Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Superzoom P&S's may have long "effective" focal lengths, but....

Reply
Thread Tools

Superzoom P&S's may have long "effective" focal lengths, but....

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2010
On Jul 11, 11:08*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >One very interesting thing
> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

>
> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon. *Had it been
> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades. *The blade edges would
> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.


Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2010
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>On Jul 11, 11:08*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>> >One very interesting thing
>> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
>> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

>>
>> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon. *Had it been
>> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades. *The blade edges would
>> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

>
>Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
>used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.



I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
beauty. Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!

Zero depth of field up close, as you said.

You need to avoid out of focus highlights, as with any mirror lens.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2010
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>>On Jul 11, 11:08*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>> >One very interesting thing
>>> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
>>> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.
>>>
>>> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon. *Had it been
>>> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades. *The blade edges would
>>> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

>>
>>Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
>>used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.

>
>
>I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
>but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
>beauty. Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
>and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!
>
>Zero depth of field up close, as you said.


Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate.

YOUR LOSS!

LOL!



>
>You need to avoid out of focus highlights, as with any mirror lens.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
>focal length can.


So what?

Yes, you're an elitist snob who thinks that only your cameras are
acceptable.

Got it. Again.

Thanks for sharing.

--
Ray Fischer
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
On Jul 12, 10:52*am, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >wrote:
> >>On Jul 11, 11:08*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >One very interesting thing
> >>> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
> >>> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

>
> >>> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon. *Had it been
> >>> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades. *The blade edges would
> >>> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

>
> >>Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. *One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
> >>used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.

>
> >I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
> >but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
> >beauty. *Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
> >and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!

>
> >Zero depth of field up close, as you said.

>
> Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate.
>


No need for a crappy sensor, use a smaller aperture and higher ISO.

DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:23:37 -0700 (PDT), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jul 12, 10:52*am, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> >wrote:
>> >>On Jul 11, 11:08*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >One very interesting thing
>> >>> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
>> >>> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

>>
>> >>> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon. *Had it been
>> >>> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades. *The blade edges would
>> >>> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

>>
>> >>Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. *One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
>> >>used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.

>>
>> >I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
>> >but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
>> >beauty. *Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
>> >and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!

>>
>> >Zero depth of field up close, as you said.

>>
>> Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate.
>>

>
>No need for a crappy sensor, use a smaller aperture and higher ISO.
>
>DanP


Yes, then you can turn that larger sensor into a worse than crappy sensor
by ruining your images with diffraction and noise. What a novel idea!

LOL!
 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
On Jul 15, 11:19*am, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:23:37 -0700 (PDT), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Jul 12, 10:52*am, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>On Jul 11, 11:08*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> >One very interesting thing
> >> >>> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
> >> >>> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

>
> >> >>> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon. *Had it been
> >> >>> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades. *The blade edges would
> >> >>> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

>
> >> >>Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. *One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
> >> >>used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.

>
> >> >I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
> >> >but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
> >> >beauty. *Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
> >> >and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!

>
> >> >Zero depth of field up close, as you said.

>
> >> Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate.

>
> >No need for a crappy sensor, use a smaller aperture and higher ISO.

>
> >DanP

>
> Yes, then you can turn that larger sensor into a worse than crappy sensor
> by ruining your images with diffraction and noise. What a novel idea!
>
> LOL!


You keep mentioning difraction without providing any numbers.

Diffraction starts kicking in at f/8 on my SLR and I dare use ISO 1600
on it.
On my P&S diffraction starts at f/4 with a maximum ISO of 400.

My P&S is gathering dust now.

A Nikon D700 to lose half of its resolution to difraction has to go to
f/32.
A Canon G11 loses half of its resolution to difraction at f/7.4
http://www.aguntherphotography.com/t...esolution.html


DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 04:51:12 -0700 (PDT), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Jul 15, 11:19*am, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:23:37 -0700 (PDT), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >On Jul 12, 10:52*am, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >>On Jul 11, 11:08*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>> >One very interesting thing
>> >> >>> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
>> >> >>> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

>>
>> >> >>> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon. *Had it been
>> >> >>> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades. *The blade edges would
>> >> >>> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

>>
>> >> >>Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. *One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
>> >> >>used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.

>>
>> >> >I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
>> >> >but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
>> >> >beauty. *Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
>> >> >and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!

>>
>> >> >Zero depth of field up close, as you said.

>>
>> >> Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate.

>>
>> >No need for a crappy sensor, use a smaller aperture and higher ISO.

>>
>> >DanP

>>
>> Yes, then you can turn that larger sensor into a worse than crappy sensor
>> by ruining your images with diffraction and noise. What a novel idea!
>>
>> LOL!

>
>You keep mentioning difraction without providing any numbers.
>
>Diffraction starts kicking in at f/8 on my SLR and I dare use ISO 1600
>on it.
>On my P&S diffraction starts at f/4 with a maximum ISO of 400.


What a shame. You need to learn how to buy better cameras. So just because
you only know how to buy shitty cameras, then this applies to all cameras
that you've never used nor know anything about. I get it now.

LOL!

(Have you ever figured out what an f-stop is yet? Did Puppygang Weasleburg
ever get you to comprehend what it is and how they work? LOL!!!!!)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2010
Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4c3ec2d3$0$1604
>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
>>>focal length can.

>>
>> So what?
>>
>> Yes, you're an elitist snob who thinks that only your cameras are
>> acceptable.
>>
>> Got it. Again.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing.

>
>Shouldn't you be out marching somewhere, carry a red hammer and sickle
>flag?


Shouldn't you be wearing your hood and carrying a swastika?

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2010
Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4c3ec2d3$0$1604
>$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
>>>focal length can.

>>
>> So what?
>>
>> Yes, you're an elitist snob who thinks that only your cameras are
>> acceptable.

>
>You are a fool. I paid $499 for my last G1,


But that's not what you paid for your last camera, is it?

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
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
Having compilation error: no match for call to (const __gnu_cxx::hash<long long int>) (const long long int&) veryhotsausage C++ 1 07-04-2008 05:41 PM
cheaper superzoom Tippi Digital Photography 16 06-10-2006 12:55 AM
Superzoom cameras Beefy_SAFC Digital Photography 18 05-15-2006 08:51 PM
Oly c-725 superzoom constant blurring and other probs Paul Heslop Digital Photography 4 07-06-2005 09:22 AM
News Proxy may be why many people may have missed the vote Renee Digital Photography 5 10-27-2004 06:02 AM



Advertisments