Re: Sigma's New Lens Is Now Available!!
Dimitris M
dangerous weapon, so I will become a target.
--
Dimitris M
? "Rita Berkowitz" <ritabe...@aol.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:JLedndsai-Vrd5XU...@supernews.com...
>
> For only $24K. Is this thing really any good? I'm not sure I would trust
> a
> Sigma. I'd be a little scared to pay $5K for this lens, let alone $24K.
> Did Sigma ever sell one?
>
> <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ360102415081>
Bob Williams
> For only $24K. Is this thing really any good? I'm not sure I would
> trust a
> Sigma. I'd be a little scared to pay $5K for this lens, let alone $24K.
> Did Sigma ever sell one?
>
> <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ360102415081>
>
>
>
>
>
Yeah!....But the shipping is FREE!
Bob Williams
Frank ess
"Bob Williams" <mytbob...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:WD6Ok.601$xa2...@newsfe06.iad...
Looks as if it should be the buyer and camera who get shipped and
installed at the end of this thing!
Richard J Kinch
> For only $24K. Is this thing really any good?
It's a small telescope that autofocuses.
$1K for the telescope, $23K for the autofocusing.
Paul
news:JLedndsai-Vrd5XU...@supernews.com...
> For only $24K. Is this thing really any good? I'm not sure I would trust
> a
> Sigma. I'd be a little scared to pay $5K for this lens, let alone $24K.
> Did Sigma ever sell one?
>
> <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ360102415081>
There are a few other wacky lenses out there too:
Nikon 1200-1700mm f/5.6~8.0s P ED IF:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm
Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM:
http://www.electrobeans.de/bilder/20080207_canon_1200mm.jpg
Canon 5200mm f/14:
http://cgi.ebay.es/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180294096815
RichA
"Rita Berkowitz" <ritabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:JLedndsai-Vrd5XU...@supernews.com...
> For only $24K. Is this thing really any good? I'm not sure I would trust
> a
> Sigma. I'd be a little scared to pay $5K for this lens, let alone $24K.
> Did Sigma ever sell one?
>
> <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ360102415081>
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>
arlan_adams
Now that's funny. By using an excellent high-resolution P&S camera's own
super-zoom, with an excellent 2.7x 80mm dia. telextender, I obtain a 35mm e.q.
focal length of 549mm f/2.4 on one camera and 1248mm f/3.5 on another camera.
Total cost for either camera and lens under $600. And it all fits in one roomy
pocket.
You DSLR blind-following fans are so entertaining at times!
LOL
Paul
news:6kdig4peap046ka07...@4ax.com...
> Now that's funny. By using an excellent high-resolution P&S camera's own
> super-zoom, with an excellent 2.7x 80mm dia. telextender, I obtain a 35mm
> e.q.
> focal length of 549mm f/2.4 on one camera and 1248mm f/3.5 on another
> camera.
> Total cost for either camera and lens under $600. And it all fits in one
> roomy
> pocket.
>
> You DSLR blind-following fans are so entertaining at times!
Have you told Sigma? Man are they gonna feel silly when you let them know.
Alfred Molon
Just wondering - who needs such a lens?
--
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
Paul
news:MPG.237379fb...@news.supernews.com...
>> Canon 5200mm f/14:
>> http://cgi.ebay.es/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180294096815
> Just wondering - who needs such a lens?
I have no idea. Would be good for moon shots though, cheaper than a trip
with Virgin Galactic.
I like the buyers questions. Someone asked him if he's able to supply it
with a 2X converter.
charlie_grypon
>In article <nrCdnRusTL2tl5TU...@pipex.net>, Paul says...
>
>> Canon 5200mm f/14:
>> http://cgi.ebay.es/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180294096815
>
>Just wondering - who needs such a lens?
Just a hunch ...
Someone that's too stupid to realize that it would be less expensive, more
compact, lighter weight (w/o tripod), and has fewer chromatic and image-quality
problems when they piggy-back their camera on a coma-free LX200-ACF, Cassegrain
Catadioptric,16" dia., f/10 (1 full-stop more aperture), 6096mm f.l. when used
with a high-quality achromat 1.5x Barlow lens, all for only $9,999. That's less
than 1/5th the price, brand new, not used. Way less expensive if you buy the OTA
alone, sans massive tripod.
"A fool and his money are always soon parted." Never have I run across bigger
fools that continually prove this old adage than those who claim to be
"professional photographers" (or the usual resident trolls in newsgroups).
@no.mail D-Mac
"Paul" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:lLedndcf7IrU-ZTU...@pipex.net...
The real issue is does it have Image Stabalisation! It wouldn't do any of us
much good anyway. Canon DSLRs won't auto focus with smaller than F8. So
let's get it quite clear here.
A manual focus lens that can't be used hand held and they want how much for
it???
Jack Torrence
Chris Malcolm
You're actually physically capable of hand holding a 5200mm lens
steady enough to even keep it pointed at the target let alone only
wobbling enough for image stabilisation to work? I'm very impressed!
--
Chris Malcolm
Noons
> For only $24K. Is this thing really any good? I'm not sure I would
> trust a
> Sigma. I'd be a little scared to pay $5K for this lens, let alone $24K.
> Did Sigma ever sell one?
>
> <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ360102415081>
>
All that moolah and not single UV filter
included? I'll pass...
Noons
Just noticed they include one.
One only! Skinflints!
(d&r)
Toby
"arlan_adams" <aa_a...@nospamforme.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:6kdig4peap046ka07...@4ax.com...
The quality of such a setup is not even fainly comparable to a DSLR with a
decent lens.
Toby
Toby
"Richard J Kinch" <ki...@truetex.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns9B46C13B1B1...@216.196.97.131...
No, its a rather large telescope with an front objective of 7.5" diameter,
highly corrected for spherical and chromatic aberration. You won't find that
size and quality for $1000 in any telescope.
Toby
arlan_adams
Au contraire, mon idiot. I've already proven that it is. That's why I use it. I
wouldn't even consider it an option if I couldn't make at least 300dpi 11x14
prints from any subject taken with this camera-lens configuration. 13x18 quite
acceptable. Even 16x24 prints, if the subject-matter can tolerate it, and many
can. Important, intriguing, and well-composed subject-matter can easily override
image-quality, every time. Anything lesser than these in print-size is just as
exceptional as any other camera on the planet when taken with this equipment.
I bet you aren't even experienced enough to know that print-size is more
subject-dependent than an image's original pixel-resolution, did you. Most
don't. All they have is rudimentary math to define their photographic/artistic
knowledge and their incessant net-parroted nonsense that all the resident usenet
virtual-photography trolls perpetuate. That's how inexperienced they are. They
live in a virtual-reality pixel-limited world of their own constrained
delusions, learning from those as equally ignorant as they.
whisky-dave
>
> Canon 5200mm f/14:
> http://cgi.ebay.es/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180294096815
I'd be tempted but it hasn't got a macro setting ;-)
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> For only $24K. Is this thing really any good?
\begin{imposter-mode}[Rita]
No, it's crap. It's not a Nikon lens. Only Nikon knows how
to make lenses. Canon lenses suck.
\end{imposter-mode}
Hope that helps.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
arlan_adams <aa_a...@nospamforme.org> wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2008 07:09:01 -0500, "Toby" <kym...@oyahooo.com> wrote:
>>"arlan_adams" <aa_a...@nospamforme.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>> Now that's funny. By using an excellent high-resolution
I see your 12Mpix and raise you noise.
>>> P&S camera's own super-zoom, with an excellent 2.7x 80mm dia.
>>> telextender, I obtain a 35mm e.q. focal length of 549mm f/2.4 on one
>>> camera and 1248mm f/3.5 on another camera. Total cost for either
>>> camera and lens under $600. And it all fits in one roomy pocket.
Yes, you can. You can also tie the camera to a dog and tave
it trigger every 30 seconds.
>>> You DSLR blind-following fans are so entertaining at times!
>>The quality of such a setup is not even fainly comparable to a DSLR with a
>>decent lens.
> Au contraire, mon idiot.
I see you are fresh out of arguments.
> I've already proven that it is.
Well, what gear did you use?
Thought so.
> That's why I use it. I
> wouldn't even consider it an option if I couldn't make at least 300dpi 11x14
> prints from any subject taken with this camera-lens configuration.
I can order "300dpi" 10x15 meter prints. You mix up dots and
pixels and information contained therein.
> Important, intriguing, and well-composed subject-matter can easily override
> image-quality, every time.
I've got a completely black shot. The "subject-matter" overrides that
image quality problem.
> Anything lesser than these in print-size is just as
> exceptional as any other camera on the planet when taken with this equipment.
I regularly shoot at ISO equivalents of 4.000 and 8.000 and even
16.000. Large prints are not a problem, even looking closely.
I see your P&S doing that.
> I bet you aren't even experienced enough to know that print-size is more
> subject-dependent than an image's original pixel-resolution, did you. Most
> don't. All they have is rudimentary math to define their photographic/artistic
> knowledge and their incessant net-parroted nonsense that all the resident usenet
> virtual-photography trolls perpetuate. That's how inexperienced they are. They
> live in a virtual-reality pixel-limited world of their own constrained
> delusions, learning from those as equally ignorant as they.
I see you had another bad grade in your math test today.
-Wolfgang
Paul
news:EOdOk.9611$sc2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Maybe it will fit on a Wimberley head with a bit of modification. ;-)
Alan Browne
They changed that policy to $1000 of gasoline coupons to haul it around...
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
> There are a few other wacky lenses out there too:
>
> Nikon 1200-1700mm f/5.6~8.0s P ED IF:
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm
>
>
> Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM:
> http://www.electrobeans.de/bilder/20080207_canon_1200mm.jpg
>
> Canon 5200mm f/14:
> http://cgi.ebay.es/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180294096815
I see your whacked lenses and raise you:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100101zeiss1700f4.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina2006/Misc/IMG_0919.jpg
1.5M Euros. Tripod and camera not included. Buy two and get a box of
120 roll film for free!
Richard J Kinch
> No, its a rather large telescope with an front objective of 7.5"
> diameter, highly corrected for spherical and chromatic aberration. You
> won't find that size and quality for $1000 in any telescope.
You're right. An better-corrected 8" Dob would set you back $299.95.
Gerald Clough
> In article <nrCdnRusTL2tl5TU...@pipex.net>, Paul says...
>
>> Canon 5200mm f/14:
>> http://cgi.ebay.es/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180294096815
>
> Just wondering - who needs such a lens?
In all the posts on various sites talking about this thing, I see no one
clams to know. Some say it was made in the early 1960's. Pretty much
only governments can justify paying for such a very small production run
of something like this. If the 60's thing is true, it might well have
found use in the Chinese nuclear weapons program. Their first successful
test was in 1964, about five years after the USSR bailed on them.
If you wanted quality images from a reasonably safe (by the standards of
the day - those my age remember the "duck and cover" drills at school)
distance, this would do it. At that distance, you'd even have time to
get off a lot of shots before the tremors got to it. That focal length
is right up there between the medium and long-range NASA tracking
cameras. In the early 60's, you wouldn't easily get high resolution
remote television transmitted from near the test site, and your camera
wouldn't have survived long enough to do any good. So very long-range
photography makes sense. I suspect you can learn some valuable things
when testing nuclear weapons if you can see the local effects with good
resolution. And, although you could do it with adapted telescopes, I
have no reason to think the Chinese weren't as prone to extravagance as
any other nation's military. No telling what they paid originally.
And when you weren't shooting bomb tests, you could keep an eye on those
pesky Russians slinking around the border up by Sinkiang.
--
"Nothing has any value unless you know you can do without it."
RichA
resolution. In fact, at least at lower resolution the tiny, tiny image
sensors had a modest chance of rendering a good looking image. They all
look alike, horrible, horrible watery-looking NR, even at low ISO, terrible
lens aberrations, even stopped down, which you can't do very much otherwise
diffraction kills the image even more, no DR worth talking about. Raise ISO
to 400 or more, you are at the visual gates of Hell. The only non-mirror
camera that seems to have a hope of producing a decent image is the
Panasonic G1 which uses a 4/3rds sensor. Prior to it, Sony's R9, a hulking
brute, was pretty good, but it had a 1.5 crop sensor.
RichA
nice lens from all accounts.
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:dkcpt5-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
Toby
With a triplet achromat? Are you talking about a reflector or a refractor?
Toby
Toby
Have you ever tried shooting in the field with a good DSLR with a 600mm f4
lens attached? Until you do you can't begin to know what you are talking
about in terms of image quality.
Toby
"arlan_adams" <aa_a...@nospamforme.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:g89jg4loqk7e1igat...@4ax.com...
RichA
"Toby" <kym...@oyahooo.com> wrote in message
news:490a6fbf$0$209$bb4e...@newscene.com...
arlan_adams
This is why I don't reply to any of your other questions asked of me. When you
show this much ignorance I realize you're nothing but just another resident
troll with zero photographic/optics experience, as are those just like you that
make similar comments to what I have stated.
Dob. Dobsonian.
I'm surprised that you know what the word "camera" means. (To be truthful, you
really don't know what "camera" means. You've made that obvious too in your
other replies.)
Paul Furman
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>>> Canon 5200mm f/14:
>>> http://cgi.ebay.es/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180294096815
>
>> Just wondering - who needs such a lens?
>
> I have no idea. Would be good for moon shots though, cheaper than a
> trip with Virgin Galactic.
Minimum Object Distance: 120 meters
> I like the buyers questions. Someone asked him if he's able to supply
> it with a 2X converter.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
arlan_adams
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>I see you had another bad grade in your math test today.
>
>-Wolfgang
Not quite. I was learning and employing calculus in my studies and proofs by the
8th year of grammar-school, many decades ago.
The rest of your wholly ignorant and inexperienced comments not worth the time
it would take to disprove them. Just as I've done before in the past, many
times, for people who also advertise the same depths of ignorance and
inexperience as you display. If you're lucky maybe you can get one of them to
now explain how it all works. If they retained those lessons, that is. If not,
then your loss and your loss alone.
Eric Stevens
<aa_a...@nospamforme.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:54:48 -0700, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob Williams" <mytbob...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:WD6Ok.601$xa2...@newsfe06.iad...
>>> Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>>>> For only $24K. Is this thing really any good? I'm not sure I
>>>> would trust a
>>>> Sigma. I'd be a little scared to pay $5K for this lens, let alone
>>>> $24K.
>>>> Did Sigma ever sell one?
>>>>
>>>> <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ360102415081>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rita
>>>>
>>> Yeah!....But the shipping is FREE!
>>> Bob Williams
>>
>>Looks as if it should be the buyer and camera who get shipped and
>>installed at the end of this thing!
>
>Now that's funny. By using an excellent high-resolution P&S camera's own
>super-zoom, with an excellent 2.7x 80mm dia. telextender, I obtain a 35mm e.q.
>focal length of 549mm f/2.4 on one camera and 1248mm f/3.5 on another camera.
>Total cost for either camera and lens under $600. And it all fits in one roomy
>pocket.
>
>You DSLR blind-following fans are so entertaining at times!
>
>LOL
Ding Ding!
Ding Ding!!
Bats to you.
Eric Stevens
arlan_adams
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:26:37 -0500, arlan_adams
><aa_a...@nospamforme.org> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:54:48 -0700, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob Williams" <mytbob...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:WD6Ok.601$xa2...@newsfe06.iad...
>>>> Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>>>>> For only $24K. Is this thing really any good? I'm not sure I
>>>>> would trust a
>>>>> Sigma. I'd be a little scared to pay $5K for this lens, let alone
>>>>> $24K.
>>>>> Did Sigma ever sell one?
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ360102415081>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rita
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah!....But the shipping is FREE!
>>>> Bob Williams
>>>
>>>Looks as if it should be the buyer and camera who get shipped and
>>>installed at the end of this thing!
>>
>>Now that's funny. By using an excellent high-resolution P&S camera's own
>>super-zoom, with an excellent 2.89x 80mm dia. telextender, I obtain a 35mm e.q.
>>focal length of 549mm f/2.4 on one camera and 1248mm f/3.5 on another camera.
>>Total cost for either camera and lens under $600. And it all fits in one roomy
>>pocket.
>>
>>You DSLR blind-following fans are so entertaining at times!
>>
>>LOL
>
>Ding Ding!
>
> Ding Ding!!
>
> Bats to you.
>
>
>
>Eric Stevens
The only "bats" around here are the ones flying in that empty space of yours
where most people keep a mind.
Apparently you were unable to comprehend the math involved when this was all
proven to you before. So, here it is again. Maybe if you study it enough times
you'll finally figure it out. But moreso, I repost this so everyone else can now
see how amazingly stupid you are, again.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:12:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:39:04 -0500, Si Taylor
><keepyo...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:26:05 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>OMFG! I cannot even fathom someone being this unbelievably stupid.
>>
>>>
>>>Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. A 432mm lense
>>>with an aperture of f3.5 has a diameter of 123mm (quite a lump of
>>>glass for a P&S). A lens assembly with an effective focal length of
>>>2.89 x 432 = 1248mm and a diameter of 123mm has an f number of
>>>1248/123 = 10.15.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:53:02 -0500, Si Taylor <keepyo...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>>
>>>The true focal-length in this instance (not 35mm equivalent) is 208.08mm for
>>>that sensor, 72mm x 2.89. You only need a primary lens diameter of 59.45mm to
>>>equal the light-grasp of an effective f/3.5 aperture at that focal-length with
>>>that sensor. 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.45mm. The extremely high-quality telextender
>>>setup that I use has a full effective aperture of 80mm. This is enough to allow
>>>for an f-stop as large as f/2.6 on the same sensor at that focal length,
>>>208.08mm / 80mm = f/2.6.
>
>You jumble numbers. You talk sh*t. Why should I take you seriously?
>
>
>
>Eric Stevens
If you think those grade-school calculations are "jumbled", no wonder that other
idiots and DSLR camera manufacturers can so easily pull the wool over your
ignorant-consumer's eyes.
Follow close:
The camera has a 432mm f/3.5 lens, as advertised. That's the 35MM CAMERA
EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH. That number is only to give you an idea what "reach" it
has, what FOV it's going to provide when shooting, because everyone grew up on
full-frame 35mm cameras. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL FOCAL-LENGTH OF
THE P&S's CAMERA LENS. The ONLY reason it acts as the same FOV and zoom-reach as
that 432mm f.l. 35mm-camera's full-frame lens is that the sensor is much smaller
than a 35mm full-frame size. This is no different than why you use the 1.6x crop
factor when figuring out the 35mm eq. focal length of DSLR lenses on the most
common DSLR bodies. This camera has a 6x crop factor. (What an amazingly stupid
name to give it, "crop factor", but then look at the vast majority of idiots
that are ignorantly perpetuating info about cameras online and why that stupid
term has become popular.)
The TRUE focal length of this lens is 72mm when zoomed to that setting. Its
actual, true, in reality, front lens element is only 32mm in diameter (just
measured it for this post). This allows it to have an f/ratio going from f/2.7
to f/3.5 throughout its whole zoom range. (72mm/3.5 = 20.5mm dia. 20.5mm dia. is
all that's really necessary for an aperture of f/3.5 if this was a fixed 72mm
focal-length lens, and if there were no internal stops to ensure full resolution
and sharpness at the full aperture.)
If this lens really was a 432mm focal-length lens then its OEM lens would have
to be at LEAST 123.5mm in dia. (432mm/3.5=123.5mm) That is not going to happen.
The whole camera is only 75mm tall, including the bump in the body for the
built-in flash.
Now we add a high-quality 2.89x, 80mm dia. telextender optical assembly on the
front. This OPTICALLY multiplies its _REAL_ focal length by that amount. (In
practice this is NO different than if you hooked up that camera and lens to the
Keck telescope and obtained images at high-resolution with an enormous
light-grasp. Or practiced the art of "digiscoping" where you might add your
camera to a 6" dia. f/4.5 Newtonian telescope where it might afford a 60x
telextender quotient (eyepiece dependent). But then your aperture would be
limited to the weakest link. In that case it would lower your camera's
performance to an f/4.5 aperture, the same as the telescope's.)
For all intents and purposes, with that 80mm dia. 2.89x telextender, it is now
giving us the 35MM EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH reach of a 35MM CAMERA'S 1248mm lens.
2.89 x 432mm (35mm eq.)
This is not the TRUE focal length of this lens. In reality it is now behaving as
a 2.89 x 72mm focal length = 208.08mm. Its TRUE focal-length. One only needs a
59.45mm diameter lens to give that TRUE focal-length an f/ratio of f/3.5.
(208.08mmx3.5=59.45mm)
I'm using a telextender with a full 80mm diameter. Far more diameter than is
needed to afford an f/ratio of f/3.5. Zero light-loss (except for minor
air-to-glass transitions), zero f/ratio lost. Would that the original camera
manufacturer had originally built-in more aperture into their own lens affixed
to the camera, then that telextender lens could provide enough light gathering
ability for an f/2.6 aperture at a 35MM EQUIVALENT FOCAL-LENGTH 1248mm zoom lens
(2.89x432mm).
You have to figure the f/ratio from its TRUE focal-length and TRUE lens
diameters, not its imaginary 35mm equivalent focal length. You must use the
actual physical dimensions, not its advertised human-perception 35mm eq. value
which only give you a familiar idea its performance.
Got it? Did you follow any of that at all? Probably not. I explained it by
approaching it from every way that you might possibly misinterpret things again,
in the hopes that it might get through that pea-brain of yours and others'
similarly sized brains, but I still I feel it was just more wasted typing.
If, however, that intermittently shorted lightbulb in that empty little cavity
you have in that excuse you call a head finally did illuminate by a few
nanowatts, from at least one of the various ways I've proved it, then now do you
see why I'm laughing so hard at these moronic resident-trolls that don't know a
thing about optics and photography? The same relentless and idiotic band of
R.P.D. virtual-reality-living trolls that have been mindlessly parroting the
same stupid nonsense for years now, post after post, their whole pathetic lives.
Even worse are those that are so stupid as to ignorantly believe them without
bothering to figure it out on their own. Worse than that are those that haven't
bothered to correct the resident-trolls' blatant stupidity and reveal their
ignorance to the world, their stupidity borne of their entrenched
virtual-life-psychosis, to finally make them come to terms with the real world
and FACTS.
Hey, everyone is saying it in this newsgroup, it MUST be true. Right?
Fucking retards, all around.
Note to self: Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity -- ESPECIALLY
online.
Chris Malcolm
> I've yet to see a decent large print from any P&S, no matter what the
> resolution.
You really ought to switch off the computer and get out more. Why not
join a local photographic society and meet some real people with real
cameras?
--
Chris Malcolm
Roy G
"arlan_adams" <aa_a...@nospamforme.org> wrote in message
news:6kdig4peap046ka07...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:54:48 -0700, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob Williams" <mytbob...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:WD6Ok.601$xa2...@newsfe06.iad...
>>> Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>>>> For only $24K. Is this thing really any good? I'm not sure I
>>>> would trust a
>>>> Sigma. I'd be a little scared to pay $5K for this lens, let alone
>>>> $24K.
>>>> Did Sigma ever sell one?
>>>>
>>>> <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ360102415081>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rita
>>>>
>>> Yeah!....But the shipping is FREE!
>>> Bob Williams
>>
>>Looks as if it should be the buyer and camera who get shipped and
>>installed at the end of this thing!
>
> Now that's funny. By using an excellent high-resolution P&S camera's own
> focal length of 549mm f/2.4 on one camera and 1248mm f/3.5 on another
> camera.
> Total cost for either camera and lens under $600. And it all fits in one
> roomy
> pocket.
>
> You DSLR blind-following fans are so entertaining at times!
>
> LOL
>
You are a wind bag. Talk, such as yours is cheap, very cheap.
How about naming these wonderful P & S Cameras of yours, and identifying
which tele-extender gives such amazing results.
Or you could, of course, post some of the images which are not quite up to
your very best standard.
These (according to you) will still be superior to anything we might
produce.
That way you get to keep all your commercially valuable stuff to yourself.
As I have said before " Put up or shut up"
Roy G
arlan_adams
Don't be such an obvious and pathetic net-troll moron. Any professional
photographers would completely understand why I don't post my photos publicly
for free. Your insistence that I do only reveals you for the useless, ignorant,
and inexperienced troll that you are.
Here's some more FACTS that you might like to pretend don't exist:
In case you missed them, here's just a few of the vast benefits of P&S cameras
and the huge related drawbacks of ALL DSLRs (some sections further edited for
clarity):
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.) (100% proved in another thread.)
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), and higher quality
full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views
than any DSLR and its glass in existence. (100% proved in another thread.)
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 silent. They will not endanger your life when photographing
potentially dangerous wildlife by alerting them to your presence. Or for the
more common snap-shooter/photographer, you will not be barred from using your
camera at public events and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots,
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious
noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images.
5. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. 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 #7.)
6. 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
7. 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.
8. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast, 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 )
9. 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 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.
10. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.)
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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 background included 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.
19. ..... this is getting tedious, restating again just some of the
resident-troll's misinformation that I've already disproved, dozens of times
over. I just thought it might be fun to list a few of them all in one place to
make their glaringly obvious stupidity (and the ignorance and inexperience of
all the other virtual-photographer DSLR-trolls) even more glaringly obvious to
the world.
arlan_adams
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>You are sooo clever, you posted the same thing 4 times.
>
>-Wolfgang
Yes, one of the few errors that I might miss on rare occasions. This error of
mine caused by the inconsideration of online trolls that truncate the list of
newsgroups that the conversation is being posted to. One of my faults is giving
others the benefit of the doubt, of doing the right things in life, and assuming
that they might be intelligent and respectful enough. Wrongly assuming that they
might be worthwhile humans. It's so difficult to predict the level of
functioning of others sometimes, especially when you have higher hopes for them.
I often forget some sage advice:
"Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity, especially on the internet."
When my replies didn't appear on the originating newsgroup, having at first
thought that my Usenet server was slow or down, I re-sent the message a couple
times, then tried another server. Then I thought to myself, "Could I possibly be
exchanging words with this huge of a moron? I'd better check." Sure enough, the
moron truncated the groups that the conversation was being posted to. The
duplicates only showing up in your favorite newsgroup that you troll.
I've since undone your stupidity and replied back from the newsgroup where I
first responded to your ignorance. So as to now make all others on all the
original newsgroups just as easily aware of your major handicaps in life.
Things are back to normal. Where I can again prove your inconsideration for
others, your stupidity, and trollish behavior on all the original newsgroups.
I bet that you somehow thought this would work in your favor for some bizarre
reason.
Silly stupid virtual-photographer troll.
Jürgen Exner
[...]
>Silly stupid virtual-photographer troll.
I like your signature
jue
arlan_adams
I presume that is due to your ignorance to not include the obviously implied:
"You are a" silly stupid virtual photographer troll.
Again, my error in having again presumed a higher level of mental acuity and a
higher level of functioning of the average usenet reader.
I shall again repeat that mantra to myself, to remind myself that I am indeed
dealing with a vast sea of utter morons:
Robert Coe
wrote:
: On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:41:05 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Where did this fathead come from, anyway? Maybe he toppled in from some
crossposted newsgroup. Tell you what, Adams: Leave now and we'll pretend you
were never here when your creditors come poking around.
Bob
Robert Coe
And what would he say to them? My advice to Rich is to stay put and keep on
truckin'. His position as our resident clown is fairly secure; he doesn't need
to risk making a fool of himself in the real world too.
Bob
Robert Coe
wrote:
I'm starting to recognize this guy's style and phraseology. I believe he used
to post a lot of hogwash in these newsgroups under a different alias a year or
two ago. He disappeared for a while and now seems to have resurfaced. Maybe
they recently let him out of the nuthatch.
Bob
Eric Stevens
<aa_a...@nospamforme.org> wrote:
Yet when you first came on the scene with your claims I had to point
out to you that simple calculation of lens diameter gave a ridiculous
answer from the f value and focal length you claimed for your lens.
Either you didn't understand it or you didn't care that your claims
could not be justified. It was only later that you told us enough to
confirm that you were using equivalent focal length plus telextender
without paying any attention to the effect this had on lens aperture.
Now you have the hide to try and lecture us on the subject!
You are an ignorant Troll who hides under many names.
Funnily enough, so too must you.
>
>Got it? Did you follow any of that at all? Probably not. I explained it by
>approaching it from every way that you might possibly misinterpret things again,
>in the hopes that it might get through that pea-brain of yours and others'
>similarly sized brains, but I still I feel it was just more wasted typing.
>
>If, however, that intermittently shorted lightbulb in that empty little cavity
>you have in that excuse you call a head finally did illuminate by a few
>nanowatts, from at least one of the various ways I've proved it, then now do you
>see why I'm laughing so hard at these moronic resident-trolls that don't know a
>thing about optics and photography? The same relentless and idiotic band of
>R.P.D. virtual-reality-living trolls that have been mindlessly parroting the
>same stupid nonsense for years now, post after post, their whole pathetic lives.
>Even worse are those that are so stupid as to ignorantly believe them without
>bothering to figure it out on their own. Worse than that are those that haven't
>bothered to correct the resident-trolls' blatant stupidity and reveal their
>ignorance to the world, their stupidity borne of their entrenched
>virtual-life-psychosis, to finally make them come to terms with the real world
>and FACTS.
>
>Hey, everyone is saying it in this newsgroup, it MUST be true. Right?
>
>Fucking retards, all around.
>
>Note to self: Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity -- ESPECIALLY
>online.
>
Eric Stevens
Robert Coe
: Rita Berkowitz writes:
:
: > For only $24K. Is this thing really any good?
:
: It's a small telescope that autofocuses.
:
: $1K for the telescope, $23K for the autofocusing.
I'm surprised that the current draw from the autofocus motor doesn't exceed
the capacity of the camera's electrical system. Or does it have its own
battery?
Bob
Robert Coe
: Reflectors are not expensive, even highly (more than any camera lens) ones.
Have you ever owned a highly reflector, Rich?
Robert Coe
:
: "Paul" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
: news:lLedndcf7IrU-ZTU...@pipex.net...
: > "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:MPG.237379fb...@news.supernews.com...
: >
: >>> Canon 5200mm f/14:
: >>> http://cgi.ebay.es/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180294096815
: >
: >
: >> Just wondering - who needs such a lens?
: >
: >
: > I have no idea. Would be good for moon shots though, cheaper than a trip
: > with Virgin Galactic.
: > I like the buyers questions. Someone asked him if he's able to supply it
: > with a 2X converter.
:
: The real issue is does it have Image Stabalisation! It wouldn't do any of us
: much good anyway. Canon DSLRs won't auto focus with smaller than F8. So
: let's get it quite clear here.
:
: A manual focus lens that can't be used hand held and they want how much for
: it???
A lens like that doesn't need conventional IS. You mount it on a pier attached
to bedrock. What it probably does need is a clock drive.
Bob
arlan_adams
>Tell you what, Adams: Leave now and we'll pretend you
>were never here when your creditors come poking around.
>
>Bob
I have no creditors. I am the creditor of others.
How about something photography related, instead of your "I can only act as a
troll and make off-topic troll's comments. Proving that I, Robert Coe, and all
others that do likewise are also resident-trolls."
Here's some fun conversation starters that are ON TOPIC:
The only drawback of P&S cameras, for the untalented photographer, is not having
very high ISO images devoid of excessive noise. This is offset when needing
long-zoom ratios at the P&S camera's available larger apertures where there is
then no real need for high ISOs, the time when DSLRs' long lenses with much
smaller apertures require it the most. Talented and experienced photographers
grew up on ASA25 and ASA64 film, some using nothing more than that their whole
lives. Talented photographers see no real need for high ISOs (unless to
compensate for drawbacks in the equipment, or when needed by an inexperienced or
talentless hack). That's it, that's the only thing going for the larger sensor
cameras. Nothing more than that. A minor perk that's not even needed by a
talented photographer.
arlan_adams
> I see that you are just another poor guy with DSLR envy...
Not at all. I sold off all my DSLR gear when I found out the superiority of P&S
cameras in the hands of someone with talent. See related comments below.
>
>Have you ever tried shooting in the field with a good DSLR with a 600mm f4
>lens attached? Until you do you can't begin to know what you are talking
>about in terms of image quality.
>
Yes, I have, until I found out the following:
The only drawback of a P&S camera, for the untalented photographer, is not
arlan_adams
>Yet when you first came on the scene with your claims I had to point
>out to you that simple calculation of lens diameter gave a ridiculous
>answer from the f value and focal length you claimed for your lens.
>Either you didn't understand it or you didn't care that your claims
>could not be justified. It was only later that you told us enough to
>confirm that you were using equivalent focal length plus telextender
>without paying any attention to the effect this had on lens aperture.
>Now you have the hide to try and lecture us on the subject!
I'm certain that you don't realize it, nor will ever realize it, but you have
just revealed to anyone with the least bit of photography experience what a
truly ignorant moron that you really are.
I couldn't have proved that about you any better if I tried.
Travis_K_Ardent
>A lens like that doesn't need conventional IS. You mount it on a pier attached
>to bedrock. What it probably does need is a clock drive.
>
>Bob
A clock drive is only needed for astrophotography. There is no indication, by
who manufactured it, nor its design, as to that being its intended purpose.
Please don't reveal how much of a moron you are to the world. At least not so
obviously. Leave some people some room for doubt, just for entertainment's sake,
if nothing else.
R. Mark Clayton
>> Rita Berkowitz writes:
>>
>>> For only $24K. Is this thing really any good?
>>
>> It's a small telescope that autofocuses.
>>
>> $1K for the telescope, $23K for the autofocusing.
>
> highly corrected for spherical and chromatic aberration. You won't find
> that size and quality for $1000 in any telescope.
>
>
An 8" reflector will do that - virtually no spherical or chromatic
aberration, and probably $1k would get you one...
Roy G
>>>
>>> Now that's funny. By using an excellent high-resolution P&S camera's own
>>> super-zoom, with an excellent 2.7x 80mm dia. telextender, I obtain a
>>> 35mm
>>> e.q.
>>> focal length of 549mm f/2.4 on one camera and 1248mm f/3.5 on another
>>> camera.
>>> Total cost for either camera and lens under $600. And it all fits in one
>>> roomy
>>> pocket.
>>>
>>> You DSLR blind-following fans are so entertaining at times!
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>
>>You are a wind bag. Talk, such as yours is cheap, very cheap.
>>
>>How about naming these wonderful P & S Cameras of yours, and identifying
>>which tele-extender gives such amazing results.
>>
>>Or you could, of course, post some of the images which are not quite up to
>>your very best standard.
>>
>>These (according to you) will still be superior to anything we might
>>produce.
>>
>>That way you get to keep all your commercially valuable stuff to
>>yourself.
>>
>>As I have said before " Put up or shut up"
>>
>>Roy G
>>
>
>
> Don't be such an obvious and pathetic net-troll moron.
>>>>>>>>Verbose Garbage Snipped
> all the other virtual-photographer DSLR-trolls) even more glaringly
> obvious to
> the world.
>
So what!!
As I already said talk is cheap.
Name some names or show some pictures.
Put up or shut up.
Roy G
dj_nme
> ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
> arlan_adams <aa_a...@nospamforme.org> wrote:
>> On 30 Oct 2008 07:09:01 -0500, "Toby" <kym...@oyahooo.com> wrote:
>>> "arlan_adams" <aa_a...@nospamforme.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>
>>>> Now that's funny. By using an excellent high-resolution
>
At anything other than the base ISO setting of the camera, of course.
Or, in anything other than bright low-contrast lighting conditions (such
as light even cloud in the middle of the day).
>>>> P&S camera's own super-zoom, with an excellent 2.7x 80mm dia.
>>>> telextender, I obtain a 35mm e.q. focal length of 549mm f/2.4 on one
>>>> camera and 1248mm f/3.5 on another camera. Total cost for either
>>>> camera and lens under $600. And it all fits in one roomy pocket.
>
> Yes, you can. You can also tie the camera to a dog and have
> it trigger every 30 seconds.
I prefer "cat cam" <http://www.mr-lee-catcam.de/cc_index_en.htm>.
>>>> You DSLR blind-following fans are so entertaining at times!
>
>>> The quality of such a setup is not even fainly comparable to a DSLR
with a decent lens.
>
>> Au contraire, mon idiot.
>
> I see you are fresh out of arguments.
You won't let "arlan_adams" get away with the usual last argument of a
typical troll?
I'll get the ASPCT (american society for protection against cruelty to
trolls) onto to you!
>> I've already proven that it is.
>
> Well, what gear did you use?
> Thought so.
>
>> That's why I use it. I
>> wouldn't even consider it an option if I couldn't make at least
300dpi 11x14
>> prints from any subject taken with this camera-lens configuration.
>
> I can order "300dpi" 10x15 meter prints. You mix up dots and
> pixels and information contained therein.
You would have to go dumpster-diving to find an old bubblejet printer
(perhaps a Canon BJC10?) which can only do 300dpi, in fact it would have
to be at least a decade old!
A 300dpi rating on an inkjet printer means that the best which could be
expected is roughly 100ppi, so you'd have to view it from least six feet
away** so as to not be offended by the jaggies.
**normal viewing distance for 300ppi is arms-length (roughly two and a
bit feet), so for a third the resolution, three times the viewing
distance is recommended.
>> Important, intriguing, and well-composed subject-matter can easily
override
>> image-quality, every time.
>
> I've got a completely black shot. The "subject-matter" overrides that
> image quality problem.
>
>> Anything lesser than these in print-size is just as
>> exceptional as any other camera on the planet when taken with this
equipment.
>
> I regularly shoot at ISO equivalents of 4.000 and 8.000 and even
> 16.000. Large prints are not a problem, even looking closely.
>
> I see your P&S doing that.
Are you sure that you don't mean ISO 400, 800 and 1600?
Please don't fall into the hyperbole trap that most trolls dig for
themselves.
Robert Coe
wrote:
: On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:38:06 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
:
: >A lens like that doesn't need conventional IS. You mount it on a pier attached
: >to bedrock. What it probably does need is a clock drive.
: >
: >Bob
:
: A clock drive is only needed for astrophotography. There is no indication, by
: who manufactured it, nor its design, as to that being its intended purpose.
A 5200mm f/14? What else would you use it for?
: Please don't reveal how much of a moron you are to the world. At least not so
: obviously. Leave some people some room for doubt, just for entertainment's sake,
: if nothing else.
Since you're obviously willing to take the risk, why shouldn't I?
Bob
RichA
Newtonians.
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:outmg4p34eau2q6uj...@4ax.com...
RichA
ultimately is your only real rationale for using a P&S?
You ask anyone not caught up in the image quality debate why they do, that
is the ONLY reason they'll give you.
At some of those with "tin eyes" are honest.
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:o2smg4947cofqotnh...@4ax.com...
RichA
"Travis_K_Ardent" <tkar...@spamstopper.net> wrote in message
news:te0ng4ps97htvjn3c...@4ax.com...
Honestly, the catadioptric telescopes out there are meant for astronomic
use, primarily. But they can be utilized for terrestrial shooting. Big
problem however is atmospheric disturbance when a "large aperture"
lens/scope is used that way. Generally, you won't gain any additional
detail in an image shooting with a lens with a front element diameter over
about 6 inches. Beyond that, heat waves (air density variations) which are
magnified with lens diameter remove extra detail. The only added benefit
using such a lens terrestrially is extra light throughput at a given focal
length. If anyone is thinking about testing a large lens or a telescope
terrestrially, best bet is to do it over water or point the thing upward at
something to avoid having to go though a long blanket of unstable air.
RichA
utilized some kind of coma correction element/field flattener at the focus.
But you are right, it would be cheaper. However, a refractor telescope
built to provide a diffraction limited 500mm f2.8 light cone can be done
(according to a Russian optician I know) but you'd be looking at about $40k.
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:rOydndqddpM_CZbU...@bt.com...
Eric Stevens
Liar. You _claimed_ that in another thread but eventually backed out
of your claim in a tangle of technobabble.
>
>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), and higher quality
>full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views
>than any DSLR and its glass in existence. (100% proved in another thread.)
See above.
>
>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 silent. They will not endanger your life when photographing
>potentially dangerous wildlife by alerting them to your presence. Or for the
>more common snap-shooter/photographer, you will not be barred from using your
>camera at public events and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots,
>you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious
>noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images.
>
>5. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. 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 #7.)
>
>6. 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
The dork doesn't seem to understand the difference between flash and
shutter speeds.
>
>7. 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.
I don't know where you got that helicopter shot from. I can't do that.
All my D300 rotor shots have come out dead straight.
>
>8. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
>allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast, 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 )
I can do that without either external hardware or software. Its built
into the camera.
>
>9. 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 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.
>
But now you get onto the mushrooms.
Eric Stevens
Toby
true of you.
How about you post some of these prints taken with you P&S so we can judge
their quality objectively?
Toby
"arlan_adams" <aa_a...@nospamforme.org> wrote in message
news:tbtkg4dviuhgtleq1...@4ax.com...
> On 30 Oct 2008 21:40:01 -0500, "Toby" <kym...@oyahooo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Richard J Kinch" <ki...@truetex.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:Xns9B47C31C4E5...@216.196.97.131...
>>> Toby writes:
>>>
>>>> No, its a rather large telescope with an front objective of 7.5"
>>>> diameter, highly corrected for spherical and chromatic aberration. You
>>>> won't find that size and quality for $1000 in any telescope.
>>>
Toby
>
>
> 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.) (100% proved in another
> thread.)
>
> 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), and higher
> quality
> full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle
> views
> than any DSLR and its glass in existence. (100% proved in another thread.)
Which other thread? Post a link to a camera that has the equivalent of a
1248mm f3.5 lens on 35mm (optically, not using digital zoom).
Provide a link to a P&S camera that has a shutter speed of 1/40,000 of a
second (not a flash duration of 1/40,000)
arlan_adams
>
>Provide a link to a P&S camera that has a shutter speed of 1/40,000 of a
>second (not a flash duration of 1/40,000)
>
Is that all you need? That's easy.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures
Where at least 8 cameras listed there have been tested to obtain shutter speeds
of 1/33,000 second or higher. It is suspected that most of the models listed
there also do, due to their having very similar lens/shutter hardware and
internal firmware. We just have to wait for people with those particular models
to test them (accurately) and report back. Testing procedures also mentioned on
that page.
Be sure to read all the text on that page, where one camera model is capable of
shutter speeds of 1/33,000 of a second with full-frame flash sync (test accuracy
questionable because this owner didn't use the scanning-laser testing method for
higher accuracy, where the 1/40,000 shutter speeds were recorded). The owner
also tested the flash speed for his camera that gives exposure durations (when
using flash) of 1/224,000th of a second. Four MILLIONTHS of a second. You can't
even buy a flash for a DSLR that will go that fast and provide for exposures
that short. No matter how much money that you want to throw away on your
blindly-ignorant-peer-following-borne DSLR fanaticism.
Unlike morons like you, who ignorantly think that people don't know the
difference between flash durations and shutter speeds, those involved in the
CHDK project are more than aware of which of the two are the delimiting factor
in each exposure, and test for each accordingly.
SeeNoEvil
>But, it will need a focal ratio of at least f6 to match the lens, unless it
>utilized some kind of coma correction element/field flattener at the focus.
>But you are right, it would be cheaper. However, a refractor telescope
>built to provide a diffraction limited 500mm f2.8 light cone can be done
>(according to a Russian optician I know) but you'd be looking at about $40k.
If you were the least bit observant (and you're in a photography forum? LOL),
someone had already posted on the day this thread started the bare-minimum
equipment that would provide for identical or greater focal-length, identical or
greater aperture, and much greater image performance.
Who is that Russian optician that you know? Someone you ran across while playing
with google again? My guess is that his name is "Herr LensCrafters", where you
buy your coke-bottle-bottom glasses from.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:38:33 -0500, charlie_grypon <cgry...@antispamlist.gov>
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:00:37 +0100, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <nrCdnRusTL2tl5TU...@pipex.net>, Paul says...
>>
>>> Canon 5200mm f/14:
>>> http://cgi.ebay.es/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180294096815
>>
>>Just wondering - who needs such a lens?
>
>Just a hunch ...
>
>Someone that's too stupid to realize that it would be less expensive, more
>compact, lighter weight (w/o tripod), and has fewer chromatic and image-quality
>problems when they piggy-back their camera on a coma-free LX200-ACF, Cassegrain
>Catadioptric,16" dia., f/10 (1 full-stop more aperture), 6096mm f.l. when used
>with a high-quality achromat 1.5x Barlow lens, all for only $9,999. That's less
>than 1/5th the price, brand new, not used. Way less expensive if you buy the OTA
>alone, sans massive tripod.
>
>"A fool and his money are always soon parted." Never have I run across bigger
>fools that continually prove this old adage than those who claim to be
>"professional photographers" (or the usual resident trolls in newsgroups).
arlan_adams
>Liar. You _claimed_ that in another thread but eventually backed out
>of your claim in a tangle of technobabble.
It was only "technobabble" to someone as stupid as you.
Here is that post again, below. Try comprehending it this time.
I already know you can't. You failed to comprehend the simple math involved the
last 3 times that I re-posted this for you. I'm only posting this for my own
amusement now, and for the amusement of all others that can easily see what a
total idiot and resident-troll that you are, from not being able to comprehend
something so simple, principles that should be basic common knowledge to anyone
that has ever held a camera.
Go troll another newsgroup, where you can play at being a doctor or lawyer or
something this time. See if your role-play virtual-reality life isn't as
immediately obvious to them as it is to us.
Follow close:
THE P&S's CAMERA LENS. The ONLY reason it acts as the same FOV and zoom-reach as
Got it? Did you follow any of that at all? Probably not. I explained it by
approaching it from every way that you might possibly misinterpret things again,
in the hopes that it might get through that pea-brain of yours and others'
similarly sized brains, but I still I feel it was just more wasted typing.
If, however, that intermittently shorted lightbulb in that empty little cavity
you have in that excuse you call a head finally did illuminate by a few
nanowatts, from at least one of the various ways I've proved it, then now do you
see why I'm laughing so hard at these moronic resident-trolls that don't know a
thing about optics and photography? The same relentless and idiotic band of
R.P.D. virtual-reality-living trolls that have been mindlessly parroting the
same stupid nonsense for years now, post after post, their whole pathetic lives.
Even worse are those that are so stupid as to ignorantly believe them without
bothering to figure it out on their own. Worse than that are those that haven't
bothered to correct the resident-trolls' blatant stupidity and reveal their
ignorance to the world, their stupidity borne of their entrenched
virtual-life-psychosis, to finally make them come to terms with the real world
and FACTS.
Hey, everyone is saying it in this newsgroup, it MUST be true. Right?
Fucking retards, all around.
Note to self: Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity -- ESPECIALLY
online.
Robert Coe
: > On 31 Oct 2008 10:41:25 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
: > : In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA <vot...@johnmccain.com> wrote:
: > : > I've yet to see a decent large print from any P&S, no matter what the
: > : > resolution.
: > :
: > : You really ought to switch off the computer and get out more. Why not
: > : join a local photographic society and meet some real people with real
: > : cameras?
: >
: > And what would he say to them? My advice to Rich is to stay put and keep
: > on truckin'. His position as our resident clown is fairly secure; he
: > doesn't need to risk making a fool of himself in the real world too.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:12:39 -0400, "RichA" <vot...@johnmccain.com> retorted:
: Why not just admit, you are too frigging lazy to carry a DSLR, and that
: ultimately is your only real rationale for using a P&S?
: You ask anyone not caught up in the image quality debate why they do, that
: is the ONLY reason they'll give you.
: At some of those with "tin eyes" are honest.
Who? Me? My wife and I have two DSLRs, and we just bought a third one. If you
got off your ass and sent pictures to the Shoot-In and then looked at the
other people's work, you'd know that. Not to put too fine a point on it, Rich,
but you really need to do *something* to dispel the widely held belief that
you don't even know which side of a camera goes next to your eveball.
BTW, why are you shilling for that odious political hack John McCain? You're
Canadian, aren't you? You don't have a dog in that hunt.
Bob
nospam
<b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> I'm surprised that the current draw from the autofocus motor doesn't exceed
> the capacity of the camera's electrical system. Or does it have its own
> battery?
it has a battery to power the autofocus and zoom motors and an lcd
display to show the status of the lens.
Alan Browne
> BTW, why are you shilling for that odious political hack John McCain? You're
> Canadian, aren't you? You don't have a dog in that hunt.
The sad fact issue is that everyone in the world has a dog in the US
elections but we don't get to vote in them. When Americans elect brain
challenged boobs like Bush .... and then re-elect him, we can only
despair at the follies that follow.
I could go on for quite a while on this, but the sum of the facts is
that the US has a backbreaking federal debt of over $10T. This costs
(conservatively) about $700M per day in borrowing costs. Is running 1.5
wars while reducing taxes. Is lax on financial oversight leading to a
world financial crisis.
Those countries with conservative financial practices (Canada for
example) prove the adage that no good deed goes unpunished.
Personally I like McCain a lot more than I dislike him as he is a rare
true conservative in the GOP (which is why the GOP despises him - does
not play ball). The real fact is that the American swing voters don't
like the 8 year stink and will be flushing out the GOP on Tuesday. As
McCain became the candidate his handlers began to cut him off from the
press and began to stage his ever word and gesture. That's when McCain
lost this election. Palin was just icing on the political-stupidity cake.
The GOP is its own worst enemy. When they are in a position to control
they go overboard, way too far to the right. This taints them for the
next time around. When they learn to tame that inertia, they will gain
power for a long time.
My conservative bet is Obama 277 to 261 over McCain, but that is in
giving McCain a 6 point polling bias (Bradley Effect). Many think that
bias is much less ... so it could be a landslide for Obama. Further,
some 'safe' GOP senators may be booted in unlikely places like GA.
Yes, I know Americans generally are blissfully unaware of politics in
other countries (Canada recently held a general election in 6 weeks from
the call to the voting; new cabinet is sworn in already). The 2 year
(+) US beauty contest is disgusting ... but we do look forward to 20 Jan
and the backside of the worst US president ever.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> BTW, why are you shilling for that odious political hack John McCain? You're
>> Canadian, aren't you? You don't have a dog in that hunt.
>
>The sad fact issue is that everyone in the world has a dog in the US
>elections but we don't get to vote in them. When Americans elect brain
>challenged boobs like Bush .... and then re-elect him, we can only
>despair at the follies that follow.
>
>Personally I like McCain a lot more than I dislike him as he is a rare
>true conservative in the GOP (which is why the GOP despises him - does
>not play ball). The real fact is that the American swing voters don't
>like the 8 year stink and will be flushing out the GOP on Tuesday.
That's quite on target. I live in a traditionally Republican state
and in an affluent neighborhood that is normally solidly Republican.
But the polls show the precincts in this area are surprisingly high in
voters who will go for Obama.
Obama's base may be Democrats, and there's undeniably a surge in
registration of previously-non-voting blacks, but the difference this
year will be voters who might have voted Republican if they weren't so
fed up with the dog's breakfast the current administration has made of
this country in the last eight years.
You are, in my opinion, slightly off in saying that the GOP despises
McCain for not playing ball. The GOP is not a single entity. The GOP
faction that is not supportive of McCain is the religious right. They
don't feel McCain will support their aims in the areas of abortion,
gay marriage/gay rights, and their other agendas in determining the
morality of others. They are willing to accept some "maverick"
tendencies, but not in these core areas for the conservative
Christians.
Republicans who are not in the religious right faction - and there are
such things - are supportive of McCain and even stronger in their
support because of the maverick/don't play ball aspect. They, too,
have problems with the current administration's track record.
>Yes, I know Americans generally are blissfully unaware of politics in
>other countries
True, but you - most of the other major powers of the world - give us
little reason to be interested. If you have problems, they're
internal. You don't go around invading other countries based on false
intelligence, you don't try to muscle the rest of the world, and your
economy doesn't affect the rest of us significantly.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Toby
I am a big fan of P&S cameras for a number of reasons. I always carry one.
If chdk does what it advertises that will be another good reason to
appreciate P&Ss. However when it comes to image quality there is no contest
between the best P&S and a good DSLR: not in terms of resolution,
flexibility, noise at high ISO, focusing speed, ability to quickly and
easily use manual settings or several other factors. The small sensor makes
shallow DOF, one of the most useful of photographic tools, all but
impossible. So there is certainly a place for P&S cameras, but they will
never replace DSLRs.
Toby
"arlan_adams" <aa_a...@nospamforme.org> wrote in message
news:k9png45ipn66takv3...@4ax.com...
Toby
something to be desired.
Toby
"arlan_adams" <aa_a...@nospamforme.org> wrote in message
news:k9png45ipn66takv3...@4ax.com...
John McWilliams
>
> Yes, I know Americans generally are blissfully unaware of politics in
> other countries (Canada recently held a general election in 6 weeks from
> the call to the voting; new cabinet is sworn in already).
Wait, you're saying that Canada *has* a government??? What's it called?
Now, we know that all those Yura-peen countries have kings and queens,
but isn't Canada some sort of protectorate of the British Crown???
??
<smiley here for those who might need it>
And, yes, it's been a pretty bad decade.
--
john mcwilliam s
RichA
"arlan_adams" <aa_a...@nospamforme.org> wrote in message
news:k9png45ipn66takv3...@4ax.com...
RichA
"SeeNoEvil" <cont...@youraddress.com> wrote in message
news:5aqng453uob1jvkdg...@4ax.com...
RichA
Canadian economy. The imbeciles in Canada who support Obama about 70% don't
have the slightest clue what that could mean to their JOBS.
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:vthog4tgg2kgb7grb...@4ax.com...
graham.watsen
>Sounds interesting. I will follow the story.
>
>I am a big fan of P&S cameras for a number of reasons. I always carry one.
>If chdk does what it advertises that will be another good reason to
>appreciate P&Ss. However when it comes to image quality there is no contest
>between the best P&S and a good DSLR: not in terms of resolution,
Identical image resolutions, check the optics tests, pixel-density and lens
quality dependent. You can have the best DSLR on the planet, but if your lens
doesn't cut it at all apertures, you've lost. P&S lenses are built to finer
specs with optimum image quality at all apertures, due to the very fact that
they have to image details down to much smaller photo-sites. They are right up
against the limits of physics. DSLR glass has lots of room for optics-quality
slop. The larger sensor photo-sites will never reveal the lower-resolution
glass. You'll never know, nor can you test it with that sensor of yours.
>flexibility,
Everything that you can do with any DSLR, I can do with a good P&S camera. My
photography requires everything from microscopy to astrophotography. Time-lapse
of nature events, to party-shots and ceremonies. There's not one situation where
my P&S cameras have failed me. It's probably because I know what I'm doing with
any camera in my hands.
> noise at high ISO,
The one minor drawback that is of no concern to the real pro. And the larger
apertures at longer focal-lengths completely makes up for it. That's where DSLRs
totally fail. They can't make lenses that long with that much aperture. At least
not affordable and able to be carried for more than half a block.
>focusing speed
Never been a problem for me. Most that use contrast-detection focusing systems
aren't aware that speed is dependent on image stability on the sensor. They test
those cameras by swinging them about wildly, and hoping the camera can latch
onto some details in the FOV. A good photographer knows how to hold a camera
rock-steady to begin with and pan on your subject. If you can't get a P&S to
focus fast, that's only revealing your own lack of skill. It's why I laugh at
all those camera reviewers. Idiots that know more about marketing than
photography and cameras.
>, ability to quickly and
>easily use manual settings or several other factors.
You're a piss-poor shopper aren't you.
>The small sensor makes
>shallow DOF, one of the most useful of photographic tools
For available-light macro-photography (the only kind of macro-photography that
should ever be allowed), then a P&S camera has no equal. The extra DOF is
appreciated by all. Apparently you don't have enough experience with a wide
variety of subjects and photographic techniques. Give yourself a few years,
you'll find out you've been duped by all those around you.
>, all but impossible.
That only proves to me that you know very little about lenses, focal-lengths,
and apertures, and how they all relate to obtaining shallow DOF. Getting shallow
DOF is child's-play on a P&S camera. You just have to know more than how to read
camera reviews and pursue a career as a troll on the internet while parroting
the stupidity of other net trolls, because you too have as little real
experience as they.
> So there is certainly a place for P&S cameras, but they will
>never replace DSLRs.
>
Wrong. I've been real-pro photographer all my life (one who can say that without
even flinching). I have a whole archive of film cameras, now as collectors
items. When I found out that, in the hands of a truly talented photographer, a
P&S camera can do more and do it better than any DSLR in existence I got rid of
all those DSLRs that I had tested and had high hopes for.
You'll learn. So too will others. If they get good enough at photography one
day. People who keep promoting the DSLR-ONLY mantra reveal but one thing to me,
they're just piss-poor wannabe photographers, and that's all they'll ever be.
Ray Fischer
>Personally I like McCain a lot more than I dislike him as he is a rare
>true conservative in the GOP (which is why the GOP despises him - does
>not play ball).
Not really. He's eager to spend money for wars, has no real plan to
balance a budget, and advocates for a more powerful and intrusive
government.
> The real fact is that the American swing voters don't
>like the 8 year stink and will be flushing out the GOP on Tuesday.
Justifiably.
> As
>McCain became the candidate his handlers began to cut him off from the
>press and began to stage his ever word and gesture. That's when McCain
>lost this election. Palin was just icing on the political-stupidity cake.
If anything his handlers protected him longer than they should have.
McCain has verbally shot himself in the foot too many times, and in
recent months has shown himself to be a sleazy liar and ideological
fanatic.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Robert Coe
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
:
: > BTW, why are you shilling for that odious political hack John McCain? You're
: > Canadian, aren't you? You don't have a dog in that hunt.
:
: The sad fact issue is that everyone in the world has a dog in the US
: elections but we don't get to vote in them. When Americans elect brain
: challenged boobs like Bush .... and then re-elect him, we can only
: despair at the follies that follow.
Then tell Rich to butt out and let us get on with the job of sweeping the
Republicans out of office. Nobody knows what kind of president Barack will be,
but we do know that he has the most important qualification for the job: He
isn't George Bush.
: I could go on for quite a while on this, but the sum of the facts is
: that the US has a backbreaking federal debt of over $10T. This costs
: (conservatively) about $700M per day in borrowing costs. Is running 1.5
: wars while reducing taxes. Is lax on financial oversight leading to a
: world financial crisis.
Yeah, but you're preaching to the choir. I didn't vote for Bush either time,
and I'd guess that neither did most of the Americans you'll encounter in this
newsgroup.
: Those countries with conservative financial practices (Canada for
: example) prove the adage that no good deed goes unpunished.
:
: Personally I like McCain a lot more than I dislike him as he is a rare
: true conservative in the GOP (which is why the GOP despises him - does
: not play ball). The real fact is that the American swing voters don't
: like the 8 year stink and will be flushing out the GOP on Tuesday. As
: McCain became the candidate his handlers began to cut him off from the
: press and began to stage his ever word and gesture. That's when McCain
: lost this election. Palin was just icing on the political-stupidity cake.
Forgive me, but if you have any favorable disposition towards McCain, then I
submit that you haven't been paying any attention to the campaign he's been
running. He's shown himself to be almost as sleazy as Bush and only marginally
better than his hapless running mate, Sally Trailerpark.
All this is wildly off-topic, but I suppose you can't expect us Americans to
think about much else during the last few days of the campaign, with so much
at stake.
Bob
Alan Browne
> Forgive me, but if you have any favorable disposition towards McCain, then I
> submit that you haven't been paying any attention to the campaign he's been
> running. He's shown himself to be almost as sleazy as Bush and only marginally
> better than his hapless running mate, Sally Trailerpark.
Oh, but I have. Out of the whole GOP field of candidates, McCain is the
most reasonable of all, IMO. As to sleaze, I don't think either party
has clean hands. Obama has admirably stayed quite white gloved.
Certainly Hilary would have been a little more muddy.
My favourable impression of McCain is built on his life achievements and
genuine lean view of government. His clear acceptance of AGW is another
strong (and rare in the GOP) factor. He seems to also get that you
don't solve energy only by drilling, but by reducing consumption as
well.I don't agree with him on other areas such as his myopia regarding
scientific tracking of wild animals. He also drinks way too much
"non-interference in financial markets" kool-aid and this has been a
clear disaster. ("Hey everyone, let's ignore history.").
Nobody should expect perfection in a presidential candidate. The US 2
year+ muckraking tour is horrible and likely tends to eliminate much
better people in the name of some perverse purity. The Hilary/Obama
show blew off Edwards completely (although more recent revelations there
would have sunk him deeper than the Titanic...)
(I suppose the anecdotes along the lines of Hitler being a tee-total,
non-smoking vegetarian v. Churchill/Roosevelt who were heavy smoking,
drinking meat eaters could be brought up...)
McCain truly blew it with drill-baby... (recent press on her running in
2012 for GOP top dog is popping up. Really.)
Obama sure is a nice enough fellow, but there is little meat on the
bones he proposes, and in any case, the wobbling economy will overshadow
much of what he may attempt to do (assuming the Dems control both houses
as well). (eg: the set up to be a "tax and spend liberal" is all but
certain.). The war to end all reason should be shut down and forces in
Afghanistan rapidly augmented to wipe out the T'ban. And this
inevitably leads to forces on the ground in P'stan. There is _no_ other
way.
The most dangerous thing in the world is happening: The Taliban are
moving in on the weak, wobbly and near bankwupt Pakistani government.
The Pakistani's are begging the Saudi's for cash and the Saudi's aren't
buying in. The Pakistani intelligence services are in bed with the
T'ban and ... by the way, Pakistan has some nuclear weapon capability.
The US invading Pakistan (or at least sending a hell of a lot of money
over the mere $1.5B/y now) makes a lot more sense than even throwing
insults at Iran.
/EOR
Ray Fischer
>Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> Forgive me, but if you have any favorable disposition towards McCain, then I
>> submit that you haven't been paying any attention to the campaign he's been
>> running. He's shown himself to be almost as sleazy as Bush and only marginally
>> better than his hapless running mate, Sally Trailerpark.
>
>Oh, but I have. Out of the whole GOP field of candidates, McCain is the
>most reasonable of all, IMO.
Really?
He was outraged when the US Supreme Court upheld the Constitution's
protection habeus corpus law. HE was, and is, in favor of invading
coutries that are no threat to the US and killing tens of thousands of
people.
> As to sleaze, I don't think either party
>has clean hands. Obama has admirably stayed quite white gloved.
>Certainly Hilary would have been a little more muddy.
And McCain has resorted to outright lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Gerald Clough
candidate's bone, so far as the "I will do..." promises. Some presidents
can push through some of their agenda, IF it happens to enjoy some
reasonable support in Congress. An astute politician can do a good deal
of business with them. Consummate politicians like LBJ can apply a
combination of charm (yes, he could), deal-cutting, and even appeals to
better nature to get their votes. There are a few things a president
could do alone, but they're mostly in the line of military actions and
actions of the executive branches he controls. He can, for instance,
promise to have the Attorney General set new priorities and make it
stick. He cannot lower taxes, raise taxes, increase drug penalties, or
anything else that calls for new money or new law. He can, of course,
direct the course of US history if he gets to appoint Supreme Court
justices (which the next president will), but they don't often make that
kind of promise in a campaign. WAY too dangerous.
All that was for perspective. I don't know the average age on this
group. If it's relatively young, which it usually is on USENET, many
won't realize what a lot of us bring to the game from the 1960's. That
period was a lot like today in many ways. There was a feeling of
changing from the first half of the century to the second, where today
it's a change to a new century. JFK was the icon of that change. We all
know it wasn't a revolution. Things don't change that fast, but it was a
powerful sense that a new way was afoot. There was also a real feeling
that it was cut short of its potential. It wasn't really. LBJ pushed
through the social agenda before events caught up with him, but he was
from the older time and didn't stir the same feelings.
Obama feels like the same kind of icon of change from old to new. And he
feels, to many of those who knew so much grief in the 60's, like a
chance to try again. Never discount feel. It's really all these
campaigns are about. And it wasn't just youth, then or now. No one was
ever elected by winning over just the young. It's all part of the
"perfect storm." A bum presidency without a clue of how the world works,
distrust in the old, an old candidate, a politically inept running mate,
an economy crashed by an adminstration's bedfellows, a war that feels
way too much like Vietnam (even to pragmatists who recognize that
Vietnam wasn't unreasoned at the time), a party bogged down in the old
ways by its hard core with no other home, and, as trite as it sounds, a
longing for hope, almost a longing for clarity, meaning clearly
different than in the past. It's a real hard hope to define. But it's
real hope. And it settles in enough people of all ages to carry an
election.
If Obama wins, he gets a mixed bag of curses and blessing. Economies do
recover, and the new guy gets the credit. Having your own party powerful
in Congress really helps. You still have to be politically adept, but it
really helps. In hard time people accept things they might not
otherwise. He also comes in with a poorly-defined but potentially
valuable positive view from the rest of the world. That might be what
makes it possible for him to survive the war situation of the sort that
took down LBJ.
--
"Nothing has any value unless you know you can do without it."
nospam
oh no, a politician who lies?? say it isn't so!
Robert Coe
: You know, there's rarely any real meat on any viable presidential
Very well stated.
Bob (who, as one of the oldest members of this group, also remembers the '60s
all too well)
Robert Coe
wrote:
: > All this is wildly off-topic, but I suppose you can't expect us
: > Americans to think about much else during the last few days of the
: > campaign, with so much at stake.
: Needn't worry, that piece of shit will be out of office very soon and Obama
: will bring prosperity to the US. I do have to admit that the Bush years
: were great for me economically. He ran the country into the shitter and
: created a lot of bargains that were bought cheap and will cash out nicely
: during the Obama years. I will never forgive him for Iraq.
The U.S.'s foeign policy adventures have encompassed a wide range of
motivations and outcomes. Some have been noble, some crassly self-serving,
some brilliant, and some profoundly stupid. But the disingenuous, entirely
unnecessary, breathtakingly self-destructive invasion of Iraq stands in a
class by itself. I believe that future generations will count it as our
darkest hour since the Civil War and George Bush as the worst president in
American history.
Bob
tony cooper
>Bob (who, as one of the oldest members of this group, also remembers the '60s
>all too well)
I remember the 60s, too. I had an Argus "Argoflex 75" twin-lens
reflex camera in the early 60s. Moved up to a rangefinder 35mm and a
light meter and thought I was pretty hot stuff.
Toby
"graham.watsen" <gwa...@removeforspam.org> wrote in message
news:uk4pg45jbma1se2r5...@4ax.com...
> On 1 Nov 2008 10:14:01 -0500, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>Sounds interesting. I will follow the story.
>>
>>I am a big fan of P&S cameras for a number of reasons. I always carry one.
>>If chdk does what it advertises that will be another good reason to
>>appreciate P&Ss. However when it comes to image quality there is no
>>contest
>>between the best P&S and a good DSLR: not in terms of resolution,
>
> Identical image resolutions, check the optics tests, pixel-density and
> lens
> quality dependent. You can have the best DSLR on the planet, but if your
> lens
> doesn't cut it at all apertures, you've lost. P&S lenses are built to
> finer
> specs with optimum image quality at all apertures, due to the very fact
> that
> they have to image details down to much smaller photo-sites. They are
> right up
> against the limits of physics. DSLR glass has lots of room for
> optics-quality
> slop. The larger sensor photo-sites will never reveal the lower-resolution
> glass. You'll never know, nor can you test it with that sensor of yours.
Just not true in the real world. P&S lenses suffer from various distortions
due to their wide range, and almost always you have problems with purple
flare. Even the best P&S lenses cannot match good DSLR lenses in real-world
performance, especially at the extremes of the range, nor are they as fast
as good DSLR lenses. If you dispute this please provide some links to
bolster your contention.
>
>>flexibility,
>
> Everything that you can do with any DSLR, I can do with a good P&S camera.
> My
> photography requires everything from microscopy to astrophotography.
> Time-lapse
> of nature events, to party-shots and ceremonies. There's not one situation
> where
> my P&S cameras have failed me. It's probably because I know what I'm doing
> with
> any camera in my hands.
Or because what you do is limited. I shoot professionally, and I need quick
and sometimes long bursts with fast and accurate AF, not to mention decent
flash. I often work at the equivalent of 15mm (35mm FF) or out at 750 (35 FF
equivalent). Artistically I often use very shallow DOF to isolate subjects.
High ISO is a must. I also work with extreme macro lenses on bellows, and
have constructed a number of special optics such as soft focus lenses and a
front-mountable teleidoscope. I'll pit my photomicrographs against yours any
day, using a special Nikon-made transfer optic.
I have been a pro for more than 20 years, and in all that time I have never
once seen a colleague using a P&S. There is a reason for that.
>
>> noise at high ISO,
>
> The one minor drawback that is of no concern to the real pro. And the
> larger
> apertures at longer focal-lengths completely makes up for it. That's where
> DSLRs
> totally fail. They can't make lenses that long with that much aperture. At
> least
> not affordable and able to be carried for more than half a block.
If you think high ISO noise is a minor drawback for a professional you have
never shot sports or photojournalism professionally. In the past year many
pros I know have switched from Canon to the Nikon D3 expressly because of
its low light performance (not to mention an excellent burst rate).
>
>>focusing speed
>
> Never been a problem for me. Most that use contrast-detection focusing
> systems
> aren't aware that speed is dependent on image stability on the sensor.
> They test
> those cameras by swinging them about wildly, and hoping the camera can
> latch
> onto some details in the FOV. A good photographer knows how to hold a
> camera
> rock-steady to begin with and pan on your subject. If you can't get a P&S
> to
> focus fast, that's only revealing your own lack of skill. It's why I laugh
> at
> all those camera reviewers. Idiots that know more about marketing than
> photography and cameras.
Here again you are only showing your ignorance of the conditions faced by
pros in the field. Another reason that many pros and agencies are making the
switch to Nikon is because of its AF system, which works well in low light
and predictively. If you think that any P&S even begins to come into the
same ballpark with a D3, or even a mid-level DSLR then you are seriously
mistaken.
>
>>, ability to quickly and
>>easily use manual settings or several other factors.
>
> You're a piss-poor shopper aren't you.
What does that mean? I can change all my settings with the camera up to my
eye while shooting. What P&S does that?
>
>>The small sensor makes
>>shallow DOF, one of the most useful of photographic tools
>
> For available-light macro-photography (the only kind of macro-photography
> that
> should ever be allowed), then a P&S camera has no equal. The extra DOF is
> appreciated by all. Apparently you don't have enough experience with a
> wide
> variety of subjects and photographic techniques. Give yourself a few
> years,
> you'll find out you've been duped by all those around you.
Oh, now you are even setting the standards of acceptable photography? Dude,
crawl back into you hole and let us get on with our work. I certainly
appreciate the extra DOF of a small sensor, but P&S lenses just don't cut it
for extreme work. I have adapted a couple of Olympus extreme macros (20 and
38mm) to Nikon, and they perform spectacularly with absolutely flat plane of
focus and a complete visible lack of spherical or chromatic aberration (or
pincushion/barrel distortion at focusing distances down to one mm or so.
>
>>, all but impossible.
>
> That only proves to me that you know very little about lenses,
> focal-lengths,
> and apertures, and how they all relate to obtaining shallow DOF. Getting
> shallow
> DOF is child's-play on a P&S camera. You just have to know more than how
> to read
> camera reviews and pursue a career as a troll on the internet while
> parroting
> the stupidity of other net trolls, because you too have as little real
> experience as they.
So then explain to me how to get the equivalent DOF of a 300mm f2.8 lens
from a 50mm f3.5 lens please.
>> So there is certainly a place for P&S cameras, but they will
>>never replace DSLRs.
>>
>
> Wrong. I've been real-pro photographer all my life (one who can say that
> without
> even flinching). I have a whole archive of film cameras, now as collectors
> items. When I found out that, in the hands of a truly talented
> photographer, a
> P&S camera can do more and do it better than any DSLR in existence I got
> rid of
> all those DSLRs that I had tested and had high hopes for.
>
> You'll learn. So too will others. If they get good enough at photography
> one
> day. People who keep promoting the DSLR-ONLY mantra reveal but one thing
> to me,
> they're just piss-poor wannabe photographers, and that's all they'll ever
> be.
Please provide a link to your galleries. How much money do you make with
your photography? Which agencies have your images?
I suspect that you are nothing but a bitter wannabe with anger issues.
Toby
Toby
"RichA" <vot...@johnmccain.com> wrote in message
news:OMqdnWBkAo94F5HU...@giganews.com...
> Of what value is a 1/33,000 shutter speed or a 1/250,000 flash?
As our pleasant friend points out, these can be useful for stopping very
fast action. Not much else.
Toby
graham.watsen
>
>"graham.watsen" <gwa...@removeforspam.org> wrote in message
>news:uk4pg45jbma1se2r5...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Identical image resolutions, check the optics tests, pixel-density and
>> lens
>> quality dependent. You can have the best DSLR on the planet, but if your
>> lens
>> doesn't cut it at all apertures, you've lost. P&S lenses are built to
>> finer
>> specs with optimum image quality at all apertures, due to the very fact
>> that
>> they have to image details down to much smaller photo-sites. They are
>> right up
>> against the limits of physics. DSLR glass has lots of room for
>> optics-quality
>> slop. The larger sensor photo-sites will never reveal the lower-resolution
>> glass. You'll never know, nor can you test it with that sensor of yours.
>
>Just not true in the real world. P&S lenses suffer from various distortions
>due to their wide range, and almost always you have problems with purple
>flare. Even the best P&S lenses cannot match good DSLR lenses in real-world
>performance, especially at the extremes of the range, nor are they as fast
>as good DSLR lenses. If you dispute this please provide some links to
>bolster your contention.
Restate that as "some P&S lenses suffer", then you might be believed. Just as it
is true that "some DSLR lenses suffer".
The rest of your comments are totally inaccurate, blindly-biased, nonsense.
Do yourself a favor. Dismantle some really decent P&S lenses from their cameras,
then pit them against the best DSLR glass you have, using optical-bench tests.
You'll quickly find out you've been ignorantly parroting total nonsense. The
purple-fringing of which you speak is just as much of a problem in DSLRs. I know
this for a fact. You just refuse to see it. It is a product of the sensor
technology, NOT the lens. The same type of technology used in both cameras. (Go
ahead, prove more of your ignorance to the world, this is fun.)
I've already proved that P&S lenses can be faster than any DSLR glass that will
ever be made. Haven't you been reading the threads? Or was this just a troll of
yours so I'll post that proof again?
>>
>>>flexibility,
>>
>> Everything that you can do with any DSLR, I can do with a good P&S camera.
>> My
>> photography requires everything from microscopy to astrophotography.
>> Time-lapse
>> of nature events, to party-shots and ceremonies. There's not one situation
>> where
>> my P&S cameras have failed me. It's probably because I know what I'm doing
>> with
>> any camera in my hands.
>
>Or because what you do is limited. I shoot professionally
If what you say is true, that you are a real professional, then you wouldn't
refute what I say if you tested things for yourself. As any decent professional
would. At least any professionals with the least amount of self-respect. No
"pro" that I know ever trusts the opinion of someone that shows far less
experience than they. (Like you are showing.)
Limited? LOL ... if you only knew the places I've been with my cameras and the
vast subject matter and situations that I've recorded. Far too much to even
begin to list here. From ageless-solitude to rock-concerts, micro to astro,
peace to war, arts to sports, I've done them all.
Why do you think CHDK is such a boon to someone like me? Do you have need for
everything up to 1/40,000 second shutter speeds? Can you even imagine what types
of subjects might require that? I need those shutter speeds. In fact I wish my
cameras could go even faster than that. I know the huge pool of subjects that
they are good for. Do you? Those shutter-speeds have opened up yet another vast
realm of subjects that people like you will never photograph, nor even think of
photographing. Your limited experiences and expectations in life haven't
revealed those subjects to you.
This is what makes the difference between men and boys with their toys. People
like myself are the ones that provide revolutionary photographs that none of you
will even think of being able to do in your lifetimes. You can't. You have
crippled yourselves with your own limited beliefs, limited tools, and limited
experiences.
Limited? You don't even know what limited means, because you're living it,
breathing it, thinking it.
>, and I need quick
>and sometimes long bursts with fast and accurate AF, not to mention decent
>flash.
OH. I see. One of "those kind" of pros. Okay. I get it now. :-) LOL
NOW it all makes perfect sense! LOL
> I often work at the equivalent of 15mm (35mm FF) or out at 750 (35 FF
>equivalent). Artistically I often use very shallow DOF to isolate subjects.
>High ISO is a must.
Yes, it would be for a "pro" like you. LOL
> I also work with extreme macro lenses on bellows, and
>have constructed a number of special optics such as soft focus lenses and a
>front-mountable teleidoscope. I'll pit my photomicrographs against yours any
>day, using a special Nikon-made transfer optic.
>
>I have been a pro for more than 20 years, and in all that time I have never
>once seen a colleague using a P&S. There is a reason for that.
Yes, I'm sure there is a reason for that. They are also "pros" just like you
are. LOL
>>
>>> noise at high ISO,
>>
>> The one minor drawback that is of no concern to the real pro. And the
>> larger
>> apertures at longer focal-lengths completely makes up for it. That's where
>> DSLRs
>> totally fail. They can't make lenses that long with that much aperture. At
>> least
>> not affordable and able to be carried for more than half a block.
>
>If you think high ISO noise is a minor drawback for a professional you have
>never shot sports or photojournalism professionally. In the past year many
>pros I know have switched from Canon to the Nikon D3 expressly because of
>its low light performance (not to mention an excellent burst rate).
>>
Yes, I'm sure they have. You all come from the same "School of Pros" that all do
the exact same "School of Pros" photography on the exact same subjects. LOL
>>>focusing speed
>>
>> Never been a problem for me. Most that use contrast-detection focusing
>> systems
>> aren't aware that speed is dependent on image stability on the sensor.
>> They test
>> those cameras by swinging them about wildly, and hoping the camera can
>> latch
>> onto some details in the FOV. A good photographer knows how to hold a
>> camera
>> rock-steady to begin with and pan on your subject. If you can't get a P&S
>> to
>> focus fast, that's only revealing your own lack of skill. It's why I laugh
>> at
>> all those camera reviewers. Idiots that know more about marketing than
>> photography and cameras.
>
>Here again you are only showing your ignorance of the conditions faced by
>pros in the field. Another reason that many pros and agencies are making the
>switch to Nikon is because of its AF system, which works well in low light
>and predictively. If you think that any P&S even begins to come into the
>same ballpark with a D3, or even a mid-level DSLR then you are seriously
>mistaken.
And yet, oddly enough, I use P&S cameras that can be used to focus and frame in
total darkness using invisible IR illumination. My other favorite P&S cameras
all automatically increase the sensor gain in low-light conditions where you
can't even see anything in that inaccurate OVF of yours.
You show so much experience with a wide variety of cameras. Do continue to
reveal just how much, would you? LOL
>>
>>>, ability to quickly and
>>>easily use manual settings or several other factors.
>>
>> You're a piss-poor shopper aren't you.
>
>What does that mean? I can change all my settings with the camera up to my
>eye while shooting. What P&S does that?
>
All of them that I've used in life. (Ergo, you're a piss-poor shopper, and now
we all know that you're also "one of those kind of pro" photographers too. LOL)
Thanks for proving again what I already knew. But is now also clear to anyone
else that also uses top-line P&S cameras--that you don't have a single clue of
what you are talking about.
>>
>>>The small sensor makes
>>>shallow DOF, one of the most useful of photographic tools
>>
>> For available-light macro-photography (the only kind of macro-photography
>> that
>> should ever be allowed), then a P&S camera has no equal. The extra DOF is
>> appreciated by all. Apparently you don't have enough experience with a
>> wide
>> variety of subjects and photographic techniques. Give yourself a few
>> years,
>> you'll find out you've been duped by all those around you.
>
>Oh, now you are even setting the standards of acceptable photography? Dude,
>crawl back into you hole and let us get on with our work. I certainly
>appreciate the extra DOF of a small sensor, but P&S lenses just don't cut it
>for extreme work.
No need to say more. You've already revealed that you've never used any decent
P&S cameras. How could you know? You are wholly ignorant about any of the topics
being discussed in this thread.
> I have adapted a couple of Olympus extreme macros (20 and
>38mm) to Nikon, and they perform spectacularly with absolutely flat plane of
>focus and a complete visible lack of spherical or chromatic aberration (or
>pincushion/barrel distortion at focusing distances down to one mm or so.
>>
>>>, all but impossible.
>>
>> That only proves to me that you know very little about lenses,
>> focal-lengths,
>> and apertures, and how they all relate to obtaining shallow DOF. Getting
>> shallow
>> DOF is child's-play on a P&S camera. You just have to know more than how
>> to read
>> camera reviews and pursue a career as a troll on the internet while
>> parroting
>> the stupidity of other net trolls, because you too have as little real
>> experience as they.
>
>So then explain to me how to get the equivalent DOF of a 300mm f2.8 lens
>from a 50mm f3.5 lens please.
There is very simple way. :-) But you claim to be so intelligent, I'll let you
figure it out. You won't get the same aperture on both, but I can guarantee you
that the DOF will be identical. Oh ye of so little experience. Tell you what,
talk to all those other "pros" that you rub noses with, see if any of them know.
If not, you'll understand for all the "LOL"s typed above. :-)
They probably didn't learn it in their Little_Houses,_made_of_ticky-tacky
"School of Pros" (music reference that will go right over your head) so they
don't know how it can be done. Just as you don't know, because you learned from
and are photographing the same things as they were taught to do. (You should get
a new legal name: Toby <surname>, Ltd.)
>
>>> So there is certainly a place for P&S cameras, but they will
>>>never replace DSLRs.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. I've been real-pro photographer all my life (one who can say that
>> without
>> even flinching). I have a whole archive of film cameras, now as collectors
>> items. When I found out that, in the hands of a truly talented
>> photographer, a
>> P&S camera can do more and do it better than any DSLR in existence I got
>> rid of
>> all those DSLRs that I had tested and had high hopes for.
>>
>> You'll learn. So too will others. If they get good enough at photography
>> one
>> day. People who keep promoting the DSLR-ONLY mantra reveal but one thing
>> to me,
>> they're just piss-poor wannabe photographers, and that's all they'll ever
>> be.
>
>Please provide a link to your galleries. How much money do you make with
>your photography? Which agencies have your images?
You're all just dying to know, aren't you. Keep dying. :-)
>
>I suspect that you are nothing but a bitter wannabe with anger issues.
>
>Toby
>
Yes, you keep believing that if you like. If that makes it easier for you to
stomach all the facts that I've posted about P&S cameras, so be it. No skin off
my nose if you don't like it. Facts is facts. You'll have to face them, someday.
Or not. Most people go to their graves blissfully ignorant. I suspect that
you'll do the same.
"Many fools stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and
hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
Toby
Please post some links to reviews of good P&S lenses.
>
> The rest of your comments are totally inaccurate, blindly-biased,
> nonsense.
>
> Do yourself a favor. Dismantle some really decent P&S lenses from their
> cameras,
> then pit them against the best DSLR glass you have, using optical-bench
> tests.
I would not doubt that P&S lenses have higher resolution than DSLR lenses.
35 mm lenses are in turn much sharper than med format, etc. They have to be
to have the same effective resolution with more magnification.
>
> You'll quickly find out you've been ignorantly parroting total nonsense.
> The
> purple-fringing of which you speak is just as much of a problem in DSLRs.
> I know
> this for a fact. You just refuse to see it. It is a product of the sensor
> technology, NOT the lens. The same type of technology used in both
> cameras. (Go
> ahead, prove more of your ignorance to the world, this is fun.)
I have no problems with purple-fringing in any of my DSLR lenses. Lateral
chromatic aberration yes, but not axial. Why is that do you suppose?
> I've already proved that P&S lenses can be faster than any DSLR glass that
> will
> ever be made. Haven't you been reading the threads? Or was this just a
> troll of
> yours so I'll post that proof again?
I haven't been following your threads. Just give me a link. Since light
gathering power is a function of objective diameter over focal length, this
can be scaled for any sensor or film size, although there are certainly
practical limits.
And you have some galleries to show off your splendid work?
>
> Why do you think CHDK is such a boon to someone like me? Do you have need
> for
> everything up to 1/40,000 second shutter speeds? Can you even imagine what
> types
> of subjects might require that? I need those shutter speeds. In fact I
> wish my
> cameras could go even faster than that. I know the huge pool of subjects
> that
> they are good for. Do you? Those shutter-speeds have opened up yet another
> vast
> realm of subjects that people like you will never photograph, nor even
> think of
> photographing. Your limited experiences and expectations in life haven't
> revealed those subjects to you.
>
> This is what makes the difference between men and boys with their toys.
> People
> like myself are the ones that provide revolutionary photographs that none
> of you
> will even think of being able to do in your lifetimes. You can't. You have
> crippled yourselves with your own limited beliefs, limited tools, and
> limited
> experiences.
>
> Limited? You don't even know what limited means, because you're living it,
> breathing it, thinking it.
You need help. Please look for a therapist Arlan.
Toby
graham.watsen
>
>Please post some links to reviews of good P&S lenses.
You have obviously mistaken me for some menial employee of yours, or someone who
would be foolish enough to help something as ignorant as you for free. Trust me,
even if you did want to hire my services, you and everyone you know put together
couldn't even begin to afford it.
I will, however, leave you with one bit of help. Help that you sorely need:
EDUCATE YOURSELF
I'll just never understand those that purposely choose to remain ignorant their
whole lives and then blame others for it. Perhaps they value a comforting bliss
borne of ignorance more than harsh and biting wisdom borne of truth. There are
many smiling giggling drooling children in wheelchairs that will get all they
need in life, blissfully ignorant of the reality around them and will never want
for more, their lives fulfilled. The horrendously sad part is when perfectly
healthy adults intentionally choose the same goal and way of life--drooling and
ignorant in their self-constructed, self-imposed, self-constrained limitations.
Enjoy your comfy cerebral wheelchair and its production of giggle-wrapped drool.
Robert Coe
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: >> Needn't worry, that piece of shit will be out of office very soon
: >> and Obama will bring prosperity to the US. I do have to admit that
: >> the Bush years were great for me economically. He ran the country
: >> into the shitter and created a lot of bargains that were bought
: >> cheap and will cash out nicely during the Obama years. I will never
: >> forgive him for Iraq.
: >
: > The U.S.'s foeign policy adventures have encompassed a wide range of
: > motivations and outcomes. Some have been noble, some crassly
: > self-serving, some brilliant, and some profoundly stupid. But the
: > disingenuous, entirely unnecessary, breathtakingly self-destructive
: > invasion of Iraq stands in a class by itself. I believe that future
: > generations will count it as our darkest hour since the Civil War and
: > George Bush as the worst president in American history.
: And sadly he doesn't have the honor and backbone of the old world Japanese.
: If he did he would do the honorable thing for shaming his country.
You have to understand that he's too stupid to realize what he's done. He was
never anything but a stooge of Richard Cheney and the rest of the Neocons
anyway.
Bob
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
35 mm rangefinder camera, a fairly nice thing with a 50 mm
f/2.8 lens, and an old but perfectly working Weston selenium
cell light meter.
Doug McDonald
J. Clarke
Geez, memories. I still have my Dad's C3 and his Weston meter
upstairs--ought to take the Argus down the way and get it cleaned and
lubed. Last time I tried it it still worked--not bad for something
that had been through WWII in the Pacific. Somehow I doubt my 30D
will still be working when it's 70 years old.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George Kerby
On 11/1/08 5:33 PM, in article 490ce74d$0$33592$742e...@news.sonic.net,
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
And you are a walking lie, Fish-head.
REALLY!