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
 
      07-11-2010
They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
focal length can. These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. On top of that, the
images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. All of which reduces
detail.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35767510

Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
mirror lens. About a 500mm "equivalent."

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2010
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
>focal length can. These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
>it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. On top of that, the
>images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
>chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. All of which reduces
>detail.
>
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35767510
>
>Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
>mirror lens. About a 500mm "equivalent."
>
>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original


And here's where a 20x superzoom lens' resolution and CA performance EASILY
beats an easy to design and build 3X DSLR lens.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

Your point?

Oh that's right. You NEVER have one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2010
On 10/07/10 6:39 PM, RichA wrote:
> They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
> focal length can.


Duh.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2010
On Jul 10, 9:43*pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
> >focal length can. *These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
> >it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. *On top of that, the
> >images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
> >chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. *All of which reduces
> >detail.

>
> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35767510

>
> >Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
> >mirror lens. *About a 500mm "equivalent."

>
> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original

>
> And here's where a 20x superzoom lens' resolution and CA performance EASILY
> beats an easy to design and build 3X DSLR lens.
>
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...IS/outdoor_res...
>
> Your point?
>
> Oh that's right. You NEVER have one.


November 2008
Yes, that original Canon 18-55mm was dog. Not equaled in crumminess
until the Sony 18-70mm showed up. But they are hardly representative
of good quality kit lenses.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ransley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2010
On Jul 10, 8:39*pm, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
> focal length can. *These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
> it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. *On top of that, the
> images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
> chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. *All of which reduces
> detail.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35767510
>
> Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
> mirror lens. *About a 500mm "equivalent."
>
> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original


You finally are learning. I thought everyone knew this in 05
 
Reply With Quote
 
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2010
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:09:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Jul 10, 9:43*pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
>> >focal length can. *These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
>> >it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. *On top of that, the
>> >images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
>> >chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. *All of which reduces
>> >detail.

>>
>> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35767510

>>
>> >Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
>> >mirror lens. *About a 500mm "equivalent."

>>
>> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original

>>
>> And here's where a 20x superzoom lens' resolution and CA performance EASILY
>> beats an easy to design and build 3X DSLR lens.
>>
>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...IS/outdoor_res...
>>
>> Your point?
>>
>> Oh that's right. You NEVER have one.

>
>November 2008
>Yes, that original Canon 18-55mm was dog. Not equaled in crumminess
>until the Sony 18-70mm showed up. But they are hardly representative
>of good quality kit lenses.


But you forgot to compare the resolution of that fixed-focal-length
one-aperture-setting-only mirror lens with all focal-lengths from 35 to
420mm and apertures from f/2.8 to f/11 in the superzoom camera. How many
mirror lenses would you have to haul around for that much focal-length
reach and aperture range in all of them? How much would they cost? How
large and sturdy of a camera bag to try to haul it all? Is that the largest
aperture you can get at 500mm? F/5.6 isn't even enough aperture to allow
shutter speeds fast enough freeze the image of someone walking during
sunset let alone any other more demanding wildlife photography. Oh, and if
you notice, the gull's image is downsized. The moon images were shot at
1/250 second, the gull at 1/3200 second. Even with all the technique
advantages given to the mirror lens' image there's more pixel level details
in the cropped-only 1:1 superzoom's moon images than in the gull image,
even in its downsized version, where pixel-level details should have
markedly increased, not reduced. Didn't you notice that?

Could you find any two more totally disparate lens and shooting conditions
to compare to try to prove something and yet totally fail even more at
doing so? I don't think it possible.

At least you got one of your fellow pretend-photographer trolls to out
himself again by agreeing with you. He never even realized he was agreeing
to your having provided perfect proof that you are 100% wrong and a fool.
All that you managed to accomplish is make complete fools of both of you.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2010
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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2010
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:41:49 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
>saying something like:
>
>>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.

>
>I'd have said it was Chinese.
>Seagull.



Ah, yes, a Minolta copy.

 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2010
On Jul 10, 11:23*pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:09:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 10, 9:43*pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> wrote:

>
> >> >They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
> >> >focal length can. *These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
> >> >it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. *On top of that, the
> >> >images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
> >> >chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. *All of which reduces
> >> >detail.

>
> >> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35767510

>
> >> >Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
> >> >mirror lens. *About a 500mm "equivalent."

>
> >> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original

>
> >> And here's where a 20x superzoom lens' resolution and CA performance EASILY
> >> beats an easy to design and build 3X DSLR lens.

>
> >>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...IS/outdoor_res....

>
> >> Your point?

>
> >> Oh that's right. You NEVER have one.

>
> >November 2008
> >Yes, that original Canon 18-55mm was dog. *Not equaled in crumminess
> >until the Sony 18-70mm showed up. *But they are hardly representative
> >of good quality kit lenses.

>
> But you forgot to compare the resolution of that fixed-focal-length
> one-aperture-setting-only mirror lens with all focal-lengths from 35 to
> 420mm and apertures from f/2.8 to f/11 in the superzoom camera. How many
> mirror lenses would you have to haul around for that much focal-length
> reach and aperture range in all of them?


I don't believe in cramming such wide focal length ranges into one
lens, they end up sucking horribly because of that. 5:1 is the
maximum I've seen and the lens still being able to produce decent
images, especially at either end of the range.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2010
On Jul 11, 4:27*am, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> ransley wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 8:39 pm, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
> >> focal length can. *These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
> >> it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. *On top of that, the
> >> images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
> >> chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. *All of which reduces
> >> detail.

>
> >>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35767510

>
> >> Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
> >> mirror lens. *About a 500mm "equivalent."

>
> >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original

>
> > You finally are learning. I thought everyone knew this in 05

>
> Nice picture. Do you know what kind if gull? 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.
> Allen


It also appears to have a nictitating (sp?) membrane over it's eye.
 
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