«

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
[]
> There are two aspects to this, David. First these people buy an
> interchangeable lens camera but make a choice of lens that they will
> rarely, if ever change. Second, these people claim that they chose a
> DSLR for better image quality, then they buy an optically inferior
> lens that robs them of the increased image quality they just bought.

No-one is saying that the results from the 18-200mm matches the results
from more expensive and lower zoom range lenses, but the higher ISO
capability of the DSLR may more than make up for the less than perfect
lens in some lower-light picture taking circumstances. With the DSLR folk
do have the opportunity to get better lenses should their interests or
needs develop in that direction. I can't comment on what others claim are
their reasons for getting a DSLR, but I have seen that reaction speed is
one. It's not all about getting stunning 20 x 16-inch prints.


> If people with DSLRs and 11X consumer grade zooms compare their lens
> with a decent prime they will see just how much image quality they
> have thrown away by buying a consumer-grade zoom lens with a
> ridiculously large zoom range.

No doubt, but it may not matter if they aren't printing very large prints,
or displaying on a TV or whatever. Being able to get a decent photo
because they didn't have to delay to switch lenses may also be important.

> But I suppose the answer that they will use it mostly at f/8 or f/11,
> throwing away any semblance of control over depth of field, proving
> that, to every question asked, they always have an answer that
> involves dumbing down the quality of their output still further until
> it reaches rock bottom - and carries on going down.

Using f/8 or f/11 on a DSLR lens will still give better subject isolation
than the same f/number on a P&S. Different people will make different
choice than you or I as to what matters to them.

David

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:
>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>[]
>> There are two aspects to this, David. First these people buy an
>> interchangeable lens camera but make a choice of lens that they will
>> rarely, if ever change. Second, these people claim that they chose a
>> DSLR for better image quality, then they buy an optically inferior
>> lens that robs them of the increased image quality they just bought.
>
>No-one is saying that the results from the 18-200mm matches the results
>from more expensive and lower zoom range lenses, but the higher ISO
>capability of the DSLR may more than make up for the less than perfect
>lens in some lower-light picture taking circumstances.


No, it won't, because lower sensor noise in no way compensates for the
horrendous optical deficiencies of a junk lens.

I note that you snipped my quote from DPReview.com which made clear
just what a pile of junk that lens is.


>With the DSLR folk
>do have the opportunity to get better lenses should their interests or
>needs develop in that direction. I can't comment on what others claim are
>their reasons for getting a DSLR, but I have seen that reaction speed is
>one. It's not all about getting stunning 20 x 16-inch prints.


The usual reason is to make a statement about themselves to family
and/or friends. They think it shows that they are "keen
photographers". Then they show their fundamental lack of ability and
serious lack of judgement by putting a junk lens on the front.


>> If people with DSLRs and 11X consumer grade zooms compare their lens
>> with a decent prime they will see just how much image quality they
>> have thrown away by buying a consumer-grade zoom lens with a
>> ridiculously large zoom range.
>
>No doubt, but it may not matter if they aren't printing very large prints,
>or displaying on a TV or whatever.


A "Full HD 1080P" TV needs only a 2.1 MP image, 1920 x 1080 pixels.
Anything more is overkill.


>Being able to get a decent photo
>because they didn't have to delay to switch lenses may also be important.


I doubt that the ability to get a decent photo, meaning one that
justifies the purchase of a DSLR, even exists in the first place.


>> But I suppose the answer that they will use it mostly at f/8 or f/11,
>> throwing away any semblance of control over depth of field, proving
>> that, to every question asked, they always have an answer that
>> involves dumbing down the quality of their output still further until
>> it reaches rock bottom - and carries on going down.
>
>Using f/8 or f/11 on a DSLR lens will still give better subject isolation
>than the same f/number on a P&S.


Once again you quote from theory but demonstrate a near complete lack
of experience. When it comes to separating subject from foreground or
background, f/8 or f/11 on an APS-C DSLR is ineffective. Using f/8 or
f/11 on a P&S is also ineffective. You can waffle on as much as you
want about a theoretical difference, but for all practical purposes,
there isn't one.


>Different people will make different
>choice than you or I as to what matters to them.


Indeed. Ignorant people make all kinds of bizarre choices, like
buying a DSLR because they claim it offers better image quality, then
putting a junk lens on the front. Worse still, they carefully choose
that junk lens so that it would never have to be taken off the camera.
Choices don't get much more bizarre than that.

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>[]
>>> There are two aspects to this, David. First these people buy an
>>> interchangeable lens camera but make a choice of lens that they will
>>> rarely, if ever change. Second, these people claim that they chose a
>>> DSLR for better image quality, then they buy an optically inferior
>>> lens that robs them of the increased image quality they just bought.
>>
>>No-one is saying that the results from the 18-200mm matches the results
>>from more expensive and lower zoom range lenses, but the higher ISO
>>capability of the DSLR may more than make up for the less than perfect
>>lens in some lower-light picture taking circumstances.
>
>
> No, it won't, because lower sensor noise in no way compensates for the
> horrendous optical deficiencies of a junk lens.

There we have to agree to disagree.

> I note that you snipped my quote from DPReview.com which made clear
> just what a pile of junk that lens is.

As a user of the lens, I have formed my own opinion. For anyone who want
to read the full review it's here:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...p6_vr_afs_n15/

They say: "But to dismiss the 18-200mm VR based purely on its optical
quality is to miss the point quite fundamentally."


> The usual reason is to make a statement about themselves to family
> and/or friends. They think it shows that they are "keen
> photographers". Then they show their fundamental lack of ability and
> serious lack of judgement by putting a junk lens on the front.

Disagree - different people have different needs.

> A "Full HD 1080P" TV needs only a 2.1 MP image, 1920 x 1080 pixels.
> Anything more is overkill.

Disagree - what about cropping?


> I doubt that the ability to get a decent photo, meaning one that
> justifies the purchase of a DSLR, even exists in the first place.

Possibly, but purchase of a larger-sensor camera may well be justified.

> Once again you quote from theory but demonstrate a near complete lack
> of experience. When it comes to separating subject from foreground or
> background, f/8 or f/11 on an APS-C DSLR is ineffective. Using f/8 or
> f/11 on a P&S is also ineffective. You can waffle on as much as you
> want about a theoretical difference, but for all practical purposes,
> there isn't one.

It works on my lenses. Obviously if subject isolation is particularly
important, I will open up to the largest aperture.

> Indeed. Ignorant people make all kinds of bizarre choices, like
> buying a DSLR because they claim it offers better image quality, then
> putting a junk lens on the front. Worse still, they carefully choose
> that junk lens so that it would never have to be taken off the camera.
> Choices don't get much more bizarre than that.

In conditions where changing lenses is impractical or unwise, what you
consider bizarre may actually be the most sensible choice.

David

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:55:12 +0100, Bruce <>
>wrote:
>
>>A "Full HD 1080P" TV needs only a 2.1 MP image, 1920 x 1080 pixels.
>>Anything more is overkill.
>>
>The problem with that argument is that while with TV one is looking at
>a moving image which never stays still long enough to allow really
>close examination, that is not the case with a still image.


True, but people keep telling me how good their 12 to 14 MP still
images look when displayed on their 2.1 MP "Full HD 1080P" TV. I
think they look disappointing.

There is a similar problem with LCD projectors whose resolution is
still limited. I often do slide shows and prefer to have 35mm slides
made from my digital images and use an old-fashioned Leica slide
projector with a top quality lens.


>Apart from that, 1920 x 1080 really only looks good in comparison with
>what we are used to. One day it will be the norm and we will be quite
>used to it.


That's very true. I am told there is already an "Ultra HD" format in
development which is 7680 x 4320 pixels or 33 MP! Of course this
format lends itself to being displayed at 1920 x 1080 with very few
problems, so it will be backward compatible.

On 6/28/2011 9:17 PM, Paul Furman wrote:

> Arri Zeiss 14mm Ultra Prime Distagon T1.9
> $17,300.00 - Abel Cine Tech
>
> Zeiss DigiPrime 14mm T1.6 Cine Lens
> $13,860.00 - B&H Photo-Video-Audio

True.

IIRC, the Ultra Primes covers the "Super 35mm" frame size, which
is slightly bigger than DX. (24.89mm by 18.66mm)

The DigiPrimes are designed for much smaller sensors (8.80mm by
6.60mm).

Zeiss also makes (or made) a 14mm t/1.3 Master Prime, again for
the "Super 35mm" frame size, and probably a few other models
as well, but I don't know of any which offered sufficient coverage
for an FX-format dSLR or 35mm still photography.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing
stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz

RichA wrote:
>
> Henry's Camera Outlet store in Mississauga, Ontario (outskirts of
> Toronto) was selling refurb Canon Rebel XT's for $99.00. Add a used
> 18-55mm kit lens for about $50-$60 and you are in business. They also
> had higher model Canons at similar savings.
> Amazing.


It's "amazing" that a contriving Canuck outfit, would try to foist
worn-out DSLR bodies, upon ignorant Canadian consumers?

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>

Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> > RichA <> wrote:
> >
> > Henry's Camera Outlet store in Mississauga, Ontario (outskirts of
> > Toronto) was selling refurb Canon Rebel XT's for $99.00. Add a used
> > 18-55mm kit lens for about $50-$60 and you are in business. They also
> > had higher model Canons at similar savings.
> > Amazing.
>
> I already have a Canon Rebel XT. I haven't touched it since I bought a
> P&S camera with a 30x optical lens. No more back breaking days carrying
> around a ton of camera gear for me!


I love my trio of Kodak "super zoom" cameras. The "Z980" is tops, and
boasts a 24x optical ratio. Haven't even used my Pentax "K100D" (6 MP
"entry-level" DSLR), since June 3, 2008.

> Why do you think that XT is so cheap?

Because, it has 1,000,000 shutter actuations under its belt?

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>

Doug Bashford <> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 9:22Â*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > >Sure it's older, but it STILL has an APS sensor which
>> > >is better than any current P&S.

> Perhaps.
> And the paint job on a Toyota is better than
> on a Corvette. From that we can conclude what
> about driving the two cars?

Style (P&S) over substance (Corvette).

>> > Since the Rebel XT (EOS 350D) was made, the image quality from P&S
>> > cameras has massively improved. Â*Faced with the choice of a new, low
>> > noise P&S and a noisy six year old Rebel XT with an atrocious first
>> > generation 18-55mm lens

>> Then get a later lens. Same price.

> Hogwash. With my $200 SX120 I take a fly the size
> of a match head, then focus on his legs, then
> the hairs on his legs, then the tiny hairs on his
> body, when a hawk lands on a tree and I zoom
> to 10X, snap snap, back off to 6X and then set
> my mo-det-intervalometer to catch his takeoff
> and go to lunch.

> What's that cost of that on your refurb Rebel again?

As long as we're talking typical real life examples of the common
P&S or 350D owners:

With the XT you can
- shoot with a 50mm f/1.8 and faster,
- have a narrow DOF without macro or long focal lenghts,
- use a powerful external flash *instead* of the straight-on
internal flash --- and the flash metering will do all the work,
- can even use multiple remote flash units and control them
from the camera, (and have the flash metering do the work,
if you like)
- focus quickly in dim light,
- track moving objects and predict where they'll be when the
shutter opens,
- hold the camera to the eye instead of holding the camera at arm's
length,
- use a real optical view finder
- get a much wider angle than the 36mm the SX120 has even with
the kit lens (and much much wider with other lenses)
- use a macro lens that let's you keep some distance to the
subject instead of having to freeze the fly with cold spray

What's the cost to do all that on your $200 SX120? I mean, outside
"the same as for your 350D, + $200 for the SX I cannot use"?

I'm sure the SX120 is a fine camera, but it's not a low light
wonder and sometimes I need a wide angle. I can shoot at effective
ISO 6400 to 12800 with the 20D, the big sister of the 350D, and
get usable to good quality without having details ironed away by
the noise supression. Since that's important to me, the SX120
isn't a good choice as a main camera, but for daylight-outside
shooting it's fine and it's size makes it much more usable as a
'always carried' camera.

-Wolfgang

Doug Bashford wrote:
>
> > On Jun 14, 9:22 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> > > Since the Rebel XT (EOS 350D) was made, the image quality from P&S
> > > cameras has massively improved. Faced with the choice of a new, low
> > > noise P&S and a noisy six year old Rebel XT with an atrocious first
> > > generation 18-55mm lens
> >
> > Then get a later lens. Same price.
>
> Hogwash. With my $200 SX120 I take a fly the size of a match head, then
> focus on his legs, then the hairs on his legs, then the tiny hairs on his
> body, when a hawk lands on a tree and I zoom to 10X, snap snap, back off
> to 6X and then set my mo-det-intervalometer to catch his takeoff and go
> to lunch.
>
> What's that cost of that on your refurb Rebel again?
>
> I'm not so silly as to pronounce one objectively better than another,
> and I know better than to debate relegion, but on the other hand,
> certain wild-eyed claims, tones and attitudes make it very tempting
> to pretend such a debate might accomplish something.

<edited>

Please, don't become discouraged by any P&S-bashers. You only need to
please >yourself<, not them.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>