Lens question

In article <>, John Navas
<> wrote:

> And, making an exception to my rule:
> <http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg>

an 800 x 600 pixel sample of a bird that's not moving?? that's the best
you can do??

nospam

John Navas <> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:04:07 -0800, John Navas
><> wrote in
><>:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0500, tony cooper
>><> wrote in
>><>:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:21 -0800, John Navas
>>
>>>>Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm,
>>>>and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm,
>>>>quite sufficient for most birding,
>>>>but those ranges are easily extended with a teleconverter
>>>>to over 800 mm and over 1400 mm respectively.
>>>>
>>>>Much better than dSLR.
>>>
>>>And, of course, you have examples of your "better than dslr" bird
>>>photographs ...
>>
>>I do indeed.
>
>And, making an exception to my rule:
><http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg>

I note that 1) your bird is a very large bird that you didn't need to
get very close to, and 2) your got fairly close to it anyway judging
by the angle of the shot.

Not bad, but not impressive.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer

John Navas <> wrote:
> Jürgen Exner <>
>>John Navas <> wrote:

>>>Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm,
>>>and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm,
>>
>>What is "extended optical zoom"? An addon-lens?
>
>Automatic cropping of the image. What makes it better than cropping in
>post-processing is the ability to see a magnified final image.

A "digital zoom" as it's more commonly known. Reduced resolution.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer

John Navas <> wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:44:46 -0800 (PST), -hh
><> wrote in
><4a967c85-edfa-4f95-9ecb->:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> >John Navas wrote:
>>> >> tony cooper wrote:
>>> >>> Chickens, perhaps. *Turkeys, ostriches,
>>> >>> emus, and caged birds maybe.
>>> >>> Large birds that you can close enough to touch. *
>>>
>>> >> Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm,
>>
>>Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 ..
>
>What lens (including price, size and weight,
>and how long you've owned it)?

Nobody disputes that you can put a cheap zoom onto a P&S.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer

John Navas <> wrote:
> -hh <> wrote in
>>John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> >John Navas wrote:
>>> >> tony cooper wrote:
>>> >>> Chickens, perhaps. *Turkeys, ostriches,
>>> >>> emus, and caged birds maybe.
>>> >>> Large birds that you can close enough to touch. *
>>>
>>> >> Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm,
>>
>>Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 ..
>
>What lens (including price, size and weight,
>and how long you've owned it)?

A 70-300 zoom can be had for $200. That's a 112-480 equivalent on a
1.6x crop body. I've had one for many years now, although I don't use
it anymore since I prefer better lenses and my camera le's me upgrade
to a better lens.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> Adding a foxtail the antennae, fuzzy dice hanging from the rear view
> mirror, and valve stem covers in the shape of a skull is not
> upgrading.

you forgot the spinning wheel covers

nospam

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:08:55 -0800, John Navas
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:54:18 +1000, Bob Larter <>
>wrote in <4aef9b5e$>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:11:36 -0000, "No spam please"
>>> <> wrote in <hcmc90$1foi$>:
>>>
>>>> The difference between SLRs and vehicles is that an SLR is adaptable to the
>>>> user's changing needs.
>>>
>>> On the contrary -- dSLR is non-upgradable and rapidly obsoleted, whereas
>>> a car can be upgraded
>>
>>WTF? How do you upgrade a car?
>
>OEM equipment.
>Aftermarket equipment.
>http://www.jcwhitney.com
>etc.
>etc,
>
Adding a foxtail the antennae, fuzzy dice hanging from the rear view
mirror, and valve stem covers in the shape of a skull is not
upgrading.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:46:07 -0800, John Navas <>
wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:04:07 -0800, John Navas
><> wrote in
><>:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0500, tony cooper
>><> wrote in
>><>:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:21 -0800, John Navas
>>
>>>>Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm,
>>>>and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm,
>>>>quite sufficient for most birding,
>>>>but those ranges are easily extended with a teleconverter
>>>>to over 800 mm and over 1400 mm respectively.
>>>>
>>>>Much better than dSLR.
>>>
>>>And, of course, you have examples of your "better than dslr" bird
>>>photographs ...
>>
>>I do indeed.
>
>And, making an exception to my rule:
><http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg>
>
>Your turn. Image you've taken yourself.

It's not my turn (sorry for butting in line) but here's another that I've
posted before to shut them up. Albeit, it's only a sharable scrapshot, not
any kind of gosh-wowwer. Taken at 735mm (optical, not digital) f/3.5,
hand-held with a P&S camera. Downsize only, no crop.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3528/...53bcbaa1_o.jpg

Should we await all the cries of NR muddiness and over-sharpening because
they can't recognize JPG artifacts? Or how about the more typical ones of
"You stole that!" or "You shot it with a DSLR!", etc. But of course,
they're always that stupid and self-deceptive.


------------------------------------------------

Play Title: The DSLR Shoe Buyer (© 2009)

Act 1: Scene 1

Gaudy Mall Scene.

Enter: stage-right, DSLR shoe buyer. Proceeds to DSLR Shoe Shop. Enters and
walks up to DSLR shoe seller.

DSLR shoe buyer: "Say, do you got anything in a 36mm to 735mm f/2.7-f/3.5
zoom lens that I could try on?"

DSLR shoe seller, "Sorry sir, you'll have to go to a store where they cater
to people who know how to use and create sizes and quality zoom-ranges like
that. Shoes of that capability are only for advanced nature photographers.
We only have small apertures at semi-long focal-lengths in a zoom-shoe for
the typical inexperienced and under-educated snapshooter. Those who must
use a heavy and expensive tripods and miss hundreds of shots in low-light
because they have to use slower shutter speeds at those long focal-lengths.
Swap out shoes constantly, get dust on their sensor, scare the wildlife
away with the sounds from their cameras, arrange their tripod, mount the
camera, etc. You know, the typical moron snapshooter that wears a camera
like jewelry to show off to everyone."

DSLR shoe buyer looking disappointed, the DSLR shoe seller reaches under
the counter and strains to bring up a 12 lb. shoe and puts it on the
counter, with a loud thud.

DSLR shoe seller continues: "All that aside, can I interest you in this
marvelous fixed-focal-length shoe of smaller aperture and not nearly the
focal-length you needed? It's only 600mm at f/4. Granted, you'll have to
swap it out with about 5 other shoes of the same weight and gargantuan 6.5"
x 18" size to get the ranges you need. You do have your own personal
Sherpa, don't you? It don't do much other than that one focal-length, but
boy is it a beauty! And only $9,199* at 12 lbs. too! (*real price online)
Don't forget, here's the 14 lb. $749 tripod you'll require to use it on
anything. And just because you look like such an experienced pro, here's
the sensor-cleaning kit that you'll need every time you want to mount or
remove it from your camera. I'll throw that in for FREE!"

DSLR shoe buyer: "Wow, looks great! At those prices that MUST be a good
idea! I'll buy it!"

DSLR shoe seller: <turns head to cash register and snickers>

Cash-Register: "ka-CHING!"

DSLR shoe seller: <more subdued snickering, while smiling about the
transaction and laughing heartily insider>

Exit: Moron DSLR shoe-buyer with a huge and happy grin on his idiot's face.
Trying to not show any strain from having to carry 26 lbs of shoe+tripod
plus the weight of associated packaging for the two blocks to his car in
the large mall parking lot. The weight of his camera, luckily, was left at
home. Only realizing later what a miserable and stupid mistake he made that
day.

Act 1: Scene 2

[nobody needs to see this, it is clearly outlined in the "typical
inexperienced and under-educated snapshooter" description above]


Act 2: Scene 1

DSLR shoe buyer: "You know what? I bet if I get on the internet and start
praising my purchase decisions in forums and newsgroups, I'll find others
that can help me to justify why I made such a pathetically stupid mistake."

(We all know the rest of the story. It's enacted every day on these
newsgroups.)


Every time a DSLR camera store cash-register bell rings another DSLR moron
gets their dunce-cap. (A turn on "A Wonderful Life", for the slower amongst
you.)

My Turn! My Turn!

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:05:11 -0800, John Navas <>
wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:27:55 -0800, Jürgen Exner <>
>wrote in <>:
>
>>John Navas <> wrote:
>>>Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm,
>>>and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm,
>>
>>What is "extended optical zoom"? An addon-lens?
>
>Automatic cropping of the image. What makes it better than cropping in
>post-processing is the ability to see a magnified final image.

Another reason that most people don't realize: In-camera cropping by using
digital zoom is done directly from the sensor's RAW data. If you try to
crop and upsize in the computer from a camera's resulting JPG file you lose
some resolution and detail. Digital-zoom is not empty zoom. Unless you have
access to and the editing time needed for the RAW data, the camera will do
a better job at cropping and upsampling by using the camera's digital-zoom
than you can do in your computer, guaranteed.

For those of you that don't believe this, test it yourself. I did. That's
how I know. Tested it on several makes and models of cameras using the most
advanced post-processing upsampling algorithms available. Using images
taken from my own ISO-12233 test chart, the very same one that dpreview
uses for their resolution tests. Digital-zoom is not empty zoom if you are
going to use the quality JPG file right from the camera. Those that decry
digital-zoom are just blindly parroting more net misinformation that was
started by morons.

Better Info

"Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
news:...
> John Navas <> wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:27:55 -0800, Jürgen Exner <>
>>wrote in <>:
>>
>>>John Navas <> wrote:
>>>>Standard Optical Zoom "only" goes up 1o 480 mm,
>>>>and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm,
>>>
>>>What is "extended optical zoom"? An addon-lens?
>>
>>Automatic cropping of the image.
>
> And what does digital cropping have to do with "[extended] optical
> zoom"?
> Calling cropping zooming is plain lying (not by you but probably by
> marketing).
>
> jue

I believe Canon calls it "digital zoom," which is at least a bit more
honest. Using the word "optical" implies something to do with the lens
elements, which of course it is completely different.

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks