Lens question

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

  1. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > And, making an exception to my rule:
    > <http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg>


    an 800 x 600 pixel sample of a bird that's not moving?? that's the best
    you can do??
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. PaddleHard

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:04:07 -0800, John Navas
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0500, tony cooper
    >><> wrote in
    >><>:
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:21 -0800, John Navas

    >>
    >>>>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 ...

    >>
    >>I do indeed. :)

    >
    >And, making an exception to my rule:
    ><http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg>


    I note that 1) your bird is a very large bird that you didn't need to
    get very close to, and 2) your got fairly close to it anyway judging
    by the angle of the shot.

    Not bad, but not impressive.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 3, 2009
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. PaddleHard

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    > Jürgen Exner <>
    >>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. What makes it better than cropping in
    >post-processing is the ability to see a magnified final image.


    A "digital zoom" as it's more commonly known. Reduced resolution.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 3, 2009
    #83
  4. PaddleHard

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:44:46 -0800 (PST), -hh
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>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 ..

    >
    >What lens (including price, size and weight,
    >and how long you've owned it)?


    Nobody disputes that you can put a cheap zoom onto a P&S.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 3, 2009
    #84
  5. PaddleHard

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    > -hh <> wrote in
    >>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 ..

    >
    >What lens (including price, size and weight,
    >and how long you've owned it)?


    A 70-300 zoom can be had for $200. That's a 112-480 equivalent on a
    1.6x crop body. I've had one for many years now, although I don't use
    it anymore since I prefer better lenses and my camera le's me upgrade
    to a better lens.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 3, 2009
    #85
  6. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > Adding a foxtail the antennae, fuzzy dice hanging from the rear view
    > mirror, and valve stem covers in the shape of a skull is not
    > upgrading.


    you forgot the spinning wheel covers :)
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #86
  7. PaddleHard

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:08:55 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:54:18 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >wrote in <4aef9b5e$>:
    >
    >>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?

    >
    >OEM equipment.
    >Aftermarket equipment.
    >http://www.jcwhitney.com
    >etc.
    >etc,
    >

    Adding a foxtail the antennae, fuzzy dice hanging from the rear view
    mirror, and valve stem covers in the shape of a skull is not
    upgrading.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 3, 2009
    #87
  8. On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:46:07 -0800, John Navas <>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:04:07 -0800, John Navas
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0500, tony cooper
    >><> wrote in
    >><>:
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:21 -0800, John Navas

    >>
    >>>>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 ...

    >>
    >>I do indeed. :)

    >
    >And, making an exception to my rule:
    ><http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg>
    >
    >Your turn. Image you've taken yourself.


    It's not my turn (sorry for butting in line) but here's another that I've
    posted before to shut them up. Albeit, it's only a sharable scrapshot, not
    any kind of gosh-wowwer. Taken at 735mm (optical, not digital) f/3.5,
    hand-held with a P&S camera. Downsize only, no crop.

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3528/4072075593_1553bcbaa1_o.jpg

    Should we await all the cries of NR muddiness and over-sharpening because
    they can't recognize JPG artifacts? Or how about the more typical ones of
    "You stole that!" or "You shot it with a DSLR!", etc. But of course,
    they're always that stupid and self-deceptive.


    ------------------------------------------------

    Play Title: The DSLR Shoe Buyer (© 2009)

    Act 1: Scene 1

    Gaudy Mall Scene.

    Enter: stage-right, DSLR shoe buyer. Proceeds to DSLR Shoe Shop. Enters and
    walks up to DSLR shoe seller.

    DSLR shoe buyer: "Say, do you got anything in a 36mm to 735mm f/2.7-f/3.5
    zoom lens that I could try on?"

    DSLR shoe seller, "Sorry sir, you'll have to go to a store where they cater
    to people who know how to use and create sizes and quality zoom-ranges like
    that. Shoes of that capability are only for advanced nature photographers.
    We only have small apertures at semi-long focal-lengths in a zoom-shoe for
    the typical inexperienced and under-educated snapshooter. Those who must
    use a heavy and expensive tripods and miss hundreds of shots in low-light
    because they have to use slower shutter speeds at those long focal-lengths.
    Swap out shoes constantly, get dust on their sensor, scare the wildlife
    away with the sounds from their cameras, arrange their tripod, mount the
    camera, etc. You know, the typical moron snapshooter that wears a camera
    like jewelry to show off to everyone."

    DSLR shoe buyer looking disappointed, the DSLR shoe seller reaches under
    the counter and strains to bring up a 12 lb. shoe and puts it on the
    counter, with a loud thud.

    DSLR shoe seller continues: "All that aside, can I interest you in this
    marvelous fixed-focal-length shoe of smaller aperture and not nearly the
    focal-length you needed? It's only 600mm at f/4. Granted, you'll have to
    swap it out with about 5 other shoes of the same weight and gargantuan 6.5"
    x 18" size to get the ranges you need. You do have your own personal
    Sherpa, don't you? It don't do much other than that one focal-length, but
    boy is it a beauty! And only $9,199* at 12 lbs. too! (*real price online)
    Don't forget, here's the 14 lb. $749 tripod you'll require to use it on
    anything. And just because you look like such an experienced pro, here's
    the sensor-cleaning kit that you'll need every time you want to mount or
    remove it from your camera. I'll throw that in for FREE!"

    DSLR shoe buyer: "Wow, looks great! At those prices that MUST be a good
    idea! I'll buy it!"

    DSLR shoe seller: <turns head to cash register and snickers>

    Cash-Register: "ka-CHING!"

    DSLR shoe seller: <more subdued snickering, while smiling about the
    transaction and laughing heartily insider>

    Exit: Moron DSLR shoe-buyer with a huge and happy grin on his idiot's face.
    Trying to not show any strain from having to carry 26 lbs of shoe+tripod
    plus the weight of associated packaging for the two blocks to his car in
    the large mall parking lot. The weight of his camera, luckily, was left at
    home. Only realizing later what a miserable and stupid mistake he made that
    day.

    Act 1: Scene 2

    [nobody needs to see this, it is clearly outlined in the "typical
    inexperienced and under-educated snapshooter" description above]


    Act 2: Scene 1

    DSLR shoe buyer: "You know what? I bet if I get on the internet and start
    praising my purchase decisions in forums and newsgroups, I'll find others
    that can help me to justify why I made such a pathetically stupid mistake."

    (We all know the rest of the story. It's enacted every day on these
    newsgroups.)


    Every time a DSLR camera store cash-register bell rings another DSLR moron
    gets their dunce-cap. (A turn on "A Wonderful Life", for the slower amongst
    you.)

    :)
     
    My Turn! My Turn!, Nov 3, 2009
    #88
  9. PaddleHard

    Better Info Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:05:11 -0800, 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. What makes it better than cropping in
    >post-processing is the ability to see a magnified final image.


    Another reason that most people don't realize: In-camera cropping by using
    digital zoom is done directly from the sensor's RAW data. If you try to
    crop and upsize in the computer from a camera's resulting JPG file you lose
    some resolution and detail. Digital-zoom is not empty zoom. Unless you have
    access to and the editing time needed for the RAW data, the camera will do
    a better job at cropping and upsampling by using the camera's digital-zoom
    than you can do in your computer, guaranteed.

    For those of you that don't believe this, test it yourself. I did. That's
    how I know. Tested it on several makes and models of cameras using the most
    advanced post-processing upsampling algorithms available. Using images
    taken from my own ISO-12233 test chart, the very same one that dpreview
    uses for their resolution tests. Digital-zoom is not empty zoom if you are
    going to use the quality JPG file right from the camera. Those that decry
    digital-zoom are just blindly parroting more net misinformation that was
    started by morons.
     
    Better Info, Nov 3, 2009
    #89
  10. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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


    I believe Canon calls it "digital zoom," which is at least a bit more
    honest. Using the word "optical" implies something to do with the lens
    elements, which of course it is completely different.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 3, 2009
    #90
  11. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > Are you being disingenuous or do you simply lack car experience?
    > I've done a number of engine swaps (not simple replacements), and
    > I've added aftermarket intercooled turbo systems, suspension systems,
    > fuel systems, air conditioning, etc, etc.


    the average car owner is *not* going to swap an engine or add a turbo
    or any of the other stuff you list. a typical upgrade would likely be
    nothing more than a fancy stereo or some seat covers.

    meanwhile, an slr owner can *easily* pick the appropriate lens, without
    any effort at all.
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #91
  12. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <ES%Hm.50390$Db2.20586@edtnps83>, Dudley Hanks
    <> wrote:

    > I believe Canon calls it "digital zoom," which is at least a bit more
    > honest. Using the word "optical" implies something to do with the lens
    > elements, which of course it is completely different.


    yes, it's very deceptive.
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #92
  13. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > When upgrading a dslr body, the owner can continue to benefit from the
    > investment because the upgrades can be used on other bodies purchased
    > in the future. The upgrades you mention are good for that car only.


    not true! you can take the engine out just as easy as you put it in!
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #93
  14. PaddleHard

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:46:07 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:04:07 -0800, John Navas
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0500, tony cooper
    >><> wrote in
    >><>:
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:21 -0800, John Navas

    >>
    >>>>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 ...

    >>
    >>I do indeed. :)

    >
    >And, making an exception to my rule:
    ><http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg>
    >
    >Your turn. Image you've taken yourself.


    I'd have taken it over. It's a decent, but not particularly good
    photograph. The heron's head, feathers on the head, and beak are not
    sharply in focus. The composition is bland. The cropping is
    unimaginative. Overall, it's run-of-the-mill bird photo.

    Why do you feel that this is better than a dslr can do?

    It's not a *bad* photo, but it's certainly not a photo that makes a
    case for your type of camera.

    Here's a photograph of a heron that I took, and one that I would rate
    to be about equal with yours. Like yours, my heron's head and beak
    are not sharply in focus. My lack of sharp focus extends down the
    neck, though.

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Birds/1000/499715774_XfCuM-X3.jpg

    Neither one of these are photos we should brag about or say "Buy this
    model camera because you can get photos like this." I understand
    that, though. You don't seem to.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 3, 2009
    #94
  15. PaddleHard

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:12:56 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:14:54 -0500, tony cooper
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:08:55 -0800, John Navas
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:54:18 +1000, Bob Larter <>
    >>>wrote in <4aef9b5e$>:
    >>>
    >>>>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?
    >>>
    >>>OEM equipment.
    >>>Aftermarket equipment.
    >>>http://www.jcwhitney.com
    >>>etc.
    >>>etc,
    >>>

    >>Adding a foxtail the antennae, fuzzy dice hanging from the rear view
    >>mirror, and valve stem covers in the shape of a skull is not
    >>upgrading.

    >
    >Are you being disingenuous or do you simply lack car experience?
    >I've done a number of engine swaps (not simple replacements), and
    >I've added aftermarket intercooled turbo systems, suspension systems,
    >fuel systems, air conditioning, etc, etc.


    I'm a bit nonplussed that someone can think that adding things like
    the above to a car is upgrading it, but adding lenses, filters, flash
    units, teleconverters, extension tubes, etc to a dslr is not also
    upgrading the camera.

    When upgrading a dslr body, the owner can continue to benefit from the
    investment because the upgrades can be used on other bodies purchased
    in the future. The upgrades you mention are good for that car only.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 3, 2009
    #95
  16. PaddleHard

    -hh Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > John Navas  <> wrote:
    > > -hh <> wrote in
    > >>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 ..

    >
    > >What lens (including price, size and weight,
    > >and how long you've owned it)?


    You don't recall? I've mentioned it repeatedly before. But to
    address your other questions:

    Price: <5% of the cost of vacations I've already taken it on
    Size: <5% of the baggage for vacations I've already taken it on
    Weight: <5% (but ~10% of my bush plane flights) baggage weight limits
    Ownership: a half decade and counting

    Apologies for using different metrics than what you were expecting:
    its simply a matter of priorities and perspective, andI know that mine
    are different than yours. For you, the answers are quite
    predictable:

    Price: can't afford it
    Size: too big
    Weight: too heavy
    Ownership: "never", because you've sworn that you'll never trust
    anything from Canon ever, ever, ever (sic) again


    > A 70-300 zoom can be had for $200.  That's a 112-480 equivalent on a
    > 1.6x crop body.  I've had one for many years now, although I don't use
    > it anymore since I prefer better lenses and my camera le's me upgrade
    > to a better lens.


    The Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III sells for $160, although it is f/
    5.6 whereas John is curious because I specifically mentioned it having
    an f/4.0 solution. Naturally, choosing to pick up that extra stop
    doesn't come about for free...but then again, I also get the benefit
    from the same system of having a 300mm focal length at f/2.8 when I
    want that.

    FWIW, I did think about an f/5.6 aperature long telephoto system, and
    the Canon lens that I would have gone with on a crop body would have
    been the EF 100-400mm IS, which yields an effective 640mm at f/5.6

    And for each of the systems, if we apply a crop (aka "Extended Optical
    Zoom") to 1/4 area (to double the focal length), it works out to
    roughly 900mm at f/4 with my combination, or 1280mm at f/5.6 with the
    one that was my second choice.

    In the meantime, if I really get bitten by the birding bug, the next
    step up is a 400mm f/4 prime, which would give me 640mm at f/4, and
    ~900mm at f/5.6 ...all before any cropping. However, a higher
    priority for me is to modernize my underwater rig, which is still
    using 35mm film. The challenge there has been the "pesky" 15mm WA,
    for which the Copy & Paste troll still hasn't found a P&S solution
    that compares to the 40 year old 1970s vintage Nikkor Nikonos UW-15mm
    prime.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 3, 2009
    #96
  17. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >When upgrading a dslr body, the owner can continue to benefit from the
    > >investment because the upgrades can be used on other bodies purchased
    > >in the future. The upgrades you mention are good for that car only.

    >
    > Sorry, but no -- difference in kind, not degree.
    > Unless you've mastered swapping out the CPU?


    it takes a few minutes to do a firmware upgrade which in many cases
    adds new features. how long does it take to modify a car's engine, let
    alone replace it?
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    #97
  18. PaddleHard

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:16:01 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:19:06 -0500, tony cooper
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:46:07 -0800, John Navas
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:04:07 -0800, John Navas
    >>><> wrote in
    >>><>:
    >>>
    >>>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0500, tony cooper
    >>>><> wrote in
    >>>><>:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:21 -0800, John Navas
    >>>>
    >>>>>>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 ...
    >>>>
    >>>>I do indeed. :)
    >>>
    >>>And, making an exception to my rule:
    >>><http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg>
    >>>
    >>>Your turn. Image you've taken yourself.

    >>
    >>I'd have taken it over. It's a decent, but not particularly good
    >>photograph. The heron's head, feathers on the head, and beak are not
    >>sharply in focus. The composition is bland. The cropping is
    >>unimaginative. Overall, it's run-of-the-mill bird photo.

    >
    >You presume to put down a photo from a small compressed sample.
    >Why am I not surprised. You truly are a waste of time.


    Who are you trying to fool, John? I can look at a "small compressed"
    image and tell if the detail's mushy.

    I'm not putting it down. I'm commenting on what is obvious. It's
    decent but lacks detail. A larger, uncompressed, version would have
    the same lack of detail. A larger, uncompressed, version would be
    composed and cropped identically.

    For critique, any size/compression tells the tale.
    >
    >>Why do you feel that this is better than a dslr can do?

    >
    >"The best camera is the one you have with you."
    >
    >>Here's a photograph of a heron that I took, and one that I would rate
    >>to be about equal with yours. Like yours, my heron's head and beak
    >>are not sharply in focus. My lack of sharp focus extends down the
    >>neck, though.
    >>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Birds/1000/499715774_XfCuM-X3.jpg

    >
    >No Exif or other information provided. Why am I not surprised.


    Didn't know you wanted it. I just linked from my SmugMug site. It
    was taken at 1/500th at 5.6, ISO 200, using my 55/200mm lens.

    If I remember right, the mode setting was "Auto". I was about to
    board the Mayport ferry and noticed the heron next to the pier. I
    usually keep the setting set to Auto until I know what I'm going to
    photograph, and then switch to Aperture. Didn't switch here because
    they were directing us to drive onto the ferry.

    I was shooting .jpg only that day because I was up at my daughter's in
    Jacksonville Beach, and we planned to upload our photos to her laptop.
    She wasn't set up for RAW then.

    I kept this one because I like the composition with the diagonal lines
    of the pier base.

    Now, bullshit aside, what is there about that image of yours that
    makes you think it makes a case in the dslr vs P&S issue?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 3, 2009
    #98
  19. PaddleHard

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:32:25 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> When upgrading a dslr body, the owner can continue to benefit from the
    >> investment because the upgrades can be used on other bodies purchased
    >> in the future. The upgrades you mention are good for that car only.

    >
    >not true! you can take the engine out just as easy as you put it in!


    Sure, if your next car will accept the engine. But, you are left with
    at least one car without an engine. If you upgrade your dslr body
    with the items I've mentioned, using the upgrades on a new body
    doesn't affect the old body.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 3, 2009
    #99
  20. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> When upgrading a dslr body, the owner can continue to benefit from the
    > >> investment because the upgrades can be used on other bodies purchased
    > >> in the future. The upgrades you mention are good for that car only.

    > >
    > >not true! you can take the engine out just as easy as you put it in!

    >
    > Sure, if your next car will accept the engine. But, you are left with
    > at least one car without an engine.


    you can buy an engine by itself and sell the one that you removed. of
    course, very very few people swap engines in cars. it's an absurd
    comparison.

    > If you upgrade your dslr body
    > with the items I've mentioned, using the upgrades on a new body
    > doesn't affect the old body.


    the only issue is if you switch camera brands, but even then, a lot of
    things can still be used.
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
    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:
    3,008
    Lionel
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. Mike Kozlowski
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    824
  3. Amyotte
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    741
    amyotte
    Feb 11, 2004
  4. SteveJ

    Canon 10D lens Nikon Lens

    SteveJ, Jun 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    880
    Steve m...
    Jun 14, 2004
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    4,556
    Doug Jewell
    May 31, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page