Anyone here use a Panasonic DMW-LT55 Teleconverter?
Paul Ciszek
FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger
than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is
still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my
options?
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Peter
news:hita6n$phj$2...@reader1.panix.com...
Try a square polarizer. Of course, you will need an adaptor. Decent ones are
manufactured by Cokin and Tiffen. there may be other brands, but I have
never used them. And no, they are not cheap.
--
Peter
Better Info
wrote:
>I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix
>FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger
>than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is
>still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my
>options?
Get a good quality 55mm polarizer with a strong filter-ring mount. You
mount the polarizer between teleconverter and camera. Be sure to get a
polarizer that can hold up to the weight of the lens hanging off of it and
that it won't pull the polarizer apart from the stress. A rotating-ring
filter mount is not as sturdy as a solid one-piece construction
filter-ring. Or just be very astute to always support the lens properly
when you are using a polarizer in this manner.
There's a reason that teleconverters for P&S cameras are made so large in
aperture. At the widest aperture setting of the camera it will not diminish
the camera's own f/ratio one bit no matter what zoom setting you use. The
same cannot be said of teleconverters which go between lens and dSLR
cameras, which halve the effective aperture. Making them all but useless
except on a sturdy tripod.
SMS
> I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix
> FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger
> than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is
> still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my
> options?
You should get the Nikon TC-E15ED and the appropriate adapter instead.
This is what many Panasonic owners do. The Nikon adapter is threaded for
filters. It's only 1.5x rather than the LT55 which is 1.7x. There's also
a Nikon TC-E17ED but these are very expensive (used).
You do realize of course that you're spending all this money on
teleconverters and adapters, essentially trying to duplicate the
functionality of a D-SLR. Been there, done that. You'll never achieve
anywhere close to the quality of a D-SLR with these converters and
adapters, and by the time you're done you'll be carrying around just as
much weight. Time to cut your losses and get a D-SLR.
Paul Ciszek
In article <4b5259c1$0$1618$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>> I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix
>> FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger
>> than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is
>> still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my
>> options?
>
>You should get the Nikon TC-E15ED and the appropriate adapter instead.
Is this sort of stuff documented somewhere? For example, even with
the Panasonic teleconverter, the adapter needed depends on the model
of the camera, and the FZ35 isn't listed in a lot of places because
it's new. The Panasonic manual tells me which Panasonic converter
and adapter works with the FZ35; it sure ain't gonna tell me which
Nikon parts to use. Or is the Nikon converter made to match the
Panasonic camera?
>This is what many Panasonic owners do. The Nikon adapter is threaded for
>filters. It's only 1.5x rather than the LT55 which is 1.7x. There's also
>a Nikon TC-E17ED but these are very expensive (used).
>
>You do realize of course that you're spending all this money on
>teleconverters and adapters, essentially trying to duplicate the
>functionality of a D-SLR. Been there, done that. You'll never achieve
>anywhere close to the quality of a D-SLR with these converters and
>adapters, and by the time you're done you'll be carrying around just as
>much weight. Time to cut your losses and get a D-SLR.
I may have misunderstood this, but I thought that in order to acheive
a telephoto capability comparable to my 18x zoom plus the teleconverter
on an SLR, I would have to get a lens the size of a fireplace log,
costing thousands of dollars. Is that not the case?
Peter
Depends on the quality you need/are looking for. Nikon makes a perfectly
acceptable 70-300 zoom, without bells and whistles:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-6G-Nikkor-Worldwide/dp/B00008B0Z6.
I know someone who has used this lens for years and she sells her photos for
between $50 and $750.
--
Peter
Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:
>
Let me be the first to apologize for all the dSLR-Trolls in these
newsgroups.
First of all, not one of them even owns a camera. They only know of their
existence from ads, reviews, and manuals that they download off the net.
Second, their experience with cameras is just as delusional. They love to
live vicariously through others, trying to convince others to buy the
cameras they wish they could have, never realizing that those "dream
cameras" are not what everyone makes them out to be. They also always try
to convince everyone to post photos so they have something to look at, they
are that desperate for any glimpse of the world beyond their
basement-bedroom walls. They know not of what they speak when it comes to
real-world situations and real cameras. They use these newsgroups like some
role-play adventure game. They think they win if they can convince someone
they have ever held a real camera in their lives. Reading their posts and
advice, it becomes quickly obvious that that has never been the case.
And yes, you are correct about lenses and cameras. Many many superzoom and
other P&S cameras today easily beat the optics and image quality from many
dSLRs and any of their available lenses. The P&S lenses consistently win in
CA performance, field-flatness, and especially in aperture at long focal
lengths. So much so that they can't even be made at those apertures and
focal lengths for dSLRs unless you consider an 18" dia. catadioptric
telescope weighing in at over 250 lbs to reach the equivalent focal-lengths
and apertures available to a super-zoom P&S camera. These role-playing
dSLR-Trolls just don't want to admit any of this. Because then all those
manuals they downloaded, all those ads and reviews that they studied for
years to play their role-play pretend-photographer game was all for naught.
It's all very sad. You just have to know more than they do from real-life
photography experience to see through their role-playing schtick.
Ray Fischer
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Ray Fischer, one of the most well-known pretend-photographer resident
trolls, right on cue! LOL
Bruce
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>Depends on the quality you need/are looking for. Nikon makes a perfectly
>acceptable 70-300 zoom, without bells and whistles:
>http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-6G-Nikkor-Worldwide/dp/B00008B0Z6.
There's obviously a very wide variation in what different people would
find "acceptable".
The AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G is one of Nikon's worst ever telephoto
zooms. with its only redeeming feature being the very low price. You
get what you pay for, and this is a junk lens at a junk price.
>I know someone who has used this lens for years and she sells her photos for
>between $50 and $750.
I bet her other camera is a Lomo. ;-)
Peter
news:4hp5l5dh634dmkqfq...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:10:28 -0500, "Peter"
> <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>Depends on the quality you need/are looking for. Nikon makes a perfectly
>>acceptable 70-300 zoom, without bells and whistles:
>>http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-6G-Nikkor-Worldwide/dp/B00008B0Z6.
>
>
> There's obviously a very wide variation in what different people would
> find "acceptable".
>
> The AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G is one of Nikon's worst ever telephoto
> zooms. with its only redeeming feature being the very low price. You
> get what you pay for, and this is a junk lens at a junk price.
I woder if you have ever used that lens.
Optically at f8-f11 the lens is nice and crisp. It is not a professional
lens tha twill stand up to abuse.
>
>
>>I know someone who has used this lens for years and she sells her photos
>>for
>>between $50 and $750.
>
>
> I bet her other camera is a Lomo. ;-)
>
D70 is her only camera.
I repeat. Have you ever used this lens? If so for what? If not, don't
believe all the nit picking reviews.
--
Peter
Bruce
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4hp5l5dh634dmkqfq...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:10:28 -0500, "Peter"
>> <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Depends on the quality you need/are looking for. Nikon makes a perfectly
>>>acceptable 70-300 zoom, without bells and whistles:
>>>http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-6G-Nikkor-Worldwide/dp/B00008B0Z6.
>>
>>
>> There's obviously a very wide variation in what different people would
>> find "acceptable".
>>
>> The AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G is one of Nikon's worst ever telephoto
>> zooms. with its only redeeming feature being the very low price. You
>> get what you pay for, and this is a junk lens at a junk price.
>
>I woder if you have ever used that lens.
I have not only used it, but had it bench tested for a magazine
review. We couldn't believe how bad it was, and obtained another
sample. That was, if anything, even worse. It's a pile of junk.
>Optically at f8-f11 the lens is nice and crisp.
Even the worst lenses can produce reasonably sharp images at f/8 or
f/11. Even some of the horrors that Cosina have produced - among the
worst lenses ever made for 35mm SLRs - are almost acceptable at those
apertures.
The problems start when you use the lens at wider apertures. Wide
open, the lens is desperately bad. At focal lengths over 200mm it is
unusable. Unusable, unless of course you have extremely low
standards, as so many amateur photographers do.
>It is not a professional lens that will stand up to abuse.
It isn't even a competent lens. It is truly dire. Without doubt, one
of the worst lenses ever to wear a Nikon badge.
>>>I know someone who has used this lens for years and she sells her photos
>>>for
>>>between $50 and $750.
>>
>>
>> I bet her other camera is a Lomo. ;-)
>>
>
>
>D70 is her only camera.
The D70's 6 MP sensor is hardly going to test a lens, is it? She
really would get better results with a Lomo.
>I repeat. Have you ever used this lens? If so for what? If not, don't
>believe all the nit picking reviews.
Why would I not believe them? I wrote one of them. Other reviewers
seem to agree that this is a very poor lens, although their reviews
are laced with varying degrees of politeness.
I say it's junk, but it's obviously more than good enough for you -
and your "professional" friend with her 6 MP DSLR. ROTFL!!
One thing that never ceases to surprise me is just how low some
people's standards are.
Peter
>
> I have not only used it, but had it bench tested for a magazine
> review. We couldn't believe how bad it was, and obtained another
> sample. That was, if anything, even worse. It's a pile of junk.
>
>
>>Optically at f8-f11 the lens is nice and crisp.
>
>
> Even the worst lenses can produce reasonably sharp images at f/8 or
> f/11. Even some of the horrors that Cosina have produced - among the
> worst lenses ever made for 35mm SLRs - are almost acceptable at those
> apertures.
You just made my point. If a person can make good shots within that limit,
why spend extra money.
>
> The problems start when you use the lens at wider apertures. Wide
> open, the lens is desperately bad. At focal lengths over 200mm it is
> unusable.
Agreed.
> Unusable, unless of course you have extremely low
> standards, as so many amateur photographers do.
>
Unfair comment. See above
>
>>It is not a professional lens that will stand up to abuse.
>
>
> It isn't even a competent lens. It is truly dire. Without doubt, one
> of the worst lenses ever to wear a Nikon badge.
The original, pre-AI 35-70 f3.5, was much worse.
>
>
>>>>I know someone who has used this lens for years and she sells her photos
>>>>for
>>>>between $50 and $750.
>>>
>>>
>>> I bet her other camera is a Lomo. ;-)
>>>
>>
>>
>>D70 is her only camera.
>
>
> The D70's 6 MP sensor is hardly going to test a lens, is it? She
> really would get better results with a Lomo.
Again, the combinatin works for her. People pay good money for her shots and
she is recognized as an artist. It does not matter that some think it is a
crap lens. It does the intended job.
>
>
>>I repeat. Have you ever used this lens? If so for what? If not, don't
>>believe all the nit picking reviews.
>
>
> Why would I not believe them? I wrote one of them. Other reviewers
> seem to agree that this is a very poor lens, although their reviews
> are laced with varying degrees of politeness.
>
> I say it's junk, but it's obviously more than good enough for you -
> and your "professional" friend with her 6 MP DSLR. ROTFL!!
>
> One thing that never ceases to surprise me is just how low some
> people's standards are.
>
You are forgetting that the purpose of a camera and lens is to satisfy the
maker, not a reviewer.
While I agree that all too often standards are low, in this case it is the
right tool for the right job. BTW that combo certainly beats many P&SO
boxes.
Some may say a pinhole image is junk. Many others agree it can very well be
art.
All I know is that she makes nice prints, that sell and is well recognized
and accepted in the art community. (She was invited to put on a one person
exhibit, but has no time.) I guess she squeaks by on her composition and
lighting techniques. Whether a higher end combination would bring in more
dollars is debatable.
--
Peter
Paul Ciszek
>> I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix
>> FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger
>> than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is
>> still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my
>> options?
>
>You should get the Nikon TC-E15ED and the appropriate adapter instead.
>This is what many Panasonic owners do. The Nikon adapter is threaded for
>filters. It's only 1.5x rather than the LT55 which is 1.7x. There's also
>a Nikon TC-E17ED but these are very expensive (used).
I have searced around. What is the appropraite adapter for putting
a Nikon TC-E15ED onto a Lumix FZ35? Nikon sells adapters for putting
the Nikon TC-E15ED on their cameras--and there are a different
adapters for different models. Panasonic sells adapters for putting
their teleconverter on their cameras--again, different adapters for
different models. So far, no site I have seen mentions which
adapter(s) are needed to consumate the star-crossed union of a Lumix
FZ35 and Nikon TC-E15ED. Note that these adapters are not just sizing
rings, they have length as well.
--
Please reply to: | "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
pciszek at panix dot com | above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
Autoreply is disabled | --Thorin Oakenshield
Bruce
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>Some may say a pinhole image is junk. Many others agree it can very well be
>art.
Thank you for establishing just how low your standards are. ;-)
Peter
Are you claiming that one cannot produce art with a pinhole?
--
Peter
Bruce
I would never claim that I could produce art with any kind of camera.
You can claim whatever you want to.
Peter
Please answer the question.
--
Peter
Bruce
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ke47l5dl60cqkj60t...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:20:07 -0500, "Peter"
>> <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:o6o6l55qhgavrjprt...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:00:09 -0500, "Peter"
>>>> <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Some may say a pinhole image is junk. Many others agree it can very well
>>>>>be
>>>>>art.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for establishing just how low your standards are. ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you claiming that one cannot produce art with a pinhole?
>>
>>
>> I would never claim that I could produce art with any kind of camera.
>> You can claim whatever you want to.
>>
>
>Please answer the question.
You can probably produce art with your asshole.
Paul Ciszek
thing: See how this has devolved into a pissing match? Meanwhile,
my question about which adapter would properly join the Nikon
teleconverter to the Lumix FZ35 goes unanswered, so I guess I'll
just have to stick with the Panasonic teleconverter.
BTW, as for the polarizer question, there is a sub-optimal solution:
Since the lens of the camera is zooming back and forth within the
connecting barrel and is not attached to anything, I can still put
a rotatable polarizer on it. (Yes, there is enough clearance; I
checked.) It means figuring out the right orientation of the polarizer
(which, for sky dimming, is not always going to be the same) before
putting the teleconverter on, but oh well.
Paul Ciszek
In article <voe5l558lui08ke82...@4ax.com>,
>photography experience to see through their role-playing schtick.
And yet you do not seem to have any usefull suggestions in reply to my
original questions, any more than they did. So much for "real-life
photography experience" vs. "role-playing schtick".
Paul Ciszek
In article <hj22os$goq$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <voe5l558lui08ke82...@4ax.com>,
>Outing Trolls is FUN! <ot...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>
>>It's all very sad. You just have to know more than they do from real-life
>>photography experience to see through their role-playing schtick.
>
>And yet you do not seem to have any usefull suggestions in reply to my
>original questions, any more than they did. So much for "real-life
>photography experience" vs. "role-playing schtick".
Oops, I appologize to those who did suggest ways of attaching a
polarizer. The only person I intended to insult was trollouter.
me
Ciszek) wrote:
>I have that trollouter guy killfiled, but he is right about one
>thing: See how this has devolved into a pissing match? Meanwhile,
>my question about which adapter would properly join the Nikon
>teleconverter to the Lumix FZ35 goes unanswered, so I guess I'll
>just have to stick with the Panasonic teleconverter.
You might see if some of the Nextphoto.net adapters might be useful.
I used one on their filter adapters for my old Nikon CP-5700.
Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:
>
>In article <voe5l558lui08ke82...@4ax.com>,
>Outing Trolls is FUN! <ot...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>
>>It's all very sad. You just have to know more than they do from real-life
>>photography experience to see through their role-playing schtick.
>
>And yet you do not seem to have any usefull suggestions in reply to my
>original questions, any more than they did. So much for "real-life
>photography experience" vs. "role-playing schtick".
You're not too bright, are you. But then that's pretty obvious when you
can't even figure out such a simple solution on your own even before you
posted here.
SMS
> Is this sort of stuff documented somewhere? For example, even with
> the Panasonic teleconverter, the adapter needed depends on the model
> of the camera, and the FZ35 isn't listed in a lot of places because
> it's new. The Panasonic manual tells me which Panasonic converter
> and adapter works with the FZ35; it sure ain't gonna tell me which
> Nikon parts to use. Or is the Nikon converter made to match the
> Panasonic camera?
No, it isn't really documented. You have to search for it. But it's been
common practice to use tele-converters and wide-angle converters that
are different brands than the one the camera manufacturer offers for its
own cameras. The reasons are many. There's optical quality, there's
threading or lack there-of, and there's the trade-offs in the adapter
since some adapters block sensors or flashes in the camera body and some
don't. When I bought a wide-angle converter for my old Canon G2 I ended
up with an adapter from Lensmate and the converter from Olympus because
there were so many reports of the limitations of the Canon solution. It
worked as well as such a kludge could be expected to work, but it took
what was an excellent point and shoot camera and turned into rather a
mediocre one.
> I may have misunderstood this, but I thought that in order to acheive
> a telephoto capability comparable to my 18x zoom plus the teleconverter
> on an SLR, I would have to get a lens the size of a fireplace log,
> costing thousands of dollars. Is that not the case?
It may be, but remember what you're really getting with the 18x zoom,
you're essentially doing a digital zoom because of the tiny sensor in
the P&S. On a D-SLR you can always crop since the original image is so
much higher quality to begin with.
Believe me, you're not the first person that's tried to do what you're
doing with these converter lenses. You do get the extra zoom, but at a
huge penalty in quality. There's just no way around it.
SMS
> And yet you do not seem to have any usefull suggestions in reply to my
> original questions, any more than they did. So much for "real-life
> photography experience" vs. "role-playing schtick".
He is the unintended consequence of our 1st amendment.
Paul Ciszek
In article <4pe9l5hou6dj3edol...@4ax.com>,
It looks like they all say "For use with filters only! Do not use with
accessory lenses." Thanks, though.
Paul Ciszek
In article <4b54ffcd$0$1647$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>Believe me, you're not the first person that's tried to do what you're
>doing with these converter lenses. You do get the extra zoom, but at a
>huge penalty in quality. There's just no way around it.
When I really know what I am doing, I may graduate to an SLR. I never
did very well with a borrowed film SLR; I was able to take better pictures
with my pathetic little Olympus digital camera (I don't know the model
offhand). The Lumix is much, much better than that Olympus and in a
price range such that I was able to get one for Christmas. The telephoto
capability cost only a couple hundred more.
I tested the Lumix at maximum zoom with the teleconverter, and the pictures
seemed crisp enough when viewed 1:1 on a computer monitor. It should take
me a little while to become disappointed with the what Lumix can do. I
hope.
SMS
> I have that trollouter guy killfiled, but he is right about one
> thing: See how this has devolved into a pissing match? Meanwhile,
> my question about which adapter would properly join the Nikon
> teleconverter to the Lumix FZ35 goes unanswered, so I guess I'll
> just have to stick with the Panasonic teleconverter.
Sorry. What you need is the Panasonic DMW-LA3 (which gives you 55mm
threading) and the 55-50mm step-down ring from Pemaraal.com. The Nikon
TC-E15ED is 50mm on the back side, and threaded for 58mm filters.
Note that the TC-E15ED is no longer being manufactured so it's hard to
find and expensive. Back when D-SLRs were too expensive for the
non-professional to afford there were loads of these types and
converters, along with lens tubes and adapters being manufactured for
point and shoot cameras. They were always kludgey, with sub-par optical
quality and had other limitations as well, but it's what you did if you
wanted longer telephoto or wider wide-angle. Ironically, now you have to
pay a lot more money to buy these kludges because they're out of
production. With Canon and Nikon you had after-market tubes because
their point and shoot cameras were sold in such high volumes, and you
could find tubes that didn't require an additional step-up or step-down
ring, but with less popular cameras, like Panasonics, no one would do
after-market tubes (at least not that I'm aware of).
I'm not saying that you should get the TC-E15ED, just that it's a
solution that allows you to use filters and polarizers, and is likely no
worse than the all-Panasonic solution. Personally I'd stop spending
money on this, and start building your D-SLR ecosystem.
LOL!
Keeping in mind that this is advice is coming from a psychotic
pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll, as they all are.
For those that want a laugh and to learn what a psychotic, mommy's-basement
living, virtual-life, role-playing troll that this SMS really is, read
this:
<http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>
LOL!
SMS
> Ditto. Enjoying mine and allowing me photos that otherwise simply
> wouldn't be there.
Enjoy it for what it is. It's already a super-zoom with 27mm to 486mm.
Don't try to make it extreme wide-angle or create a 700mm telephoto.
Those converter lenses will turn what is a decent super-zoom P&S camera
into a lousy one.
Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:
>
>In article <4b54ffcd$0$1647$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Believe me, you're not the first person that's tried to do what you're
>>doing with these converter lenses. You do get the extra zoom, but at a
>>huge penalty in quality. There's just no way around it.
>
>When I really know what I am doing, I may graduate to an SLR. I never
>did very well with a borrowed film SLR; I was able to take better pictures
>with my pathetic little Olympus digital camera (I don't know the model
>offhand). The Lumix is much, much better than that Olympus and in a
>price range such that I was able to get one for Christmas. The telephoto
>capability cost only a couple hundred more.
>
>I tested the Lumix at maximum zoom with the teleconverter, and the pictures
>seemed crisp enough when viewed 1:1 on a computer monitor. It should take
>me a little while to become disappointed with the what Lumix can do. I
>hope.
When you get really good at photography then you'll realize that you have
more camera in your hands at this very moment than you'll ever need in
life. The better you become at photography the less you become dependent on
what your camera can do for you--the fewer crutches you'll need.
Those who promote DSLRs fall into one of several online camps:
The virtual-life role-playing troll who only parrots what others say or
what they read somewhere else posted by an equally ignorant troll, just
because they are desperate for acceptance. This comprises the vast majority
of them.
The "I can't get a good photograph so it must be the camera's fault!" camp.
These are the kind that don't even know how to use the mirror in their
bathroom. They are forever hoping that their next DSLR comes included with
a "Talent Mode" some day.
The "You get what you pay for!" camp. These are the ones that made P.T.
Barnum so wealthy with his oft-quoted saying, "There's a sucker born every
minute" and the even older saying of "A fool and his money are soon
parted." If you doubt this to be true just look up any threads (with posted
photo examples) on the Leica M8 camera. For $6,000 you too can get images
just as good as that Barbie Cam sold in a bubble-pack hanging in the
toy-aisle at Walmart. But don't you dare tell an M8 owner that! They got
what they paid for! It MUST be a good camera! LOL The funniest part of all,
the Barbie Cam would last longer. The M8 is prone to having the base crack
off of it while mounted on a tripod, thereby throwing their camera and lens
into the pavement.
Then there's the "Look at me! Look what I'm wearing around my neck!" camp.
They buy cameras to try to impress others. Never learning how to properly
use one.
Another huge camp is the "DSLR-Snapshooters". These are the ones who tout
the virtues of the many features of DSLRs but never find a way to take it
off of auto-everything point and shoot mode. These are the ones who pride
their cameras on being the fastest in auto-focusing, even though all DSLRs
are less accurate than contrast-detection focusing P&S cameras. The fastest
in burst-shooting modes. Because they have to depend on machine-gun methods
to hopefully find one photo out of the bunch that week that might be worth
looking at, but they rarely do. The best auto-exposure methods, where the
camera should decide for them if there's a snow or sand background or a
dark stage curtain behind the subject. They're not bright enough to know
how to compensate for these things themselves, you know, like a real
photographer does. They can also be spotted by their dependency on RAW file
formats. These are the people who only depend on what the camera's
programming suggests, knowing they'll have to fix all their images later to
repair what they failed to do or their camera failed to do in the first
place. Anytime you read from a DSLR proponent that touts the virtues of one
of their automatic features you can be 100% sure you are hearing from a
lowly snapshooter, not a photographer.
The "Gear Head & Bit-Head" camp. Another huge group that you'll also find
invading newsgroups and setting up residence. Arguing for days and weeks
and months about something like their camera's problem with auto-focusing,
which camera removes dust off the sensor the best, etc. etc. etc. They only
bought a camera to argue about its problems, if they bought any camera at
all that is. They never take any photos with it. Many of these also have
never touched a camera in their life. They just like to theorize what the
best camera must be like. They live in their minds in their mommy's
basements, much like many of the other DSLR-Troll camps.
The "Insecure Buyers" camp. These are the ones that can never make a
decision for themselves in their lives. Living in a shroud of
buyer's-remorse from birth till death. They must find others to justify why
they wasted all that money on that camera, even though they now find that
their photography hasn't improved one little bit. In fact it got worse
because they aren't even bright enough to learn how to use that new camera.
They comprise a large subset of the "I can't get a good photograph so it
must be the camera's fault!" camp.
Then there's the rare rare few from the "Real Photographers" camp. These
are the ones that offer genuine advice and are quickly called "trolls" by
the throngs of online role-playing trolls. Because advice they offer from
real life experience with real cameras is in direct opposition to these
pretend-photographer role-playing idiots. There's nothing more threatening
to them than throwing reality into their pool of deranged imaginings of
hundreds of psychotic role-playing basement-living trolls. Newsgroups are
their only reality and social-contact in life. If they are proved wrong
it's like killing them. They must defend their delusional imaginings or
their virtual-life is over. It's all they have, so you can see why they go
to such great lengths to defend their position on these newsgroups. Most
from the "Real Photographers" camp sometimes give up handing out real
advice altogether, realizing how futile it is, and then just sit back and
read these newsgroups occasionally for the humor contained. The level of
ignorance and stupidity spewed by the throngs of role-playing newsgroup
trolls is often better humor than anything you'll ever find on a stand-up
comedy stage. And it's FREE!
Starting to catch on yet to what these newsgroups are all about?
Ray Fischer
>>
>>In article <4b54ffcd$0$1647$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Believe me, you're not the first person that's tried to do what you're
>>>doing with these converter lenses. You do get the extra zoom, but at a
>>>huge penalty in quality. There's just no way around it.
>>
>>When I really know what I am doing, I may graduate to an SLR. I never
>>did very well with a borrowed film SLR; I was able to take better pictures
>>with my pathetic little Olympus digital camera (I don't know the model
>>offhand). The Lumix is much, much better than that Olympus and in a
>>price range such that I was able to get one for Christmas. The telephoto
>>capability cost only a couple hundred more.
>>
>>I tested the Lumix at maximum zoom with the teleconverter, and the pictures
>>seemed crisp enough when viewed 1:1 on a computer monitor. It should take
>>me a little while to become disappointed with the what Lumix can do. I
>>hope.
>
>When you get really good at photography
That obvious rules out you, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
RichA
wrote:
Teleconverters as screw-on auxiliary lenses for P&S's are generally
junk. In order to properly cover the FOV of a superzoom, they have to
be hugely large and heavy, in some cases heavier than a lens used on a
DSLR. In addition, the optical match between superzoom camera lenses
and the converters is poor because they are basically a huge
compromise over a specific DSLR lens meant to reach a certain focal
length. The result is as expected, blurred edge detail, horrible
chromatic aberration, annoying residual spherical aberration and a
general slowdown in the already slow responsivity of all P&S's,
especially the glacially-slow and often inaccurate focusing of a
superzoom at full zoom. In addition, when they are built to the
physical size needed to properly (or sort of properly) cover the FOV,
their cost is high.
Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:
Dear Resident Pretend-Photographer DSLR-Troll,
Many points (new & improved, like #26) outlined below completely disprove
your usual resident-troll bullshit. You can either read it and educate
yourself, or don't read it and continue to prove to everyone that you are
nothing but a virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.
If nothing else, be sure to read reasons 4, 26, and 27.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
will ever be made for larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
(fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
instantly reveal to them their piss-poor photography skills. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.
26. A good P&S camera can even rival the images produced by a Medium-Format
Hasselblad H2. Something that no DSLR owner would even think of trying to
do. Even when the Hasselblad is securely mounted on an expensive and hefty
tripod, the mirror locked-up, and using a self-timer and cable-release to
trip the shutter to ensure the utmost in image resolution and clarity;
while the P&S camera was just set on top of the Hasselblad, HAND-HELD, and
the shutter tripped with a finger. The images between the two cameras are
still indistinguishable. Don't believe it? Then you need to enjoy this fun
read. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
27. Even the latest DSLR from Canon, the D7, can't beat the image quality
from their earlier G9 and G11 P&S cameras.
http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
are just better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in
just one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
a foolish thing."
SMS
> Teleconverters as screw-on auxiliary lenses for P&S's are generally
> junk. In order to properly cover the FOV of a superzoom, they have to
> be hugely large and heavy, in some cases heavier than a lens used on a
> DSLR. In addition, the optical match between superzoom camera lenses
> and the converters is poor because they are basically a huge
> compromise over a specific DSLR lens meant to reach a certain focal
> length. The result is as expected, blurred edge detail, horrible
> chromatic aberration, annoying residual spherical aberration and a
> general slowdown in the already slow responsivity of all P&S's,
> especially the glacially-slow and often inaccurate focusing of a
> superzoom at full zoom. In addition, when they are built to the
> physical size needed to properly (or sort of properly) cover the FOV,
> their cost is high.
All very true. The other issue here is that the FZ-35 is already a
super-zoom, 27-486mm. It was one thing when you had a P&S with a 35-140
lens to want to add more telephoto or more wide-angle, but let's be
practical here. You've already got a lens on the FZ-35 which is a
tremendous compromise, and you don't want to make things worse with a
screw-on converter with it's lack of optical matching between the
element of the camera lens and the converter lens. Autofocus is
compromised when you add these converters, and manual focusing on a P&S
is not nearly as accurate as on an SLR.
I can definitely see the appeal of the FZ-35 with it's wide focal range,
though personally the compromises in such a camera are not something I'd
want to put up with. If I'm going to carry something that large it'll be
an SLR. When I don't want to carry an SLR I have an SD800 with it's 28mm
(at the wide end lens), and the kids have their A570 IS's. With CHDK
installed they're very capable point and shoot cameras, but they're
still P&S cameras with all their limitations. I'm a big fan of CHDK, and
I've authored a good bit of the documentation, but unfortunately it
doesn't turn a P&S into a D-SLR.
Tom Hise
<ot...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>Dear Resident Pretend-Photographer DSLR-Troll,
TLDR
Ray Fischer
>On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:16:16 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Jan 19, 3:01�am, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...@trollouters.org>
>>wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:37:40 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>Teleconverters as screw-on auxiliary lenses for P&S's are generally
>>junk. In order to properly cover the FOV of a superzoom, they have to
>>be hugely large and heavy, in some cases heavier than a lens used on a
>>DSLR. In addition, the optical match between superzoom camera lenses
>>and the converters is poor because they are basically a huge
>>compromise over a specific DSLR lens meant to reach a certain focal
>>length. The result is as expected, blurred edge detail, horrible
>>chromatic aberration, annoying residual spherical aberration and a
>>general slowdown in the already slow responsivity of all P&S's,
>>especially the glacially-slow and often inaccurate focusing of a
>>superzoom at full zoom. In addition, when they are built to the
>>physical size needed to properly (or sort of properly) cover the FOV,
>>their cost is high.
>
>Dear Resident Pretend-Photographer DSLR-Troll,
>
>Many points (new & improved, like #26) outlined below completely disprove
Dear asshole troll:
Your crap has been refuted repeatedly. You're a liar and nobody takes
you seriously.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
LOL!
The same way you have experience with and authored this documentation?
<http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>I know someone who has used this lens for years and she sells her photos for
>>between $50 and $750.
> I bet her other camera is a Lomo. ;-)
When judging software, the questions are 'does it run on my
machine' and 'does it what I need' and 'is it hassle free'.
When the judge is a programmer himself: 'is it cleanly contructed'
and 'does it follow sane coding standards'.
Only the terminally unsure and jealous would say: 'I bet he uses a
Lomo to program, too' or snicker about the old IBM keyboard without
windows keys on it. It's completely irrelevant to the product.
Do you judge a planes' quality by how heavy it is?
Do you judge the Mona Lisa by the material value of the paint used?
So how come you judge the quality and artistic value of to you
completely unknown creations by the tool someone uses successfully?
Is it Ass-holy-ness or terminal stupidity?
Or are you terribly frustated because with all your USD 50.000
gear you still can't manage a single saleable shot?
-Wolfgang