«

On 7/24/03 12:45 PM, in article , "JK"
<> wrote:

> Why are many new digital cameras being released with lenses that
> are f4.8 or slower at max telephoto? Do the camera makers think
> that consumers won't realize how much this limits the existing light
> abilities of the cameras? Many people want to take photos indoors
> without using a flash or tripod. It is sad that there are so few digital
> cameras(especially small small ones) that perform well in low light.
>
It's like my Grandfather used to say about horses and oats.
"You gotta pay a little more for the oats that haven't yet been through the
horse"
GEEZ! Stop Bitching!!!
If you want large glass you gotta PAY for it in $$$ AND size...


__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Tiny Tim wrote:
> JK wrote:
>> I remember years ago, 35mm slrs came with 50mm f1.4 lenses as
>> standard.
>> I want to find a compact digital camera with something like that.
>
> You started this thread by wanting a lens that was fast at the
> telephoto end and moaning about f4.8 being slow. Now you're talking
> about fixed standard focal length lenses by way of comparison.
>
> How many 150mm f1.4 lenses do you know of for 35mm film, never mind
> 50-150mm or 35-105mm zooms?
>
> Don't you think you're being a tad unrealistic? What price range did
> you have in mind?

Here's a link to zoom lenses available at Calumet.

http://www.calumetphoto.com/syrinx/c...h.node3=ABD-AB

Perhaps you can find a lens that meets your expectation for focal length and
speed as a 35mm equivalent and then let us know how much it costs. Thanks in
eager anticipation.

In message <>,
Mxsmanic <> wrote:

>JK writes:
>
>> I remember years ago, 35mm slrs came with 50mm f1.4 lenses as standard.
>> I want to find a compact digital camera with something like that.
>
>Even 35mm SLRs don't come with that today. If anything, they come with
>a really cheap zoom. Vendors know that serious photographers will just
>buy the body, and they buy lenses separately; and they also know that
>clueless consumers will want a lens already supplied and ready to go,
>and that they won't want to pay more for it, and that they won't know or
>care if it is of bad optical quality.

If the target is 4x6 prints, an excellent lens is less appreciable.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

writes:

> If the target is 4x6 prints, an excellent lens
> is less appreciable.

Resolution and some aberrations are not as important, but things like
contrast can still be obvious.

Compare these two photos:

http://www.mxsmanic.com/church2.jpg
http://www.mxsmanic.com/church3.jpg

The first was taken with a Leica lens, the second was taken with a
disposable camera. Even at this small Web site, you can see a
difference between the cheap plastic lens of the disposable and the
Leica ... although it's not as big as you might expect.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> JK writes:
>
> > I remember years ago, 35mm slrs came with 50mm f1.4 lenses as standard.
> > I want to find a compact digital camera with something like that.
>
> Even 35mm SLRs don't come with that today. If anything, they come with
> a really cheap zoom.

Many do. That really sucks! It reminds me of the portable cd players
that come with horrible headphones.

> Vendors know that serious photographers will just
> buy the body, and they buy lenses separately; and they also know that
> clueless consumers will want a lens already supplied and ready to go,
> and that they won't want to pay more for it, and that they won't know or
> care if it is of bad optical quality.

That sucks.

>
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

>> Vendors know that serious photographers will just
>> buy the body, and they buy lenses separately; and they also know that
>> clueless consumers will want a lens already supplied and ready to go,
>> and that they won't want to pay more for it, and that they won't
>> know or care if it is of bad optical quality.
>
> That sucks.

So which one are you...
Beavis, or Butthead?

In article <>,
Mxsmanic <> wrote:

> writes:
>
> > If the target is 4x6 prints, an excellent lens
> > is less appreciable.
>
> Resolution and some aberrations are not as important, but things like
> contrast can still be obvious.
>
> Compare these two photos:
>
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/church2.jpg
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/church3.jpg
>
> The first was taken with a Leica lens, the second was taken with a
> disposable camera. Even at this small Web site, you can see a
> difference between the cheap plastic lens of the disposable and the
> Leica ... although it's not as big as you might expect.

what aboout http://www.mxsmanic.com/church1.jpg ??? Polarizer???

chibitul writes:

> what aboout http://www.mxsmanic.com/church1.jpg ??? Polarizer???

Hasselblad.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.