Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > High end super zooms

Reply
Thread Tools

High end super zooms

 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2006
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:27:10 -0400, Bill wrote:

> I don't know why Nikon is using micro in their lense names while others
> are more accurately using macro.


Perhaps to remind people that they've long been manufacturers of
fine microscopes? (just kidding really, but they did make them at
one time. I don't know if they still sell microscopes.)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2006
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:43:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:13:44 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>C wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> m Ransley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> The typical range is 36-432, on 12x zooms, in looking at a few that
>>>>>have nearly exact figures I wonder if each company makes their own. It
>>>>>is known sony makes alot of Canon ccds, it is probably the same for
>>>>>other components.
>>>>
>>>> The lenses are different on the different cameras, but the size of the
>>>> sensor limits the range of the zoom.
>>>
>>>How so? If that were the case then one would expect to see more than 12x
>>>zoom ranges on DSLRs, and in fact one doesn't even see zoom ranges quite
>>>that large.

>>
>> The larger the sensor, the larger the lens must be to have the same
>> zoom range with a practical aperture.
>> It's a physics thing.
>>>
>>>> The size of the camera limits
>>>> the size of the sensor.

>
>Bill, this part should have told you I was asking a rhetorical question.


You asked, "How so?"
I don't see the rhetorical part of the question, when you asked it
*before* the last part.
Maybe just a communication glitch.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2006
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:37:39 -0700, "Hebee Jeebes" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Just until someone can replace the lenses (the glass elements) with
>something else. It is only a matter of time until lenses change to something
>totally different, just like film changed to CCD chips and CMOS chips. It
>will be interesting to see what they come up with. Maybe something like
>smart glass that is one element that is capable of adjusting itself to
>whatever is needed. Maybe smart plastic or something.
>
>R


How many questions about devices can't be answered by such an answer?

>
>
>"Bill Funk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:13:44 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>C wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> m Ransley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> The typical range is 36-432, on 12x zooms, in looking at a few that
>>>>>have nearly exact figures I wonder if each company makes their own. It
>>>>>is known sony makes alot of Canon ccds, it is probably the same for
>>>>>other components.
>>>>
>>>> The lenses are different on the different cameras, but the size of the
>>>> sensor limits the range of the zoom.
>>>
>>>How so? If that were the case then one would expect to see more than 12x
>>>zoom ranges on DSLRs, and in fact one doesn't even see zoom ranges quite
>>>that large.

>>
>> The larger the sensor, the larger the lens must be to have the same
>> zoom range with a practical aperture.
>> It's a physics thing.
>>>
>>>> The size of the camera limits
>>>> the size of the sensor.

>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"

>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2006
Bill Funk wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:43:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:13:44 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>C wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>> m Ransley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> The typical range is 36-432, on 12x zooms, in looking at a few that
>>>>>>have nearly exact figures I wonder if each company makes their own. It
>>>>>>is known sony makes alot of Canon ccds, it is probably the same for
>>>>>>other components.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lenses are different on the different cameras, but the size of the
>>>>> sensor limits the range of the zoom.
>>>>
>>>>How so? If that were the case then one would expect to see more than
>>>>12x zoom ranges on DSLRs, and in fact one doesn't even see zoom ranges
>>>>quite that large.
>>>
>>> The larger the sensor, the larger the lens must be to have the same
>>> zoom range with a practical aperture.
>>> It's a physics thing.
>>>>
>>>>> The size of the camera limits
>>>>> the size of the sensor.

>>
>>Bill, this part should have told you I was asking a rhetorical question.

>
> You asked, "How so?"
> I don't see the rhetorical part of the question, when you asked it
> *before* the last part.
> Maybe just a communication glitch.


Well, it might occur to you that I had read his entire post before
responding.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2006
Bill wrote:
> plew@csus_abcdefghij.edu wrote:
>
>>> "Macro" is another such word; it used to mean the ability to take a
>>> 1:1 image; now it more means close focusing.
>>> Oh well..

>> Even worst. outside of photo, "micro-economics" is a more detailed/closer
>> look at economics than "macro-economics". Photography reversed the meaning
>> of "macro"???? In programming, a macro-code is a higher (zoom out) level
>> of code.
>>
>> Hard to visualize sometimes that "macro" in photo means closer rather
>> than further away from an object....speaking as a non-photo person.

>
> I think macro is accurate and is unrelated to distance. Macroscopic
> photography is the proper term, shortened to simply macro.
>
> Macro means large or long, and in photography it refers to taking photos
> of a subject which is visible to the naked eye. Macro photography has
> become known as taking images of small subjects at or near life-size
> magnification so the subject is shown at actual size and very detailed.
>
> Microscopic photography is the imaging of tiny subjects that can not be
> viewed with the naked eye.
>
> I don't know why Nikon is using micro in their lense names while others
> are more accurately using macro.


I am not sure this is a technical definition, but in photography,
'macro' usually indicates that an image is larger than the real size of
the object being photographed, so even 'microphotography' is still
'macro'. Sigh.
Still I will go along with the 'visible to the eye' part as a good limit
on the small end.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What P&S Super Zooms have 205,000-230,000 pixel EVF's? Paul D. Sullivan Digital Photography 3 05-24-2007 07:35 PM
Super Zooms, Noise Reduction Rich Belthoff Digital Photography 10 07-08-2006 09:03 AM
Any good super tele zooms? SimonLW Digital Photography 6 05-18-2005 12:55 PM
super.super.super how? Java 24 02-24-2005 10:51 PM
Re: Can someone explain how digital camera optical zooms compare to film camera zooms? fruitbat Digital Photography 1 09-17-2003 10:11 PM



Advertisments