keep your piece of shit DSLR glass and the piece of shit
camera designs to which they have to be attached. The simple math above
proves that you are nothing but a total idiot.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 04:01:21 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Dave Martin <dma...@thatplace.net> wrote:
>>> Yes, some do. Check out any of the Sony P&S cameras that focus in the
>>> complete dark by using built-in IR LED emitters for the light-source.
>>I'd not call that "without light", and certainly not instantly.
>>And, of course, there's a reason better lenses sport an IR
>>correction mark ... care to tell us why?
> Why should I tell you?
Because you indirectly claim it makes no difference.
> Are you that amazingly stupid?
Nice try, but you're between the devil of admitting that CDAF
isn't as accurate with IR (and why it's accurate enough) and
the deep blue sea of admitting ignorance.
> And what does that have to do with a P&S camera that can focus
> extremely accurately in the complete dark?
You cannot be as ignorant as to ignore that different wavelengths
are differently affected by optical elements. You *do* know what
a prism is and what it does to white light. You *have* heard
'achromatic' and even 'apochromatic' and should have looked up
the terms if you didn't know them.
So why do you play the stupid little boy?
> Something that no dSLR will ever accomplish.
It's just bad luck that some do, right?
>>> Or those that used to use the cross-hatch pattern laser LED projected
>>> on all surfaces.
>>As seen in many good flashes for DSLRs. Though it's not a laser.
> On the older Sony P&S cameras it *IS* a laser.
It isn't on DSLR flashes. The reasons have nothing to do
with focussing, however.
> No sense replying to the rest of your nonsense.
You have nonsense replying to my arguments?
> Just the above alone proves I'm dealing with a moron troll who has
> never used any cameras.
You're right. I've never used any cameras (as a hammer).
> You don't even realize that diffraction-limited optics provide more
> clarity than any dSLR glass in existence.
What does that term "clarity" mean to
you? Stronger colours or more water in the wine?
(SHHH! Yes, *I* know, just close the aperture all the way any
you'll get the same effect opening up every time. Don't spoil
it, man!)
> Diffraction spreads as a function of distance.
> DSLR glass has to have about 6x's the physical focal length over most P&S
> lenses, so P&S lenses spread 1/6th the diffraction onto their sensors that
> your dSLR glass spreads onto your sensor. Even if your lenses were of
> diffraction-limited precision, which they are not. Superior
> diffraction-limited optics always gets sharper the wider you open them.
Of course. (Of course it's utter crap, but shhh! It's a
very fine performance! I want to watch it!)
> That's the single most easy to perform test to find out if your optics have
> been ground and polished to diffraction-limited precision--the best that
> optics can ever get.
Pinholes are even better in that regard, they've been ground
and polished to very strong diffraction limits! And their AF is
infinitely faster than CDAF and works without any light source,
without inbuild IR lamps, without acustic distance metering, ...
> No dSLR glass will ever do that because they're that
> poorly figured.
None of mine do, too bad. (I was too snobby to buy
cheap-but-still-overpriced crappy super tele lenses starting at
f/11, you see?)
> They'll only perform fairly well at only one aperture stop,
> if that.
While your wonder lenses work always, from wide open to fully
closed. (They unfortunately never reach their top performance
as they don't open up more. Not surprising, as they only have
about 1.5 stops between closed and wide open.)
> You've been scammed marketers and ignorant camera owners, and you
> don't even realize it.
Boy, have I been scammed. You're right, I should use my
point'n'shoots much more! Down with the DSLR. (Down with Quality.
Down with keepers. Down with the elitism of good shots. Let us
all use bad cameras so this joker doesn't stand out too badly
when he finally finds the shutter button.)
> This is of course assuming that you have ever even held a camera or lens in
> your lifetime. Judging by all your comments that scenario is highly
> doubtful.
Your judging is indeed indeed very high on crack. But you are
funny, a born entertainer of the "naïve backwoods boy in the
big city" type. Thank you for the comic relief.
-Wolfgang
Dave Martin
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>Nice try, but you're between the devil of admitting that CDAF
>isn't as accurate with IR (and why it's accurate enough) and
>the deep blue sea of admitting ignorance.
Wow! You are the most amazingly major moron of a troll I've ever had the
displeasure to read from online.
Visible light is filtered out for IR photography with filters on the front
of the lens. CDAF depends on the contrasts in the wavelengths of light
hitting the sensor, nothing else. The electronics that shift the lens
elements to focus the IR image know no different than if visible
wavelengths of light are being used. It is just as highly accurate with IR
wavelengths as visible wavelengths. A camera that is designed for IR
photography as an option, flips out the built-in IR-blocking filter and
reinserts a clear IR-transparent optical-flat of the required thickness to
make up the difference in refraction between the two wavelength extremes
with the now missing IR-block filter, mostly just to ensure that the
infinity focus-stop and EXIF focal-length data remains effective. If you
didn't care about that then you wouldn't even need the small replacement
optical flat, and the camera could still accurately focus by using the IR
wavelengths alone (except at infinity).
Amazing. You're so amazingly fucking stupid that you don't even know how
cameras work. No wonder that you had to ask what that little IR mark was
used for on the lenses that you no doubt found at a garage sale.
Just so you aren't still left wondering in your vast ocean of ignorance...
The "IR" mark on film camera lenses and DSLR camera lenses is necessary
because the photographer couldn't and can't see the IR image in their
"superior" optical viewfinder, you fuckingly stupid ass of a moron. They
have to manually correct for what their eyes and camera now fail to do.
Compensating for the wavelength refraction difference by using that little
reference mark. Not so if the imaging sensor itself was doing the focusing
by the easily detected IR image falling on it, as in ALL CDAF cameras
The sensor has zero problems focusing that IR image, as well as relaying it
in real-time in the EVF to an image for your eye just as bright as
daylight.
Wow... I'm not going to bother to get fooled into being trolled by you ever
again. If you are this amazingly stupid and don't even have a clue about
how all cameras, focusing methods, and imaging methods work, digital AND
film.
Again, WOW. And you try to get away with handing out camera and photography
advice? Your advice online for anyone would be like going to a dumpster and
picking out a bit of rotted tomato (you) and then you having the audacity
to try to pass yourself off a four-star lobster dinner.
Climb back under your rock. Your ignorance and stupidity has been
thoroughly revealed to all.
John Navas
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
<fq92i6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
Thanks, but been there, done that, and know at what apertures my lenses
are diffraction limited. Diffraction Limit Calculator:
<http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm>
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
John Turco
>
> In article <c6309829-0621-480c-b5de-a7af011a4193
> @r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>
> > Starlight photos? What does that mean, illumination of a scene only
> > by starlight? If so, you are looking at an exposure of a hour at
> > least.
>
> If you take an image of the star sky, 15 or 30 seconds is enough at F8
> and ISO 100. That will give you the stars with the sky solid black.
Hello, Alfred:
Your computer's clock appears to be many hours ahead of the real time.
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
--
Paintings pain and pun
<http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:29:19 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 04:01:21 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>You probably are really unaware what diffraction is and how it
>>>>blurs your CDAF camera's AF and images. Go do some calculations
>>>>and tell us how many pixels the diffraction spot covers at the
>>>>tele end. It's rather educating.
>>> Indeed, because it's not an issue unless the lens is stopped all the way
>>> down.
>>Do the calculation. Name the camera, the values you took for
>>granted, the formulas or whatever computing frontend you used
>>and the results. Then talk. Stop handwaving, grow up already.
> Thanks, but been there, done that, and know at what apertures my lenses
> are diffraction limited. Diffraction Limit Calculator:
> <http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm>
You didn't even name your CDAF camera. Typical Navas.
You didn't tell us "how many pixels the diffraction spot
covers at the tele end." Typical Navas.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Let's see, a small sensor camera has a photosite width of about 2um (for a
> common average). An average DSLR sensor has a photosite width of about 5um.
OK ...
> The diffraction spreads out as a linear rate with distance from the imaging
> optics/aperture.
Wrong premise. Makes your whole rant moronic.
Let us educate you:
Diffraction is only dependent on the f/stop.
Or for the stupid in you: It depends on the size of the aperture
--- and that is a certain distance, namely the length of the lens,
away from the sensor, and the size of the aperture depends on
the focal length.
> Let us assume that a diffraction-limited lens (if one could even be made
> for a DSLR) at 6mm focal-length for the P&S camera has a diffraction spread
> of 1.8um by the time it reaches the sensor.
Well ... that would be about f/1,4.
Typical P&S start at f/2.8, with an Airy Disk of 3,6µm diameter.
d = 2.44 * wavelength * fstop
And that's optimistic, since we are not having just one wave
length and even apochromatic lenses (if used at all in P&S
cameras) don't treat all wavelengths identically, just
mostly.
> 6 * 1.8um diffraction spread = 10.8um diffraction spread.
The same aperture (f/stop) is 6 times (diameter) as large,
getting only 1/6th the diffraction, hence 6 * 1.8µm / 6 == 1.8µm.
> A 10.8um spread
> of diffraction at the DSLR's sensor plane with photosites only 5um wide.
Let us see ... nope, you are wrong, it's still 1.8µm. You'd need
f/8.3 for 10.8µm.
> Diffraction successfully contained within the size of a P&S sensor
> photosites by having to use shorter focal-length lenses.
Last time I looked, P&S started at f/2.8 at the wide end, which
gives 3.6µm, which is way larger than the 2µm pixel size.
Which is not too bad, since you don't need an AA filter that
way: the lens blurs the image enough for that --- but the
diffraction wasn't contained.
Too bad the tele end starts with f/5.6, which gives 7,3µm
diffraction spots, which cover 4 to 5 pixels in each
dimension and an *area* of 14 pixels.
So much for P&S.
> Yes folks, it's really just that simple to show how diffraction is a MUCH
> greater problem with all DSLRs than it will ever be with P&S cameras.
Yes, it really is simple if your premises are wrong and you
don't even understand the problem.
> The simple math above proves that you are nothing but a total idiot.
I'd not call you an idiot for being wrong, but since you insist ...
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 00:11:24 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Warning: Relevant context was snipped here by Dave Martin.
>>Nice try, but you're between the devil of admitting that CDAF
>>isn't as accurate with IR (and why it's accurate enough) and
>>the deep blue sea of admitting ignorance.
> Wow! You are the most amazingly major moron of a troll I've ever had the
> displeasure to read from online.
Wow, someone dares to disagree with you, and you haven't found
out yet how to ignore people. Poor you, and you are fresh out
of interesting insults, too.
> Visible light is filtered out for IR photography with filters on the front
> of the lens.
[snip snap snup]
How's all that relevant to using a mixture of IR and visible
light to focus when you're going to use flash for the exposure?
Not at all? Thought so.
> Climb back under your rock. Your ignorance and stupidity has been
> thoroughly revealed to all.
Yes, your ignorance in cameras and stupidity in insults is
really shocking, though expected.
-Wolfgang
Alfred Molon
> Your computer's clock appears to be many hours ahead of the real time.
Should be correct now. Why is this a problem?
John Navas
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
<rj89i6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Thanks, but been there, done that, and know at what apertures my lenses
>> are diffraction limited. Diffraction Limit Calculator:
>> <http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm>
>
>You didn't even name your CDAF camera. ...
Been there, done that too.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:51:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> Thanks, but been there, done that, and know at what apertures my lenses
>>> are diffraction limited. Diffraction Limit Calculator:
>>> <http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm>
>>You didn't even name your CDAF camera. ...
Dear John, no you didn't.
Of course, if you'll have a message ID ...
-Wolfgang
John Turco
>
> In article <4A519FCF...@concentric.net>, John Turco says...
>
> > Your computer's clock appears to be many hours ahead of the real time.
>
> Should be correct now. Why is this a problem?
Hello, Alfred:
Oh, I'd first noticed that "problem," over a week ago. You must have
fixed it, since then.
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>