Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > P&S Teleconverters

Reply
Thread Tools

P&S Teleconverters

 
 
Steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2008

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:35:37 -0600, frank_temmor
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:20:14 GMT, Steve <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


Why do you think I have both and use the one that's appropriate for
the situation?

>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.


A DSLR is the only kind that will do what I want in certain
situations. The fact that you don't realize that and think a P&S can
do everything proves just foolish you really are and how little you
really know about cameras.

Steve
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Brandon Grant
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2008
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:11:50 -0500, "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>P&S's are cursed when it comes to lag time. They stink, and a wide
>"hyperfocal" distance isn't something someone wants every time and is
>useless if you are talking about something that simply can't be captured
>with a dog-slow response time.
>Also, "add on" teleconverters are putrid when it comes to optical quality.
>I've never seen one yet that didn't horribly degrade the original lens's
>image. But then P&S lenses, especially "superzooms" at their longest length
>have so many optical aberrations and so many focus problems people using
>crappy teleconverters probably don't even notice the difference.
>


And thus, you quickly reveal your amateurish photography ability and lack of
experiences with better P&S cameras and their related accessories so quickly and
completely.

How does it feel to have outted yourself as a totally inexperienced DSLR troll?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2008
On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>> Toby wrote:
>>> My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
>>> don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I
>>> do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would
>>> be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his
>>> claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he
>>> is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a
>>> simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them
>>> unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which
>>> the frame could still be seen.
>>>
>>> He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues,
>>> who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.

>>
>> That's why most have ceased replying to him.
>>
>> Please put your replies following what you respond to.
>>
>> --
>> john mcwilliams

>
>Yes, I will stop replying as well.
>
>Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people
>consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes
>prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when
>reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very
>long).
>
>There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
>this time at the bottom.
>

Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the
problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple
scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but
the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at
the top and mark the fact that have done so with

--- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar.

This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads
becoming intolerably long.



Eric Stevens
 
Reply With Quote
 
robert_manx
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2008


These off-topic control-freak comments (as are all your off-topic comments in
all threads) and the resulting replies that are coming from someone without a
spine, kneeling to your advice, are what is commonly referred to in
animal-behavior studies as "displacement activity".

Google and educate yourself.



On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>> Toby wrote:
>>>> My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
>>>> don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I
>>>> do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would
>>>> be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his
>>>> claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he
>>>> is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a
>>>> simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them
>>>> unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which
>>>> the frame could still be seen.
>>>>
>>>> He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues,
>>>> who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.
>>>
>>> That's why most have ceased replying to him.
>>>
>>> Please put your replies following what you respond to.
>>>
>>> --
>>> john mcwilliams

>>
>>Yes, I will stop replying as well.
>>
>>Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people
>>consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes
>>prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when
>>reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very
>>long).
>>
>>There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
>>this time at the bottom.
>>

>Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
>long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the
>problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple
>scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but
>the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at
>the top and mark the fact that have done so with
>
> --- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar.
>
>This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
>but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads
>becoming intolerably long.
>
>
>
>Eric Stevens

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2008
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

>> There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
>> this time at the bottom.

>
> Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
> long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups.


Yes.


> I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it
> is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new
> text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_
> rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with


Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to
get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies
are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be
placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was
done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist.
Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it
will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses.


> This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
> but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to
> threads becoming intolerably long.


Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
trim the irrelevant text.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2008
On 5 Nov 2008 08:10:01 -0600, Toby wrote:

> But things evolve according to the exigencies of the time, and just as we
> are now dropping the 'm' from the objective case of 'who' and saying,
> 'that's the place I went' without collective gasps of horror, I think you
> are fighting a rearguard action against top posting.


Nope, I'm not fighting it at all. At most I criticize some who
provide elaborate but faulty justifications for top posting or as
you noted, appending a three word response below pages of quotes.
As for these types of replies, they never really bothered me, they
just lost a wee bit of respect for such posters. How do you feel
about the new (well, it's been going on for years) penchant for
people, in real life and in commercials to say things such as "That
was the funnest movie I've seen!" or "I had the funnest time."?
Even my spell checker balks at those two examples.

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." -- Baby Hughey

 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2008
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:50:39 -0600, robert_manx
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>

TOP POSTING CORRECTED
>
>
>
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
>>>> Toby wrote:
>>>>> My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
>>>>> don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I
>>>>> do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would
>>>>> be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his
>>>>> claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he
>>>>> is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a
>>>>> simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them
>>>>> unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which
>>>>> the frame could still be seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues,
>>>>> who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.
>>>>
>>>> That's why most have ceased replying to him.
>>>>
>>>> Please put your replies following what you respond to.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> john mcwilliams
>>>
>>>Yes, I will stop replying as well.
>>>
>>>Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people
>>>consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes
>>>prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when
>>>reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very
>>>long).
>>>
>>>There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
>>>this time at the bottom.
>>>

>>Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
>>long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the
>>problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple
>>scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but
>>the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at
>>the top and mark the fact that have done so with
>>
>> --- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar.
>>
>>This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
>>but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads
>>becoming intolerably long.
>>


>These off-topic control-freak comments (as are all your off-topic comments in
>all threads) and the resulting replies that are coming from someone without a
>spine, kneeling to your advice, are what is commonly referred to in
>animal-behavior studies as "displacement activity".
>
>Google and educate yourself.


It's not a question of being a control freak. Usenet is not email.
When you respond to a complex point in an article it makes sense to do
so after the point in question. That's why I'm responding to you after
your text and not before it. It makes it easier for other people to
follow the argument. Of course, if you don't want that ....



Eric Stevens
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2008
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:54:53 -0500, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>> There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
>>> this time at the bottom.

>>
>> Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
>> long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups.

>
> Yes.
>
>
>> I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it
>> is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new
>> text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_
>> rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with

>
> Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to
>get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies
>are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be
>placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was
>done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist.
>Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it
>will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses.


I agree entirely.
>
>
>> This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
>> but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to
>> threads becoming intolerably long.

>
> Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
>could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
>Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
>and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
>were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
>re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
>trim the irrelevant text.


But then came Microsoft email which instructed people to top post.
This might be OK for short messages but Usenet is not email.



Eric Stevens
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2008
Eric Stevens wrote:
> 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."


<snip>

You have to be really careful when choosing tele-converters and wide
angle converters. You don't need to choose the same brand as the camera.
Find the best tele-converter on the market, and find a lens tube and
adapters that connect it to the camera. I.e., the wide angle converter I
got for my Canon G series was not the Canon brand, it was much higher
end and much more expensive, and it worked with the Lensmate tube. Of
course it was also discontinued, greatly increasing the resale value on
eBay!

Needless to say, you can spend a lot of money on a kludge with those
conversion lenses, and achieve only moderate results. That's why the
advent of reasonably priced digital SLRs has destroyed the market for
high end point and shoot cameras.

The Panasonic G1 is essentially a high-end point and shoot but with
interchangeable lenses. For someone willing to put up with the major
disadvantages of a P&S, but that wants lenses for wide-angle and
telephot, the G1 at least is better than the kludgey adapters, but it's
certainly no bargain compared to a D-SLR that has far more capability.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2008

"SMS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4FoQk.6222$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> 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."

>
> <snip>
>
> You have to be really careful when choosing tele-converters and wide angle
> converters. You don't need to choose the same brand as the camera. Find
> the best tele-converter on the market, and find a lens tube and adapters
> that connect it to the camera. I.e., the wide angle converter I got for my
> Canon G series was not the Canon brand, it was much higher end and much
> more expensive, and it worked with the Lensmate tube. Of course it was
> also discontinued, greatly increasing the resale value on eBay!
>
> Needless to say, you can spend a lot of money on a kludge with those
> conversion lenses, and achieve only moderate results. That's why the
> advent of reasonably priced digital SLRs has destroyed the market for high
> end point and shoot cameras.


It would seem Canon never got that memo. With the introduction of the
Powershot SX 1 / 10 cameras, it has that market covered. By the time you
pick up a p&s camera, a wide angle and tele converter, you will likely have
shelled out more than the cost of either of these models, and your pics
won't be as good.

Also, with the SX 1 / 10 cameras, you can start building up some flash
accessories which will work with EOS DSLRs, should your interest in
photography develop as your skills increase...

Take Care,
Dudley



 
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
Teleconverters for the Canon Rebel EBL Digital Photography 13 08-22-2004 02:37 PM
teleconverters HIKER4LIFE Digital Photography 2 04-27-2004 12:19 PM
Which teleconverters fit on the Sony F717? Steven C \(Doktersteve\) Digital Photography 6 01-23-2004 12:53 PM
Digital Camera Crops and 0.7x Teleconverters Vin Digital Photography 4 11-01-2003 03:21 PM
Need info on teleconverters please rs11 Digital Photography 2 08-30-2003 02:00 AM



Advertisments