Lens question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PaddleHard, Oct 31, 2009.

  1. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "No spam please" <> wrote in message
    news:hcnkef$vmm$...
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    > news:Q2CHm.50238$Db2.18755@edtnps83...
    >>
    >> ">> "Mister, at this time you are required to turn off your pacemaker.
    >>> When we reach 10,000 feet, you may re-start it. Thank you."
    >>>

    >>
    >> George, that's about as good a way of encapsulating the issue as I've
    >> read... :)
    >>
    >> Take Care,
    >> Dudley
    >>
    >>

    > Hi guys.
    >
    > Nice analogy but the wrong way round. When you visit a radar site or
    > broadcast site you should see signs warning those with pacemakers not to
    > enter. Pacemaker is the victim, not the perpetrator.
    > An acquaintance of mine works in the world of radio but can't accept site
    > visits to broadcast sites because of his pacemaker.
    >
    > Best wishes, Rog.
    >


    Not really, I think George was lampooning the practice of turning off ALL
    electrical devices during take-off and landing. Followed too strictly,
    nasty things would happen... :)

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >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 and remains close to state-of-the-art throughout
    > it's service life.


    huh?

    let's see you upgrade the car's engine, replace a standard transmission
    with an automatic or add air conditioning if you opted to not include
    it at the time of purchase. let's see you add odb-ii to an older car or
    change a 2-wheel drive car into a 4-wheel drive car. it's anywhere from
    prohibitively expensive to impossible.

    where do you come up with this stuff?
     
    nospam, Nov 2, 2009
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:021120091835218310%...
    > In article <>, John Navas
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> >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 and remains close to state-of-the-art throughout
    >> it's service life.

    >
    > huh?
    >
    > let's see you upgrade the car's engine, replace a standard transmission
    > with an automatic or add air conditioning if you opted to not include
    > it at the time of purchase. let's see you add odb-ii to an older car or
    > change a 2-wheel drive car into a 4-wheel drive car. it's anywhere from
    > prohibitively expensive to impossible.
    >
    > where do you come up with this stuff?


    To John, money, practicality and common sense just aren't part of the
    equation...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #63
  4. PaddleHard

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:47:47 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >wrote in <>:
    >
    >>-hh wrote:
    >>> Bob Larter <> wrote:
    >>>> John Navas wrote:
    >>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:11:24 -0000, "No spam please"
    >>>> [...]
    >>>>>> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body.
    >>>>> You've defining the problem away, and in fact some Canon EF lenses won't
    >>>>> work on some Canon EF bodies.
    >>>> Really? That's news to me. Which lenses, & which bodies?
    >>>
    >>> The EF-S lenses won't work on full frame EOS bodies ... but that's
    >>> because its an EF-S lens, which is not an EF lens, but rather a lens
    >>> that's designed to be used on EF-S based EOS bodies, which are
    >>> compatible with both EF & EF-S lenses.

    >>
    >>Exactly. EF-S lenses aren't EF lenses.

    >
    >Again, "You've defining the problem away..."


    Again, you're trying to create a problem in order justify your idiocy.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 2, 2009
    #64
  5. PaddleHard

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:16:23 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:21:01 -0000, "No spam please"
    ><> wrote in <hcn098$2m11$>:
    >
    >>I agree that a 3oomm lens isn't ideal for bird photography. Personally, I'd
    >>love a fast 400mm but the cost, size and weight are beyond me. ...

    >
    >Panasonic with optically-stabilized Leica super-zoom lens is
    >inexpensive, compact and light, excellent for birding.


    Chickens, perhaps. Turkeys, ostriches, emus, and caged birds maybe.
    Large birds that you can close enough to touch.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 2, 2009
    #65
  6. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:4aef716e$0$1582$...
    > John Navas <> wrote:
    >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:47:47 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >>wrote in <>:
    >>
    >>>-hh wrote:
    >>>> Bob Larter <> wrote:
    >>>>> John Navas wrote:
    >>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:11:24 -0000, "No spam please"
    >>>>> [...]
    >>>>>>> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body.
    >>>>>> You've defining the problem away, and in fact some Canon EF lenses
    >>>>>> won't
    >>>>>> work on some Canon EF bodies.
    >>>>> Really? That's news to me. Which lenses, & which bodies?
    >>>>
    >>>> The EF-S lenses won't work on full frame EOS bodies ... but that's
    >>>> because its an EF-S lens, which is not an EF lens, but rather a lens
    >>>> that's designed to be used on EF-S based EOS bodies, which are
    >>>> compatible with both EF & EF-S lenses.
    >>>
    >>>Exactly. EF-S lenses aren't EF lenses.

    >>
    >>Again, "You've defining the problem away..."

    >
    > Again, you're trying to create a problem in order justify your idiocy.
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer
    >
    >


    Sometimes, I think John can't read. As long as there is an "F" in the
    designation, it's all the same to him.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 3, 2009
    #66
  7. PaddleHard

    Bob Larter Guest

    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?

    > and remains close to state-of-the-art throughout
    > it's service life.


    Only because the state of the art in cars has been stagnant for many years.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Nov 3, 2009
    #67
  8. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >>Panasonic with optically-stabilized Leica super-zoom lens is
    > >>inexpensive, compact and light, excellent for birding.

    > >
    > >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,
    > and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm,
    > quite sufficient for most birding,


    you've got to be kidding.

    extended optical zoom is nothing more than cropping off most of the
    pixels leaving just 3 mp. any camera can do that, and it's nothing at
    all like using a real 860mm lens.

    > but those ranges are easily extended with a teleconverter
    > to over 800 mm and over 1400 mm respectively.


    you can easily use teleconverters with slr lenses and you can crop the
    slr image for 'extended optical zoom.'

    > Much better than dSLR. :D


    wrong.
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #68
  9. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Jürgen Exner
    <> 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?


    cropping.
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #69
  10. PaddleHard

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:21 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:57:46 -0500, tony cooper
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:16:23 -0800, John Navas
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:21:01 -0000, "No spam please"
    >>><> wrote in <hcn098$2m11$>:
    >>>
    >>>>I agree that a 3oomm lens isn't ideal for bird photography. Personally, I'd
    >>>>love a fast 400mm but the cost, size and weight are beyond me. ...
    >>>
    >>>Panasonic with optically-stabilized Leica super-zoom lens is
    >>>inexpensive, compact and light, excellent for birding.

    >>
    >>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,
    >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. :D


    And, of course, you have examples of your "better than dslr" bird
    photographs to show. Right?




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 3, 2009
    #70
  11. 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?

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Nov 3, 2009
    #71
  12. On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:05:34 -0400, nospam <> wrote:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >>Panasonic with optically-stabilized Leica super-zoom lens is
    >> >>inexpensive, compact and light, excellent for birding.
    >> >
    >> >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,
    >> and Extended Optical Zoom goes up to 860 mm,
    >> quite sufficient for most birding,

    >
    >you've got to be kidding.
    >
    >extended optical zoom is nothing more than cropping off most of the
    >pixels leaving just 3 mp. any camera can do that, and it's nothing at
    >all like using a real 860mm lens.
    >
    >> but those ranges are easily extended with a teleconverter
    >> to over 800 mm and over 1400 mm respectively.

    >
    >you can easily use teleconverters with slr lenses and you can crop the
    >slr image for 'extended optical zoom.'
    >


    While reducing your useful DSLR lens' aperture by 2X's or more, the time
    when you really need full aperture is at long focal lengths. To top that
    off, ALL lenses of those focal-lengths for DSLRs are already crippled by
    having far smaller apertures than any super-zoom P&S camera.

    Try again, you psychotic and deceptive know-nothing pretend-photographer
    DSLR-Troll.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Nov 3, 2009
    #72
  13. PaddleHard

    Bob Larter Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:57:46 -0500, tony cooper
    > <> wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:16:23 -0800, John Navas
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:21:01 -0000, "No spam please"
    >>> <> wrote in <hcn098$2m11$>:
    >>>
    >>>> I agree that a 3oomm lens isn't ideal for bird photography. Personally, I'd
    >>>> love a fast 400mm but the cost, size and weight are beyond me. ...
    >>> Panasonic with optically-stabilized Leica super-zoom lens is
    >>> inexpensive, compact and light, excellent for birding.

    >> 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,
    > and Extended Optical Zoom goes


    ie; 'digital zoom'. *snicker*

    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. :D


    You've obviously never tried to use such a combination for real photography.


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Nov 3, 2009
    #73
  14. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <hcpehb$vq0$>, No spam please
    <> wrote:

    > >> As I said
    > >> earlier, a friend who operates an airfield radio found that her own radio
    > >> receiver upset the aircraft's systems.

    > >
    > > but you didn't say how she determined that. did she turn on the radio
    > > and the plane suddenly dive or make a sudden turn? how did she rule out
    > > some other effect?

    >
    > As I understand it, the pilots found a malfunction and asked cabin crew to
    > see if anyone was using a radio receiver or transmitter. I don't know the
    > aircraft type.


    malfunctions can occur for a variety of reasons. that's not proof that
    the radio was the cause.
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #74
  15. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <hcpegt$vq0$>, No spam please
    <> wrote:

    > The Nikon body definitely doesn't have the mechanical focus coupling so it
    > may well be a D40 and not a D50.


    if there's no coupling, it's a d40, not a d50.
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #75
  16. PaddleHard

    J. Clarke Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > In article <hcpehb$vq0$>, No spam please
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> As I said
    >>>> earlier, a friend who operates an airfield radio found that her
    >>>> own radio receiver upset the aircraft's systems.
    >>>
    >>> but you didn't say how she determined that. did she turn on the
    >>> radio and the plane suddenly dive or make a sudden turn? how did
    >>> she rule out some other effect?

    >>
    >> As I understand it, the pilots found a malfunction and asked cabin
    >> crew to see if anyone was using a radio receiver or transmitter. I
    >> don't know the aircraft type.

    >
    > malfunctions can occur for a variety of reasons. that's not proof that
    > the radio was the cause.


    How about if turning it off fixed the problem and turning it back on
    resulted in it returning?
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 3, 2009
    #76
  17. 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
     
    Jürgen Exner, Nov 3, 2009
    #77
  18. PaddleHard

    -hh Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    > Bob Larter <> 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 .. YMMV if its worth a
    slight (10%) drop in focal length to gain 1/3rd of a stop...along with
    the better ISO range and the better lens stabilization (if one is so
    inclined).

    > >> and Extended Optical Zoom goes

    >
    > >ie; 'digital zoom'. *snicker*

    >
    > Nope.  Your ignorance is showing.  


    Its simply in-camera cropping, which carries the disadvantage of not
    permitting an image to be re-composed if the operator missed slightly
    when tightly framing the subject. This results in lower yield.


    > >You've obviously never tried to use such
    > > a combination for real photography.

    >
    > Again, your ignorance is showing.


    Pendantly, the correct statement would have been "...never
    demonstrated a success of good yield from the range of aviary subjects
    (large-small, static-flying) while using such a combination..."

    The simple reality is that flying birds are a challenging subject no
    matter what gear one has. Not only does it have focal length
    considerations, but it also stresses autofocus systems, both for speed
    of acquiring, but also for their dynamic tracking accuracy.

    Of course, John will continue to claim to high heaven that the
    Panasonic is the bees knees, but if one were to go buy the hardware to
    test for one's self, any failures will predictably result in the
    excuse of "Operator Error".


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 3, 2009
    #78
  19. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, J. Clarke
    <> wrote:

    > > malfunctions can occur for a variety of reasons. that's not proof that
    > > the radio was the cause.

    >
    > How about if turning it off fixed the problem and turning it back on
    > resulted in it returning?


    how about controlled tests, many of which have been done and none of
    which have found any link. and in this particular case, the radio was
    not turned back on to see what happened.
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #79
  20. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    -hh <> wrote:

    > Its simply in-camera cropping, which carries the disadvantage of not
    > permitting an image to be re-composed if the operator missed slightly
    > when tightly framing the subject. This results in lower yield.


    right. there's no point in discarding 2/3rds of the pixels when taking
    the shot. do it later, cropping as needed.

    > The simple reality is that flying birds are a challenging subject no
    > matter what gear one has. Not only does it have focal length
    > considerations, but it also stresses autofocus systems, both for speed
    > of acquiring, but also for their dynamic tracking accuracy.


    right. and notice his bird pic is a stationary bird.

    > Of course, John will continue to claim to high heaven that the
    > Panasonic is the bees knees, but if one were to go buy the hardware to
    > test for one's self, any failures will predictably result in the
    > excuse of "Operator Error".


    of course.
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #80
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Beowulf
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    3,040
    Lionel
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. Mike Kozlowski
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    839
  3. Amyotte
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    754
    amyotte
    Feb 11, 2004
  4. SteveJ

    Canon 10D lens Nikon Lens

    SteveJ, Jun 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    898
    Steve m...
    Jun 14, 2004
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    4,642
    Doug Jewell
    May 31, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page