On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:09:50 -0800 (PST), -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in <9b422e32-d03c-4489-8106-cf6a738c8...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> [other attributions] >> >> >>Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 ..
>> >> >What lens (including price, size and weight, >> >> >and how long you've owned it)?
>> [stuff edited out by John]
>> >[another choice is] The Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III sells for $160, >> >although it is f/5.6 whereas John is curious because I specifically >> >mentioned it having an f/4.0 solution. ...
>> Mediocre lens. No thanks.
>Sure, there's better (such as my f/4 solution), but this lens is >adequate for all of those "typical" uses, such as 4"x6" prints and >online Web presentation, that we hear justifies a P&S because >proverbially no one ever needs the big dSLR/lens 'overkill' to make >huge prints.
Not even close to the Leica super-zoom lens on the Panasonic. Thanks for proving my point.
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
>John Navas wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:54:18 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >> wrote in <4aef9b5...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>> John Navas wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:11:36 -0000, "No spam please" >>>> <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hcmc90$1fo...@adenine.netfront.net>:
>>>>> The difference between SLRs and vehicles is that an SLR is adaptable to the >>>>> user's changing needs. >>>> On the contrary -- dSLR is non-upgradable and rapidly obsoleted, whereas >>>> a car can be upgraded >>> WTF? How do you upgrade a car?
>By that same logic, one can upgrade one's DSLR by buying a new lens or >flash gun for it. You can't do that with your P&S.
Of course I can. You need to broaden your horizons. Start with the Panasonic accessory catalog.
-- 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 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:09:50 -0800 (PST), -hh ><recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in ><9b422e32-d03c-4489-8106-cf6a738c8...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>>John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> -hh wrote: >>> [other attributions] >>> >> >>Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 ..
>>> >> >What lens (including price, size and weight, >>> >> >and how long you've owned it)?
>>> [stuff edited out by John]
>>> >[another choice is] The Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III sells for $160, >>> >although it is f/5.6 whereas John is curious because I specifically >>> >mentioned it having an f/4.0 solution. ...
>>> Mediocre lens. No thanks.
>>Sure, there's better (such as my f/4 solution), but this lens is >>adequate for all of those "typical" uses, such as 4"x6" prints and >>online Web presentation, that we hear justifies a P&S because >>proverbially no one ever needs the big dSLR/lens 'overkill' to make >>huge prints.
>Not even close to the Leica super-zoom lens on the Panasonic.
> I'd better clarify the comment about the 747. > If one system on the aircraft (the fuel gauge system) was not immune to > intererference from another system on that aircraft (the radio > transmitters) then why should we expect any immunity from electronic > systems brought on board by passengers?
> Regards, Rog.
Rog,
It's because interference to a non-radio system from a transmitter is most likely to be due simply to the field-strength of transmitted signal, than to its exact frequency or modulation type. I.e. the signals emitted by a non-transmitting consumer electronic system are of a much lower field strength. There is probably no sensitive radio receiver in the fuel gauge system. That's why it's a reasonable expectation - in general. I should add that I don't know details of the specific systems involved, though, I'm talking in general.
> I believe Canon calls it "digital zoom," which is at least a bit more > honest. Using the word "optical" implies something to do with the lens > elements, which of course it is completely different.
> Take Care, > Dudley
No, digital zoom is something else. In the digital zoom systems I've used the camera output remains at the nominal number of megapixels, so a 200% digital zoom on an 8MP sensor uses the middle 2MP, but interpolates the result to 8MP. Under some circumstances this can be useful - I've made tests where the JPEG from a digital zoom image is marginally better than a 2:1 resize in post-processing. A 200% "extended optical zoom" simply outputs the middle part of the image as a 2MP image.
In both cases, by only using the central part of the image, the focus and exposure measurement functions can be restricted to a smaller part of the total image, and may therefore, be faster or more accurate.
I have turned off the digital zoom on my cameras, though.
> "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message > news:ES%Hm.50390$Db2.20586@edtnps83... > [] >> I believe Canon calls it "digital zoom," which is at least a bit more >> honest. Using the word "optical" implies something to do with the lens >> elements, which of course it is completely different.
>> Take Care, >> Dudley
> No, digital zoom is something else. In the digital zoom systems I've used > the camera output remains at the nominal number of megapixels, so a 200% > digital zoom on an 8MP sensor uses the middle 2MP, but interpolates the > result to 8MP. Under some circumstances this can be useful - I've made > tests where the JPEG from a digital zoom image is marginally better than a > 2:1 resize in post-processing. A 200% "extended optical zoom" simply > outputs the middle part of the image as a 2MP image.
> In both cases, by only using the central part of the image, the focus and > exposure measurement functions can be restricted to a smaller part of the > total image, and may therefore, be faster or more accurate.
> I have turned off the digital zoom on my cameras, though.
> Cheers, > David
So, the Panasonic's extended optical zoom over-rides the image size selection and outputs a smaller image as you progressively zoom out?
That would be roughly equivalent to using the digital zoom on a Canon and setting the image to a smaller size?
> So, the Panasonic's extended optical zoom over-rides the image size > selection and outputs a smaller image as you progressively zoom out?
As I understand it, yes.
> That would be roughly equivalent to using the digital zoom on a Canon > and setting the image to a smaller size?
> Take Care, > Dudley
When you say "setting the image to a smaller size", Dudley, if you mean setting the camera to 5MP rather then 10MP, the answer is no, it's not equivalent. Setting the image to a smaller size on the Canon still uses the full sensor area, and doesn't change the field of view. It simply interpolates the 10MP sensor down to 5MP (or whatever is chosen).
The extended optical zoom is more equivalent to taking a 10MP image, and cropping it in the camera down to 5MP. Perhaps what's what you meant, though.
> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message news:GP9Im.50457$Db2.22371@edtnps83... > [] >> So, the Panasonic's extended optical zoom over-rides the image size >> selection and outputs a smaller image as you progressively zoom out?
> As I understand it, yes.
>> That would be roughly equivalent to using the digital zoom on a Canon and >> setting the image to a smaller size?
>> Take Care, >> Dudley
> When you say "setting the image to a smaller size", Dudley, if you mean > setting the camera to 5MP rather then 10MP, the answer is no, it's not > equivalent. Setting the image to a smaller size on the Canon still uses > the full sensor area, and doesn't change the field of view. It simply > interpolates the 10MP sensor down to 5MP (or whatever is chosen).
> The extended optical zoom is more equivalent to taking a 10MP image, and > cropping it in the camera down to 5MP. Perhaps what's what you meant, > though.
> Cheers, > David
Yes, the latter is what I meant.
I realize that simply setting the image to a smaller size will interpolate a full sensor image down to the smaller rez, but I was thinking about the smaller size being selected in conjunction with the digital zoom being used.
I don't think the firmware would up-size the digitally zoomed image only to have to down-size it again back to something equivalent to the portion "zoomed" in to.
> I realize that simply setting the image to a smaller size will > interpolate a full sensor image down to the smaller rez, but I was > thinking about the smaller size being selected in conjunction with the > digital zoom being used.
> I don't think the firmware would up-size the digitally zoomed image only > to have to down-size it again back to something equivalent to the > portion "zoomed" in to.
> Take Care, > Dudley
Correct - it's not a double operation in the firmware, just a simple in-camera crop. Like digital zoom, it may have the advantage that functions like exposure or focus measurement can be carried out on fewer pixels, in the wanted part of the image, and may therefore be faster or more accurate. Digital zoom then simply expands the result of a crop to create the number of pixels the user expects.
Ray Fischer wrote: > John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > > -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >>Sure, there's better (such as my f/4 solution), but > >> [the Canon EF 75-300mm] lens is adequate for all > >>of those "typical" uses, such as 4"x6" prints and > >>online Web presentation, that we hear justifies a P&S > >>because proverbially no one ever needs the big dSLR/lens > >> 'overkill' to make huge prints.
> >Not even close to the Leica super-zoom lens on the Panasonic.
> Bullshitting is a poor substitute for facts.
Its also hypocrisy: since "not even close" is claiming vastly higher performance, this means that it is 'overkill' for the general application, and since it cost more than $160, then he paid 'extra' for something not needed. The only difference between what John does and what he criticizes is merely the magnitude of the infraction.
FWIW, I probably could have offered some images to 'defend' Canon's 75-300 lens series, such as:
...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions: the 75-300 is known to be soft when wide open at full extension, and this shot was under a heavy tree canopy which made it ~5 stops darker than John's comparatively easy full sunlight photo. Similarly, it was shot on film, which precluded easy/fast bumping of ISO, so combined with it being handheld, there's blur from its very slow shutter speed (1/30sec). Finally, it was only later digitized, which introduces a loss step as well.
I haven't sold off the lens, so perhaps I'll try some new shots with a digital SLR body in the next month. I'll try to make them closer to the "Sunny 16" conditions that John had, for sake of parity.
>...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of >which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions: the 75-300 is >known to be soft when wide open at full extension, and this shot was >under a heavy tree canopy which made it ~5 stops darker than John's >comparatively easy full sunlight photo. Similarly, it was shot on >film, which precluded easy/fast bumping of ISO, so combined with it >being handheld, there's blur from its very slow shutter speed >(1/30sec). Finally, it was only later digitized, which introduces a >loss step as well.
And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ...
> "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message > news:fqaIm.50462$Db2.10523@edtnps83... > [] >> I realize that simply setting the image to a smaller size will >> interpolate a full sensor image down to the smaller rez, but I was >> thinking about the smaller size being selected in conjunction with the >> digital zoom being used.
>> I don't think the firmware would up-size the digitally zoomed image only >> to have to down-size it again back to something equivalent to the portion >> "zoomed" in to.
>> Take Care, >> Dudley
> Correct - it's not a double operation in the firmware, just a simple > in-camera crop. Like digital zoom, it may have the advantage that > functions like exposure or focus measurement can be carried out on fewer > pixels, in the wanted part of the image, and may therefore be faster or > more accurate. Digital zoom then simply expands the result of a crop to > create the number of pixels the user expects.
> Cheers, > David
On my Canon A720, there is a setting that limits the amount of digital zoom depending on the image size selected.
Effectively, it won't allow upsizing.
If the large image size is selected, digital zoom is disabled, but if a smaller size is chosen, then digital zoom is allowed up until upsizing would need to be done.
> >...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of > >which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions...
> And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot > your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your > shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ...
Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S.
And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy & flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's sunlit shot.
> On my Canon A720, there is a setting that limits the amount of digital > zoom depending on the image size selected.
> Effectively, it won't allow upsizing.
> If the large image size is selected, digital zoom is disabled, but if a > smaller size is chosen, then digital zoom is allowed up until upsizing > would need to be done.
> It's a handy setting.
> Take Care, > Dudley
Although I've used neither the Panasonic "Extra Optical Zoom" nor the A720, it does sound quite similar, except that Panasonic automatically selects the smaller number of pixels.
>> >...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of >> >which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions...
>> And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot >> your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your >> shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ...
>Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I >also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online >years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S.
BETTER?? LOL!!!!!!!!!
>And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that >represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy >& flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far >revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's >sunlit shot.
>-hh
Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed from sunlight. LOL! (Yet he thinks he can get away with his DSLR-Trolls' bullshit as often as he does.)
And the stone was in your shoe, your girdle was too tight yadda yadda yadda... LOL!
(Let's all watch them again claim how JPG artifacts are NR artifacts. That's always funny.)
Taken about 5-10 minutes after sunset in a dark overgrown cypress-swamp @ 330mm, f2.4, 1/10s, ISO200, with a hand-held P&S camera, no image stabilization in that camera either. No crop, downsize only. Note: also devoid of *any* shadows on the subject whatsoever, no flash used. I happened to still have this one handy on my old HDD that I threw online last night to look for something unrelated, in my give-aways scrapshot folder before deleting it. Good thing I forgot to delete it.
With my talents and expertise, I'll beat every last one of you fool snapshooter DSLR-Trolls with *ANY* P&S camera, any time, any subject, anywhere. Guaranteed.
>Taken about 5-10 minutes after sunset in a dark overgrown cypress-swamp @ >330mm, f2.4, 1/10s, ISO200, with a hand-held P&S camera, no image >stabilization in that camera either.
For anyone that still might doubt the ambient light levels, I just noticed another telling feature in the images themselves that show the drastic differences in light levels.
Compare the birds' iris-sizes between this one of mine taken with another P&S camera that I posted earlier (using 735mm optical focal-length):
I'm sure that the more biologically astute amongst you might even be able to determine the exact ambient light levels by measuring those birds' iris sizes alone. (Within a margin of error between the dusk and daylight species' seeing requirements. As well as knowing and compensating for each species pupil and eye size. The Green Heron with the vastly larger iris size being a much smaller species than the Cormorant.)
I thought it an interesting nature-photo observation of mine. The birds' eyes reflecting the aperture of camera lens required for the light levels. And yet further proof that my images and words are not in any way equivalent to the usual DSLR-Trolls' heaps of endless bullshit.
Even my scrapshot pictures are worth more than 1,000 true words.
>>> >...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of >>> >which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions...
>>> And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot >>> your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your >>> shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ...
>>Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I >>also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online >>years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S.
>BETTER?? LOL!!!!!!!!!
More gibbering idiocy.
>>And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that >>represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy >>& flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far >>revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's >>sunlit shot.
>Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:00:24 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! ><o...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>Taken about 5-10 minutes after sunset in a dark overgrown cypress-swamp @ >>330mm, f2.4, 1/10s, ISO200, with a hand-held P&S camera, no image >>stabilization in that camera either.
>For anyone that still might doubt the ambient light levels,
> >Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
> It's not in sunlight, asshole. Get a clue.
I recall doing some research awhile back on solar-based power systems for dismounted military. Stuff was looking pretty promising until someone pointed out the 'all terrains' requirement and asked, "How well would this have worked in Vietnam?" Long story short is that in jungle triple canopy, roughly 95% of available light is absorbed before it hits the ground...and despite arguments of "find a patch of sunlight", this solar project was killed.
Applying that 95% loss in photographic terms, that's four (4) stops.
Plus armchair guesstimates based on pupil dilation fails when not comparing same-to-same. All bets are off as soon as one changes species. For example, here's resized but totally unedited images of a kingfisher and a bee eater...both with dilated eyes ... and for both, when you check the EXIF, one finds that it is a clearly non-gloomy EV 14.
>>>> ...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of >>>> which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions... >>> And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot >>> your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your >>> shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ... >> Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I >> also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online >> years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S.
> BETTER?? LOL!!!!!!!!!
>> And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that >> represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy >> & flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far >> revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's >> sunlit shot.
>> -hh
> Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed > from sunlight. LOL! (Yet he thinks he can get away with his DSLR-Trolls' > bullshit as often as he does.)
> And the stone was in your shoe, your girdle was too tight yadda yadda > yadda... LOL!
Jeez, do you think you could over-sharpen that tiny shot even more? ROTFL.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
nospam wrote: > In article <4af0e43...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter > <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> John just likes to play his little word games, and he doesn't care if he >>>> is >>>> even in the same galaxy as the rest of us, let alone the same ball park. >>> that's exactly what it is. word games. technically you can upgrade a >>> car, even though virtually nobody does it. >> And technically, buying a new lens for your DSLR is 'upgrading' it.
> or downgrading it, depending on the lens :)
There is that, of course. OTOH, you can also swap in a new memory card, or bolt on a better flash gun, all of which count as upgrades.
> although you can't swap out the cpu in a camera, there have been memory > or other hardware upgrades for some older dslrs.
> you can also add new features with a firmware upgrade. for example, the > 2.0 firmware on the nikon d70 added all of the features in the nikon > d70s that did not require a change in hardware, such as a wired remote > jack.
Indeed.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
nospam wrote: > In article <4af0e3b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter > <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> By that same logic, one can upgrade one's DSLR by buying a new lens or >> flash gun for it. You can't do that with your P&S.
> there are add on accessory lenses and if there's a hotshoe or pc > socket, an external flash can be used. worst case, use a slave.
*snicker* Yeah, *snort* I suppose *chuckle* you could do that.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote: > nospam wrote:
> > there are add on accessory lenses and if there's a hotshoe or pc > > socket, an external flash can be used. worst case, use a slave.
> *snicker* Yeah, *snort* I suppose *chuckle* you could do that.
Slaves do have shortcomings, but they can be made to work in some circumstances...merely not as capable as a properly wired strobe.
When it comes to slave-triggering off of a built-in strobe in a P&S, the application can be very critical: for example, in underwater photography, one generally maximizes the lens-strobe separation distance so as to minimize backscatter.
Unfortunately, the general necessity of allowing the P&S's built-in to fire so as to trigger a slave effectively assures that in-water particulates will definitely be fully illuminated, thereby introducing a "snow storm" of backscatter from plankton/etc which effectively destroys the composition.
I have some P&S+slave photos from my 2007 manta ray dive if anyone wants to see posted an illustration as to how severe this "snow storm" backscatter problem can be on what otherwise appeared to be innocuous appearing water conditions..
>>>>> ...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of >>>>> which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions... >>>> And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot >>>> your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your >>>> shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ... >>> Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I >>> also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online >>> years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S.
>> BETTER?? LOL!!!!!!!!!
>>> And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that >>> represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy >>> & flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far >>> revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's >>> sunlit shot.
>>> -hh
>> Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed >> from sunlight. LOL! (Yet he thinks he can get away with his DSLR-Trolls' >> bullshit as often as he does.)
>> And the stone was in your shoe, your girdle was too tight yadda yadda >> yadda... LOL!
>Jeez, do you think you could over-sharpen that tiny shot even more? >ROTFL.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
>> >Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
>> It's not in sunlight, asshole. Get a clue.
>I recall doing some research awhile back on solar-based power systems >for dismounted military. Stuff was looking pretty promising until >someone pointed out the 'all terrains' requirement and asked, "How >well would this have worked in Vietnam?" Long story short is that in >jungle triple canopy, roughly 95% of available light is absorbed >before it hits the ground...and despite arguments of "find a patch of >sunlight", this solar project was killed.
>Applying that 95% loss in photographic terms, that's four (4) stops.
Provide proof.
>Plus armchair guesstimates based on pupil dilation fails when not >comparing same-to-same. All bets are off as soon as one changes >species. For example, here's resized but totally unedited images of a >kingfisher and a bee eater...both with dilated eyes ... and for both, >when you check the EXIF, one finds that it is a clearly non-gloomy EV >14.
|
