Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   "Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620) (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t427559-sports-lens-vs-zeiss-lens-canon-powershot-a620.html)

Jules Vide 07-03-2006 11:41 AM

"Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
 
I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that
couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big*
dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera.

Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249
usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed
reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He
said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference
between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for
anything remotely sports-related.

I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs.

I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only
ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras,
when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size.

I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research,
I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high
resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could recommend
a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a 7.1 or
higher.

I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss
lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always.


Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) 07-03-2006 12:40 PM

Re: "Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
 
On 3 Jul 2006 04:41:05 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Jules Vide"
<passepasrien@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that
>couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big*
>dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera.
>
>Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249
>usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed
>reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He
>said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference
>between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for
>anything remotely sports-related.
>
>I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs.
>
>I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only
>ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras,
>when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size.
>
>I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research,
>I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high
>resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could recommend
>a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a 7.1 or
>higher.
>
>I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss
>lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always.


First what exactly do you mean by the term "high resolution nature
photographs?" Are you talking about scenic or landscape photography which
you wish to print very large, say greater than 8x10? Are you talking about
wildlife photography where even with a long focal length lens cropping will
come into play?

Next, you have to realize that it is not just the quantity of the pixels
which count, but also the quality. The smaller the sensor, the smaller
number of receptor sites per pixel, leading to greater noise. For example,
my 6MP Nikon D70 blows away my 7MP Casio Z-750. But, I can't stick my D70
in my pocket like I can the Z-750.

If you mean scenic/lanscape photos you can always stitch images together to
get higher resolution no matter what camera you are using. If you mean
wildlife photography, there is no substitute for long focal length lenses,
the faster, lower f number, the better.
--
Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html

J. Clarke 07-03-2006 01:11 PM

Re: "Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
 
Jules Vide wrote:

> I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that
> couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big*
> dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera.


Define *big*. 8x10? 11x17? 16x20? Poster size? Wall murals?
Billboards?

How closely will they normally be viewed? Arm's length? 3 feet? Across a
room? From the highway?

> Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249
> usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed
> reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He
> said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference
> between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for
> anything remotely sports-related.
>
> I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs.
>
> I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only
> ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras,
> when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size.
>
> I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research,
> I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high
> resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could recommend
> a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a 7.1 or
> higher.
>
> I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss
> lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always.


Zeiss makes very sharp lenses. If you need high resolution then Zeiss is a
good option, but Canon also makes good lenses, as do many others. The
basic problem is that if you want *big* high resolution photos then you may
be in the domain of medium or large format, depending on how you define
*big* and "high resolution".

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Dennis Pogson 07-03-2006 01:19 PM

Re: "Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
 
Jules Vide wrote:
> I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that
> couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big*
> dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera.
>
> Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249
> usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed
> reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He
> said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference
> between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for
> anything remotely sports-related.
>
> I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs.
>
> I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only
> ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras,
> when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size.
>
> I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research,
> I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high
> resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could
> recommend a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a
> 7.1 or higher.
>
> I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss
> lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always.


I think the salesman was using the term Zeiss as a figure of speech, as in
Panasonic cameras which use Leica-designed lenses.

Zeiss and Leica were noted for their superb optics in the sixties, and
indeed still are, but there are many cheaper high-pixel-count cameras which
have inferior optics/sensors and will not produce the quality of print you
require.

IMHO the perfect digital camera has yet to be invented, but we are getting
there, gradually, and it isn't going to be cheap when it arrives. I regard
pixel-counting as a guide, but only a guide, and unfortunately the ideal
digital camera will almost certainly come from one of the big-name makers,
and will therefore be expensive.

Your Canon lens will probably suffice for what you use it for, and you would
not notice any difference if the lens was a Zeiss or Leica, it's all to do
with marketing, says he, proudly fondling his Panasonic FZ30!



Jules Vide 07-03-2006 01:28 PM

Re: "Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
 
Mr. Ruf, Could you possibly take a look at the specs on the Canon, on a
review site of your choice, and tell me if this has a "long focal
lens?" (Sorry for the top posting.)

Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2006 04:41:05 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Jules Vide"
> <passepasrien@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that
> >couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big*
> >dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera.
> >
> >Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249
> >usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed
> >reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He
> >said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference
> >between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for
> >anything remotely sports-related.
> >
> >I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs.
> >
> >I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only
> >ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras,
> >when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size.
> >
> >I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research,
> >I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high
> >resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could recommend
> >a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a 7.1 or
> >higher.
> >
> >I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss
> >lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always.

>
> First what exactly do you mean by the term "high resolution nature
> photographs?" Are you talking about scenic or landscape photography which
> you wish to print very large, say greater than 8x10? Are you talking about
> wildlife photography where even with a long focal length lens cropping will
> come into play?
>
> Next, you have to realize that it is not just the quantity of the pixels
> which count, but also the quality. The smaller the sensor, the smaller
> number of receptor sites per pixel, leading to greater noise. For example,
> my 6MP Nikon D70 blows away my 7MP Casio Z-750. But, I can't stick my D70
> in my pocket like I can the Z-750.
>
> If you mean scenic/lanscape photos you can always stitch images together to
> get higher resolution no matter what camera you are using. If you mean
> wildlife photography, there is no substitute for long focal length lenses,
> the faster, lower f number, the better.
> --
> Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html



Roy G 07-03-2006 01:57 PM

Re: "Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
 
"Jules Vide" <passepasrien@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151926865.688285.231080@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that
> couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big*
> dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera.
>
> Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249
> usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed
> reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He
> said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference
> between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for
> anything remotely sports-related.
>
> I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs.
>
> I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only
> ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras,
> when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size.
>
> I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research,
> I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high
> resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could recommend
> a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a 7.1 or
> higher.
>
> I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss
> lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always.



Hi.

You need to define what you mean by "big" and "high resolution".

You new Canon A620 is an everyday sort of camera. It is not a "Sports" or
any other specialised thing.

You were being subjected to Sales Speak, as you were when he went on about a
Zeiss lens. If that was built in a German factory, which only produced
lenses, and was owned by Zeiss, then it would be worth having.

Zeiss Lenses were not famous for outstanding designs, it was the
craftmanship and build quality which made them superior.

The 140mm (Equivalent) focal length lens can not be considered "Long"
nowadays, it is only 4x its shortest length. Quite a few cameras have 10x
or 12x lenses, and go up to 400mm ( Equivalent)

Roy G



Daniel Silevitch 07-03-2006 02:04 PM

Re: "Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
 
On 3 Jul 2006 06:28:07 -0700, Jules Vide <passepasrien@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mr. Ruf, Could you possibly take a look at the specs on the Canon, on a
> review site of your choice, and tell me if this has a "long focal
> lens?" (Sorry for the top posting.)


The A620 goes to a maximum focal length of 140mm. I wouldn't call that a
long lens. If you need a long lens, for wildlife off in the distance or
similar, consider the Canon S3IS or one of its competitors like the
Panasonic FZ7 or Sony H2. You'll lose a megapixel (those are all 6 MP
cameras), but you'll get about 3 times the optical zoom power.

The question you should be asking is "what kind of pictures do I like to
take". Once people get an idea of your range of photographic interests,
we can start recommending models. The A620 is, by all accounts, a
thoroughly decent camera, but it may not be optimal for your needs.

-dms

Darrell Larose 07-03-2006 03:32 PM

Re: "Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
 

"Jules Vide" <passepasrien@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151926865.688285.231080@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that
> couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big*
> dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera.
>
> Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249
> usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed
> reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He
> said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference
> between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for
> anything remotely sports-related.
>

I guess there were higher "spiffs" on the Sony cameras...




D Russell 07-03-2006 04:40 PM

Re: "Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
 
Daniel Silevitch wrote:

> On 3 Jul 2006 06:28:07 -0700, Jules Vide <passepasrien@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Mr. Ruf, Could you possibly take a look at the specs on the Canon, on a
>> review site of your choice, and tell me if this has a "long focal
>> lens?" (Sorry for the top posting.)

>
> The A620 goes to a maximum focal length of 140mm. I wouldn't call that a
> long lens. If you need a long lens, for wildlife off in the distance or
> similar, consider the Canon S3IS or one of its competitors like the
> Panasonic FZ7 or Sony H2. You'll lose a megapixel (those are all 6 MP
> cameras), but you'll get about 3 times the optical zoom power.
>
> The question you should be asking is "what kind of pictures do I like to
> take". Once people get an idea of your range of photographic interests,
> we can start recommending models. The A620 is, by all accounts, a
> thoroughly decent camera, but it may not be optimal for your needs.
>
> -dms


I can highly recommend the Sony H2, 12x optical zoom, as someone pointed out
is about 400mm by 35mm standards. With it's fully auto mode being very
capable and easy to use, but also with optional full manual control, you
have to chance to learn more "bells and whistles" as you grow more
comfortable with the camera.

I like to always have my camera with me, and for many years used a 2MP
canon, because it was cheap enough to take anywhere, and small enough not
to worry about. The Sony is a little larger, but still fits into a quite
small camera bag, which is easily belt mountable and thus unobtrusive.

My only bug bear at the moment, is the constant whirring noises the camera
makes when turned on, seems some motor is constantly going. Before anyone
jumps in, it's not auto-focus, or zoom motors, just some internal system. I
should email Sony to query it sometime. It doesn't register on video, and
thus I don't consider it a major problem.

Duncan




Jules Vide 07-03-2006 08:10 PM

Re: "Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
 
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Define *big*. 8x10? 11x17? 16x20? Poster size? Wall murals?
> Billboards?


Thank you for clarifying and articulating my problem. I need a camera
that will take landscape photographs that will give me 300 DPI for a 6"
x 9" book cover.

The sharpness or specificity of, say, a moose in the distance (or even
Rocky the Squirrel) isn't a concern. Frankly, I didn't want to buy
another digital camera within less than a year at all (I currently own
a 4.1, whose resolution falters at just about 6 x 9, 300 DPI). I
posted two days ago about trolling the Internet for high resolution
autumn images; this is what I bought the camera for. I do not need to
see the vein in every deciduous red or golden leaf.

But as long as we're on the subject of print size, if any salesman or
saleswoman with integrity sold me the 4.1 a year ago, they would have
told me you can't take 8 x 10 portraits without turning the subject
into an object of ridicule, what with the watermelon-head effect and
all. So I'd like my combined "spend-age" of $400+ to have been worth
the ability to take a decent portrait--as well as some melancholy
autumn forest images.

(BTW, if anyone can recommend a site with melancholy autumn forest
images, where the download doesn't cost more than a new digital camera,
I'm still interested.)

Thank you again.



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.