> My Kodak P850 and DX6490 digicams, both feature fairly long optical zoom > lenses (12x and 10x, respectively). When employing telephoto, on closer > subjects, I've often achieved some >very< narrow DOF.
> -- > Cordially, > John Turco <j...@concentric.net>
Yes, John, so have I with my Panasonic FZ5 P&S, but it's so much easier with the large sensor on a DSLR, and you can get the same shallow depth of field at much closer subject distances (i.e. you don't need to be at the telephoto end of the zoom) and at the telephoto end you can get much more blurred backgrounds. The shallower depth-of-field was the prime reason my wife moved from P&S (Panasonic FZ20) to DSLR. The much better high-ISO was a secondary advantage.
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:23:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >wrote in <4aeb9fa...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>nospam wrote: >>> In article <4aead29...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter >>> <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Even the big and expensive Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus >>>>> lens isn't all that close: >>>> Are you serious? The 28-300mm EF is a 10:1 zoom! Try using a _good_ lens.
>>> he's fixated on a superzoom.
>>I do own some zooms, but I prefer primes, & would never expect top >>quality out of a 10:1 zoom - even if it is an 'L' zoom.
>The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a >comparable dSLR,
No it doesn't.
> as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here >previously.
You having posted any data on the lens. You've posted data on the camera's processing of the lens.
"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:23:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> > wrote in <4aeb9fa...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>> nospam wrote: >>> In article <4aead29...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter >>> <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Even the big and expensive Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus >>>>> lens isn't all that close: >>>> Are you serious? The 28-300mm EF is a 10:1 zoom! Try using a _good_ lens.
>>> he's fixated on a superzoom.
>> I do own some zooms, but I prefer primes, & would never expect top >> quality out of a 10:1 zoom - even if it is an 'L' zoom.
> The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a > comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here > previously.
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:33:42 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in <qLRGm.131$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>"John Turco" <> wrote in message news:4AEBCBF1.8290CD2F@concentric.net... >[] >> My Kodak P850 and DX6490 digicams, both feature fairly long optical zoom >> lenses (12x and 10x, respectively). When employing telephoto, on closer >> subjects, I've often achieved some >very< narrow DOF. >Yes, John, so have I with my Panasonic FZ5 P&S, but it's so much easier >with the large sensor on a DSLR,
As you should know, it's dead easy with a Panasonic super-zoom like the (ancient) FZ5. How much easier can or need it be?
>and you can get the same shallow depth of >field at much closer subject distances (i.e. you don't need to be at the >telephoto end of the zoom)
Usually not an issue.
>and at the telephoto end you can get much more >blurred backgrounds.
Extremely shallow depth of field is usually considered a defect, not an advantage, and when an unusual image needs more, post-processing will usually give better results than any in-camera image (for me at least).
>The shallower depth-of-field was the prime reason my >wife moved from P&S (Panasonic FZ20) to DSLR.
She should of course go with what she wants/needs, but that doesn't really make much objective sense.
>The much better high-ISO >was a secondary advantage.
She should of course go with what she wants/needs.
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >John Navas wrote: > >> >> Panasonic FZ20 takes silent available light > >> >> images with its superb 36-432 mm f/2.8 zoom.
> >> ><grin> Too bad if you need a 20mm shot to > >> include the entire stage. ;^)
> >> 1. 36 mm is just fine in the great majority of cases.
> >Yet there's the entire field of "Wide Angle" which not only starts at > >lower focal lengths (35mm), but because it been around for 40+ years > >(just go look at your father's Kodachrome 64's from your family > >vacations), it isn't at all unknown or uncommon.
> Attesting to your trolls' ignorance and inexperience (again), I found a > wonderful, and yet (surprisingly) inexpensive, fish-eye adapter ...
Which (paraphrasing) has vignetting at the one end, and is soft at the other ... but other than that, its the epitome of perfection! Gosh Golly Gee!
> I've already posted one fisheye image proving this...
Gosh, I must have missed that, with all your easy-to-ignore/killfile nymshifting. Please provide proof by citing the URL to your post as archived in Google Groups, lest this be assumed to be yet another lame lie. Afterall, its just a Copy & Paste ... you've already proven the ability to do that.
> Proved 100%.
Just like your vast experience in BJ's from strange men!
> Let us all watch them now act as definitive experts about equipment that > they have never actually used ... As all insecure DSLR-Trolls always do.
FWIW, I own a clip-on adaptor for one of my camera systems. It has its place, but it does invariably compromise the system's optics. Part of the reason why is that a simple flush attachment onto a thread mount, etc, simply can't be reliably indexed to within a 1/10th of a wavelength to effect a perfect optical alignment so as to eliminate chromatic aberrations, overall softness, etc...its YA trade-off.
John Navas wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:21:28 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> > wrote in <4aeb9f2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>> John Navas wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:44:05 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >>> wrote in <4aead18...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>> tony cooper wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:03:53 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN! >>>>> <o...@myaddress.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Just as a DSLR is a "master of none". It's not even a "jack of all trades" >>>>>> It can't be used silently so as to take photos of wild animals without >>>>>> changing their behavior, your presence alerted to them by the sound of your >>>>>> camera, or the subject fleeing without you getting a second chance to take >>>>>> a shot.
>>>>>> It can't be taken into most public performances these days due to the >>>>>> intrusive and obnoxious qualities of them. >>>>> That, in itself, is one of the best reasons to own a dslr and not a >>>>> p&s. I don't like paying for a ticket and have some idiot in front of >>>>> me standing up to fire off a flash picture of dots in the distance. >>>> Too true. Any time I'm photographing a gig, I'm an invited guest. If >>>> some P&S shooter refuses to move out of the way, I can just ask security >>>> to move them for me. >>> How silly and arrogant. I'd hazard a guess that you're no more welcome. >> Like I said, I'm generally shooting at the invitation of the performers.
> Read what I wrote more carefully.
Read what I wrote more carefully - I'm talking about gigs that the performers have invited me to photograph. Naturally, my needs take priority over random people with P&S cameras. (Or worse yet, people trying to get photos with camera-phones.)
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
John Navas wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:23:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> > wrote in <4aeb9fa...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>> nospam wrote: >>> In article <4aead29...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter >>> <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Even the big and expensive Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus >>>>> lens isn't all that close: >>>> Are you serious? The 28-300mm EF is a 10:1 zoom! Try using a _good_ lens. >>> he's fixated on a superzoom. >> I do own some zooms, but I prefer primes, & would never expect top >> quality out of a 10:1 zoom - even if it is an 'L' zoom.
> The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a > comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here > previously.
Really? I must have missed that post. Care to post the link again?
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
> Sharpness: The wide-angle end of the Panasonic FZ28's zoom is > surprisingly sharp from center to corner, but the telephoto end is > quite soft in some corners.
> quite soft in some corners??? so much for outperforming a fixed focal > length lens. and although not about the lens, this camera is relatively > slow:
> Shutter lag: Full autofocus shutter lag is good, at 0.50 second at > wide angle and 0.81 second at full telephoto.
LOL. 0.5 - 0.81 second? That's awful.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>John Navas wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:21:28 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >> wrote in <4aeb9f2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>> John Navas wrote: >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:44:05 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote in <4aead18...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>>> tony cooper wrote: >>>>>> That, in itself, is one of the best reasons to own a dslr and not a >>>>>> p&s. I don't like paying for a ticket and have some idiot in front of >>>>>> me standing up to fire off a flash picture of dots in the distance. >>>>> Too true. Any time I'm photographing a gig, I'm an invited guest. If >>>>> some P&S shooter refuses to move out of the way, I can just ask security >>>>> to move them for me. >>>> How silly and arrogant. I'd hazard a guess that you're no more welcome. >>> Like I said, I'm generally shooting at the invitation of the performers.
>> Read what I wrote more carefully.
>Read what I wrote more carefully - I'm talking about gigs that the >performers have invited me to photograph. Naturally, my needs take >priority over random people with P&S cameras. (Or worse yet, people >trying to get photos with camera-phones.)
Audience be damned. Why am I not surprised.
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
That's with full "intelligent" auto default settings. Response is excellent with appropriate settings. As you might know if you had any actual experience, and interest other than misleading bashing.
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:15:09 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote in <4aed196...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote: >> The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a >> comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here >> previously.
>Really? I must have missed that post. Care to post the link again?
"Google is your friend."
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
In article <anfre5pjvgrgae9apiofr2e721c3cn5...@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > >Read what I wrote more carefully - I'm talking about gigs that the > >performers have invited me to photograph. Naturally, my needs take > >priority over random people with P&S cameras. (Or worse yet, people > >trying to get photos with camera-phones.)
> Audience be damned. Why am I not surprised.
wtf is he supposed to do? he's *hired* by the performer or venue to take photos. should he just let the audience do what they want, even if it annoys the rest of the audience or performers??
"oh sorry, someone got in the way" is *not* going to go over well.
In article <01gre55mjnqagpo9e26rpb9ld7jd4kg...@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a > >> comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here > >> previously.
> >Really? I must have missed that post. Care to post the link again?
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:53:15 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Shutter lag: Full autofocus shutter lag is good, at 0.50 second at > wide angle and 0.81 second at full telephoto.
Unfortunately, all the P&S auto-focus speeds at dpreview's reviews are all in grievous error. Those that are testing the cameras don't know how to use contrast-detection focusing cameras properly. This always shows up as a proven fact just by the difference they have between wide-angle and telephoto auto-focus times. When contrast-detection focusing cameras are properly there is no difference between the auto-focus speed when using wide-angle or telephoto focal-lengths.
The testers at dpreview can't even hold a camera steady. That's all it amounts to. When using telephoto focal-lengths the camera-shake is amplified. The more that the still subject is moving (or a moving subject that you can't learn to pan with), the longer it takes for contrast-detection focusing to latch onto the contrasting edges to obtain the right focus. This causes the consistently longer focusing times at longer focal-lengths on all of dprevews tests of P&S cameras. Operator error. Simple and incompetent operator error. Nothing more. Always revealed by their very own test results.
You need to learn to analyze what you read and how they obtained those numbers. The numbers they obtained shows and proves operator error every time. Yet you just love to spew them like facts, don't you. Do yourself a favor, never cite any numbers from the internet again unless you yourself have personally tested them for credibility.
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:53:15 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Shutter lag: Full autofocus shutter lag is good, at 0.50 second at > wide angle and 0.81 second at full telephoto.
Unfortunately, all the P&S auto-focus speeds at dpreview's reviews are all in grievous error. Those that are testing the cameras don't know how to use contrast-detection focusing cameras properly. This always shows up as a proven fact just by the difference they have between wide-angle and telephoto auto-focus times. When contrast-detection focusing cameras are used properly there is no difference between the auto-focus speed when using wide-angle or telephoto focal-lengths.
The testers at dpreview can't even hold a camera steady. That's all it amounts to. When using telephoto focal-lengths the camera-shake is amplified. The more that the still subject is moving (or a moving subject that you can't learn to pan with), the longer it takes for contrast-detection focusing to latch onto the contrasting edges to obtain the right focus. This causes the consistently longer focusing times at longer focal-lengths on all of dprevews tests of P&S cameras. Operator error. Simple and incompetent operator error. Nothing more. Always revealed by their very own test results.
You need to learn to analyze what you read and how they obtained those numbers. The numbers they obtained shows and proves operator error every time. Yet you just love to spew them like facts, don't you. Do yourself a favor, never cite any numbers from the internet again unless you yourself have personally tested them for credibility.
John Navas wrote: > On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:15:09 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> > wrote in <4aed196...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a >>> comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here >>> previously. >> Really? I must have missed that post. Care to post the link again?
> "Google is your friend."
In other words: "No, I can't."
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:04:57 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote in <4aee4c5...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:15:09 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >> wrote in <4aed196...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a >>>> comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here >>>> previously. >>> Really? I must have missed that post. Care to post the link again?
>> "Google is your friend."
>In other words: "No, I can't."
In other words, "No I can't be baited with silly, childish taunts." You obviously have no real interest.
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
In article <dapue5ls83nh73apv9km3lnue8ch7hv...@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>>> The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a > >>>> comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here > >>>> previously. > >>> Really? I must have missed that post. Care to post the link again?
> >> "Google is your friend."
> >In other words: "No, I can't."
> In other words, "No I can't be baited with silly, childish taunts." > You obviously have no real interest.
you made the claim. back it up. it shouldn't take more than a minute (if that long) to locate it and post the link.
"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:04:57 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> > wrote in <4aee4c5...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>> John Navas wrote: >>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:15:09 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >>> wrote in <4aed196...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> The Panasonic Leica super-zoom actually outperforms a prime on a >>>>> comparable dSLR, as shown by 3rd-party test data I've posted here >>>>> previously. >>>> Really? I must have missed that post. Care to post the link again?
>>> "Google is your friend."
>> In other words: "No, I can't."
> In other words, "No I can't be baited with silly, childish taunts." > You obviously have no real interest.
Set your clock, NavASS, you're still on your P&S Troll time.
Certainly better than a "crappy P&S", but not a better compact digital -- while I'm getting excellent images with my optically stabilized 486 mm reach, you're at most getting useless specks, and not able to even get a comparable shot while I'm shooting 27 mm wide angle.
===================================
Aww, don't tell the poor guy that.
He spent lots of money so he could brag about having the best. (or better)
And in hopes of making up for his lack in some other area. (IQ, weaner)
> "John Turco" <> wrote in message news:4AEBCBF1.8290CD2F@concentric.net... > [] > > My Kodak P850 and DX6490 digicams, both feature fairly long optical zoom > > lenses (12x and 10x, respectively). When employing telephoto, on closer > > subjects, I've often achieved some >very< narrow DOF.
> Yes, John, so have I with my Panasonic FZ5 P&S, but it's so much easier > with the large sensor on a DSLR, and you can get the same shallow depth of > field at much closer subject distances (i.e. you don't need to be at the > telephoto end of the zoom) and at the telephoto end you can get much more > blurred backgrounds. The shallower depth-of-field was the prime reason my > wife moved from P&S (Panasonic FZ20) to DSLR. The much better high-ISO > was a secondary advantage.
Still, even on close-up shots, my two "super zoom" cameras both excel. For example, a flower will typically appear to practically jump out of my monitor screen, as it's so isolated from its background...a kind of "3D" effect, as it were.
My lone DSLR (Pentax K100D) can't match such "bokeh," it seems. However, I have only one compatible lens (28mm F3.5-80mm F5.6), which was bundled with my Pentax ZX-60 kit (35mm autofocus SLR); better "glass" would improve the K100D's overall performance, most likely.
> Still, even on close-up shots, my two "super zoom" cameras both excel. > For example, a flower will typically appear to practically jump out > of my monitor screen, as it's so isolated from its background...a kind > of "3D" effect, as it were.
> My lone DSLR (Pentax K100D) can't match such "bokeh," it seems. However, > I have only one compatible lens (28mm F3.5-80mm F5.6), which was bundled > with my Pentax ZX-60 kit (35mm autofocus SLR); better "glass" would > improve the K100D's overall performance, most likely.
> For my tastes, Roger Clark's Web site is far too technical to be > interesting.
> -- > Cordially, > John Turco <j...@concentric.net>
I'm trying to compare as near as possible like with like, so at the same 35mm equivalent focal length and f/number. You can indeed get good results with a small-sensor camera if you know how to use it.
|
