«

For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:

The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/review/product...owViewpoints=1

"If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
in, or better still, a digital SLR."

"This lens works very well outdoors or when there is a lot of light
but is terrible indoors and takes very dark grainy photos. The
photos taken outside with full sun exposure were very good though.
Another problem is that for closer subjects you will see a circle
in the center of your photo until you zoom out enough to move past
this circle. "

"this add-on lens completely obscures the view through the optical
viewfinder, so you have to rely on the LCD screen for framing your
shots. You will need good light to be using a shutter speed that is
fast enough to hold the camera at arm's length, like you need to do
to see the screen, and the visibility of the screen in bright
sunlight can be less than ideal. It can be done. A tripod or
monopod would work better, provided your subject doesn't move
too quickly or erratically. My percentage of keepers shooting birds
in flight, for example, was pretty low. "

"While the G7/G9 lens zooms from 35mm to 210mm (equivalent in
35mm terms), and this 2x converter gets you out to 420mm at the
long end, you can't use it down to the 70mm (=2x35mm)you might
expect, as you will run into severe vignetting. I *think* you can
use it for all or most of the range above 210mm. "

The Nikon TC-E3ED 3X teleconvertor lens from Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/review/product...owViewpoints=1

"When I first saw tis lens I was excited about the possibility of
converting my coolpix from a 38-115mm to a 114-345mm lens.
Since this lens front mounts to the existing lens it vignettes at
the wider end of the lens all the way to approx 85mm. Leaving
you with an effective approx. range of only 250-345mm. While
shooting in this range you better have a lot of light on your
subject or a tripod. Otherwise you will get the predictable blurs
from using such a long lens hand held. Since the cool pix is not
the greatest in low light situations this extender compounds those
blur problems. It also blocks the crappy built in flash if you are
using it. Another problem you may notice is the size of this
converter. It's huge for such a small camera. If you bring your
camera for some quick snaps you may not want to lug this lens
around."


.... there is a down side.





Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
news:...
> For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
> telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
>
> The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
> http://www.amazon.com/review/product...owViewpoints=1
>
> "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
> cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
> already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
> focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
> in, or better still, a digital SLR."
>
> "This lens works very well outdoors or when there is a lot of light
> but is terrible indoors and takes very dark grainy photos. The
> photos taken outside with full sun exposure were very good though.
> Another problem is that for closer subjects you will see a circle
> in the center of your photo until you zoom out enough to move past
> this circle. "
>
> "this add-on lens completely obscures the view through the optical
> viewfinder, so you have to rely on the LCD screen for framing your
> shots. You will need good light to be using a shutter speed that is
> fast enough to hold the camera at arm's length, like you need to do
> to see the screen, and the visibility of the screen in bright
> sunlight can be less than ideal. It can be done. A tripod or
> monopod would work better, provided your subject doesn't move
> too quickly or erratically. My percentage of keepers shooting birds
> in flight, for example, was pretty low. "
>
> "While the G7/G9 lens zooms from 35mm to 210mm (equivalent in
> 35mm terms), and this 2x converter gets you out to 420mm at the
> long end, you can't use it down to the 70mm (=2x35mm)you might
> expect, as you will run into severe vignetting. I *think* you can
> use it for all or most of the range above 210mm. "
>
> The Nikon TC-E3ED 3X teleconvertor lens from Amazon
> http://www.amazon.com/review/product...owViewpoints=1
>
> "When I first saw tis lens I was excited about the possibility of
> converting my coolpix from a 38-115mm to a 114-345mm lens.
> Since this lens front mounts to the existing lens it vignettes at
> the wider end of the lens all the way to approx 85mm. Leaving
> you with an effective approx. range of only 250-345mm. While
> shooting in this range you better have a lot of light on your
> subject or a tripod. Otherwise you will get the predictable blurs
> from using such a long lens hand held. Since the cool pix is not
> the greatest in low light situations this extender compounds those
> blur problems. It also blocks the crappy built in flash if you are
> using it. Another problem you may notice is the size of this
> converter. It's huge for such a small camera. If you bring your
> camera for some quick snaps you may not want to lug this lens
> around."
>
>
> ... there is a down side.
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

If people are careful when they buy their p&s, there's no reason to use a
converter.

How many times have we seen DSLR shooters post pics taken with a zoom ending
in the 200mm range? Picking up a p&s with a 200mm zoom isn't that
difficult, and I doubt there are many times when the typical family /
recreational pic will need anything longer.

If one does need something longer, cameras in the 400mm to +500mm range are
available for a cheaper cost than an equivalent DSLR setup.

As for the p&s teleconverters, themselves, as noted above, it is possible to
find some that give good results in bright sunlight. While the setup isn't
going to work for indoor concerts, sporting events, etc, I'm guessing most
people would buy something like that mainly for outdoor usage. Typically, a
420mm lens just isn't going to be of much use at a family reunion,
kindergarten xmas concert, etc...

Just my thoughts,
Dudley

"ResidentTrollSpotter" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:32:50 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
> wrote:
>
>>For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer

>>>>>>Snipped

>>... there is a down side.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Eric Stevens
>
> Yes, there is a downside. Listening to your lame, inexperienced,
> DSLR-troll
> advice is the biggest downside. You list the 2 worst ones made. To top it
> off,
> you take the words of those who don't even know how to use their camera
> properly. That alone is proved in their descriptions of how they use their
> cameras and lenses.
>
> But then ... how would YOU know that. You've NEVER held any camera. You
> prove
> that over and over and over again.
>

You are saying that he lists only the 2 worst ones.

How often have I asked you to tell us which "High Quality" ones you claim to
use.

Your failure to respond leaves the field open for others to make counter
claims. So why are you complaining.

Put up or shut up.

Roy G

"TrentBaxter" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 4 Nov 2008 04:30:03 -0600, "Toby" <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
>>news snet...
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> ... there is a down side.
>>>
>>> In other news there is NO ultimate camera.
>>>
>>> Resolution, sharpness, convenience, ease of use,
>>> weight, cost, speed of response all vary,
>>> and in some cases conflict.
>>
>>And that is the basic truth of the matter. Each type of camera and lens
>>and
>>accessory offers some advantages and some disadvantages. Wise users
>>research
>>the pros and cons of each, and then make an informed choice according to
>>their needs and desires.
>>
>>Toby
>>
>
> Those even more wise, borne of lifetime of true real-world photography
> experience,
>>>>>>>>>>>>SNIPPED
> all the other virtual-photographer DSLR-trolls) even more glaringly
> obvious to
> the world.
>


I do not make claims for any particular type of equipment, and happen to
agree with Toby.

You make claims for only one type of equipment, and seem to state that P & S
cameras are the ultimate in every respect.

Worse, you very clearly insult the intelligence of anyone who does not agree
with you.

You never seem to post on any other topic, except to extoll the virtues of P
& S or damn the shortcomings of SLRs.

You keep changing your alias, and have replied to your own postings using
another alias.

AND you seem unwilling or unable to specify which make or models you use.

It is long past the time for you to come clean, and start giving some real
information, instead of just spouting far fetched theory and poisonous bile.

Put up or shut up.

Roy G

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:09:51 -0600, TrentBaxter
<> wrote:

[...]
>In case you missed them, here's just a few of the vast benefits of P&S cameras
>and the huge related drawbacks of ALL DSLRs (some sections further edited for
>clarity):
>
[snipped a bunch of crap but I figured I'd comment on this one:]
>7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations.
>Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter
>distortions, e.g.
>http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg
>do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees

I've taken a lot of pictures of helicopters and prop planes with a
DSLR and the blades in all sorts of various directios and not one
shows a curved blade like that

[snipped a whole bunch more crap]

You can spout all the reasons you think P&S cameras are better but the
fact remains that DSLRs and good lenses in general have much better
image quality than any P&S.

Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed,
the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly
by using physical dials and buttons instead of going through onscreen
menus) is most important, use a DSLR. Where convenience is most
important, use a P&S. That's why I have several of both.

Steve

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:20:14 GMT, Steve <> wrote:

>Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed,
>the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly
>by using physical dials and buttons

That's why I would rather choose the P&S cameras that I have. Every button,
option, and adjustment that I need is right under each finger. Only the
occasionally used options are on menus, usually no more than 1 click away. The
image quality is about the same as, and in some instances (DSLR glass dependent)
can even be better from my P&S cameras. Shutter-lag is shorter on my P&S cameras
too because I rarely depend on auto-anything. Real pros are like that. I might
use the "instant AF override" button press to get the lens into the range I need
rapidly, but then I focus manually. See, I know how to use my cameras, most do
not. You have revealed that you do not.

You need to learn how to do your research before wasting your money on cameras
that won't do what you want them to do.

If you think a DSLR is the only kind that will do what you need and want, you
are sorely mistaken, and a REALLY bad shopper. Then on top of it, because of
your stupidity and ignorance you advise all others to follow in your footsteps.
How completely foolish.

Steve wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:09:51 -0600, TrentBaxter
> <> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> In case you missed them, here's just a few of the vast benefits of
>> P&S cameras and the huge related drawbacks of ALL DSLRs (some
>> sections further edited for clarity):
>>
> [snipped a bunch of crap but I figured I'd comment on this one:]
>> 7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
>> limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
>> (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
>> http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg
>> do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
>> 90-degrees
>
> I've taken a lot of pictures of helicopters and prop planes with a
> DSLR and the blades in all sorts of various directios and not one
> shows a curved blade like that

Nontheless that is a known issue with focal plane shutters when
photographing propellers at high shutter speed.

> [snipped a whole bunch more crap]
>
> You can spout all the reasons you think P&S cameras are better but
> the
> fact remains that DSLRs and good lenses in general have much better
> image quality than any P&S.
>
> Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed,
> the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly
> by using physical dials and buttons instead of going through
> onscreen
> menus) is most important, use a DSLR. Where convenience is most
> important, use a P&S. That's why I have several of both.

Know what they do, use what you need.


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

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:09:51 -0600, TrentBaxter, the self-hating
anti-DSLR sock puppet troll wrote:

> 4. P&S cameras are silent.

Then you are a DSLR, Biddy.

"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
news:...
> For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
> telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
>
> The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
> http://www.amazon.com/review/product...owViewpoints=1
>
> "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
> cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
> already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
> focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
> in, or better still, a digital SLR."
>
>
> ... there is a down side.
>
The lag time of a P&S versus a dSLR makes even the cheapest dSLR appealing.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:43:13 -0500, "Me Here" <no-> wrote:

>
>"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
>> telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
>>
>> The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
>> http://www.amazon.com/review/product...owViewpoints=1
>>
>> "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
>> cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
>> already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
>> focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
>> in, or better still, a digital SLR."
>>
>>
>> ... there is a down side.
>>
>The lag time of a P&S versus a dSLR makes even the cheapest dSLR appealing.
>
>

That would only be true for some snapshooter that has to depend on
auto-everything. REAL pros know how to use hyperfocal settings and manual focus,
making the lag-time of P&S cameras even less than *all* DSLRs. But then ...
you'll never know this, you're a troll that's never figured out how to use ANY
camera professionally.