On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:44:02 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
wrote:
>
>
>me wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:35:56 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Poor fellow. I tried with with an Olympus C-8080 years ago and even
>> >with it's lens, the images sucked. The worst 70-300mm $180 zoom on a
>> >DSLR would do better.
>> >
>> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=33791622
>>
>> Even worse RichA BS. All photos are taken at 1/200s or less shutter
>> speed. With camera only 35mm equiv fl of 485-500+ let alone add
>> theTC. Just one 1/160s with the FZ-18 is shown for comparison with
>> the conclusion the FZ-18 is superior to the FZ-35.
>>
>> Looks more like it's the inability to handhold long exposures at lomg
>> focal lengths might be the real issue here.
>>
>> Another example of why we should killfile richA.
>
>Forget the blurring from motion, look at the fuzziness from spherical
>aberration and the gross chromatic aberration! You can't just slap a
>"lens on a lens" and expect it to work well.
Are you aware that all the zoom lenses for DSLRs are just slapping lenses
on other lens arrays to achieve those longer focal lengths? The only
difference is that you buy them that way already attached together in a
single lens barrel. In P&S cameras you just happen to have the front
elements that comprise the telescopic part removable when needed, or if you
don't want to buy that portion of a longer focal-length lens. While some
might consider "shopping around" for the right conversion lenses to match
the existing optics on your camera a major pain in the ass, I actually
enjoy the hunt in trying to find the best teleconverter or wide-angle
adapter from Company-A that works best with P&S camera from Company-B. Many
cross-company matches working far better than A's converter matched to A's
camera. In doing so I also found fish-eye adapters for under $100 that beat
the pants off of any dedicated $2500 Nikkor fisheye lenses for any D/SLR.
But you wouldn't know anything about this, because you've never owned ANY
camera, P&S or otherwise.
Like this quick example:
<http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2512/4132272547_6448e0b6f2_o.jpg>
[Note to moron trolls: Do not misconstrue the pixel-sharp details due to
over-sharpening. That's due to Lanczos-8 downsampling retaining as much
detail as possible from the original image along with JPG compression
artifacts for web posting. Pixel-peeping reveals no halos, just JPG
compression artifacts that you will ignorantly try to see as
over-sharpening.]
But you're right, you can't slap "a lens on a lens" and expect good
results. You get even better results if you slap "a lens on a lens on a
lens". To borrow a well known example posted by someone else long ago:
"Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm
equivalent)."
Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
open for as long as you live.
If not, you get to shut up now.
Similar Threads
