Lens question

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

  1. PaddleHard

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:53:19 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:43:52 -0500, tony cooper
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>Now, bullshit aside, ...

    >
    >there's nothing left.


    A surprisingly frank and accurate statement from you. Yes, once we
    remove the bullshit from your posts there is nothing left.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 3, 2009
    1. Advertising

  2. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:031120091624211986%...
    > 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.


    Having done a few engine-swaps, suspension modifications and interior
    alterations myself, I can't imagine why John would even mention such
    "upgrades" within this context. Well, actually I can: he's just trolling
    again.

    It's about this time, every year, that John gets bored and turns to his
    keyboard for entertainment.

    In the case of an automobile, it seems John is over-looking one thing:

    The point of an upgrade is to "extend" the life of a given item so that it
    will function equally, or, very nearly equally, for the same life as the
    next generation product.

    For example, the first IBM style computer I purchased started out its life
    as an XT, but ended up as a Pentium II. In the end, the only thing left
    from the original was the case; everything else had been changed. Still,
    There was no difference between the Pentium II computer I had sitting on my
    desk and one that was sitting on a store shelf.

    That's an "upgrade."

    Now, in the case of an automobile, there is a built in limiting factor,
    especially in modern unibody cars, which is the structural integrity of the
    chassis / body.

    Given the stresses automobiles are subjected to, you can do all the
    "upgrading" you want, but the end product will not last as long, nor
    function exactly the same as a newer, technically superior vehicle.

    Certainly, you can spend the time and money to put in more powerful engines
    if you want, but it is EXTREMELY difficult to put a significantly more
    powerful engine into a car which isn't stressed for that kind of torque (try
    putting a high performance 429 into a Pinto). You more or less are stuck
    with a slightly different version of the original powerplant, unless you
    reframe the chassis, and that's not really an upgrade because it won't have
    an equivalent on the market. And, even if you stick within the same power
    band, your handiwork still won't last as long as an equivalent new model
    from a nearby showroom because your car body, unless you've had it sitting
    in the garage and haven't played with it much, will have progressed to a
    point much nearer the end of its useful life than you'll care to think
    about.

    In the case of computers, swapping in a more powerful engine (CPU /
    motherboard) is no big deal, usually. And, if you add the extras, like
    whatever is going for the standard video system, sound card, monitor, disks
    and controllers, presto! you've got yourself a new PC.

    John just likes to play his little word games, and he doesn't care if he is
    even in the same galaxy as the rest of us, let alone the same ball park.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 3, 2009
    1. Advertising

  3. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <w63Im.51407$PH1.4533@edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks
    <> wrote:

    > John just likes to play his little word games, and he doesn't care if he is
    > even in the same galaxy as the rest of us, let alone the same ball park.


    that's exactly what it is. word games. technically you can upgrade a
    car, even though virtually nobody does it.
     
    nospam, Nov 3, 2009
  4. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <4af0e434$>, Bob Larter
    <> wrote:

    > >> John just likes to play his little word games, and he doesn't care if he
    > >> is
    > >> even in the same galaxy as the rest of us, let alone the same ball park.

    > >
    > > that's exactly what it is. word games. technically you can upgrade a
    > > car, even though virtually nobody does it.

    >
    > And technically, buying a new lens for your DSLR is 'upgrading' it.


    or downgrading it, depending on the lens :)

    although you can't swap out the cpu in a camera, there have been memory
    or other hardware upgrades for some older dslrs.

    you can also add new features with a firmware upgrade. for example, the
    2.0 firmware on the nikon d70 added all of the features in the nikon
    d70s that did not require a change in hardware, such as a wired remote
    jack.
     
    nospam, Nov 4, 2009
  5. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <4af0e3bf$>, Bob Larter
    <> wrote:

    > By that same logic, one can upgrade one's DSLR by buying a new lens or
    > flash gun for it. You can't do that with your P&S.


    there are add on accessory lenses and if there's a hotshoe or pc
    socket, an external flash can be used. worst case, use a slave.
     
    nospam, Nov 4, 2009
  6. PaddleHard

    -hh Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    > -hh wrote:
    > [other attributions]
    > >> >>Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 ..

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

    >
    > [stuff edited out by John]
    >
    >
    > >[another choice is] 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. ...

    >
    > Mediocre lens. No thanks.


    Sure, there's better (such as my f/4 solution), but this lens is
    adequate for all of those "typical" uses, such as 4"x6" prints and
    online Web presentation, that we hear justifies a P&S because
    proverbially no one ever needs the big dSLR/lens 'overkill' to make
    huge prints.



    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 4, 2009
  7. PaddleHard

    Bob Larter Guest

    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,


    By that same logic, one can upgrade one's DSLR by buying a new lens or
    flash gun for it. You can't do that with your P&S.



    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Nov 4, 2009
  8. PaddleHard

    Bob Larter Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > In article <w63Im.51407$PH1.4533@edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> John just likes to play his little word games, and he doesn't care if he is
    >> even in the same galaxy as the rest of us, let alone the same ball park.

    >
    > that's exactly what it is. word games. technically you can upgrade a
    > car, even though virtually nobody does it.


    And technically, buying a new lens for your DSLR is 'upgrading' it.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Nov 4, 2009
  9. PaddleHard

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:26:44 -0800 (PST), -hh
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>> >>Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 ..
    >>>
    >>> >What lens (including price, size and weight,
    >>> >and how long you've owned it)?

    >
    >>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. ...

    >
    >Mediocre lens. No thanks.


    But with processing such as is done with your P&S the results can be
    quite decent.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 4, 2009
  10. PaddleHard

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:09:50 -0800 (PST), -hh
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>John Navas <> wrote:
    >>> -hh wrote:
    >>> [other attributions]
    >>> >> >>Versus a dSLR combination of 448mm at f/4.0 ..
    >>>
    >>> >> >What lens (including price, size and weight,
    >>> >> >and how long you've owned it)?
    >>>
    >>> [stuff edited out by John]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> >[another choice is] 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. ...
    >>>
    >>> Mediocre lens. No thanks.

    >>
    >>Sure, there's better (such as my f/4 solution), but this lens is
    >>adequate for all of those "typical" uses, such as 4"x6" prints and
    >>online Web presentation, that we hear justifies a P&S because
    >>proverbially no one ever needs the big dSLR/lens 'overkill' to make
    >>huge prints.

    >
    >Not even close to the Leica super-zoom lens on the Panasonic.


    Bullshitting is a poor substitute for facts.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 4, 2009
  11. "No spam please" <> wrote in message
    news:hcpro9$1mab$...
    []
    > I'd better clarify the comment about the 747.
    > If one system on the aircraft (the fuel gauge system) was not immune to
    > intererference from another system on that aircraft (the radio
    > transmitters) then why should we expect any immunity from electronic
    > systems brought on board by passengers?
    >
    > Regards, Rog.


    Rog,

    It's because interference to a non-radio system from a transmitter is most
    likely to be due simply to the field-strength of transmitted signal, than
    to its exact frequency or modulation type. I.e. the signals emitted by a
    non-transmitting consumer electronic system are of a much lower field
    strength. There is probably no sensitive radio receiver in the fuel gauge
    system. That's why it's a reasonable expectation - in general. I should
    add that I don't know details of the specific systems involved, though,
    I'm talking in general.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 4, 2009
  12. "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    news:ES%Hm.50390$Db2.20586@edtnps83...
    []
    > 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


    No, digital zoom is something else. In the digital zoom systems I've used
    the camera output remains at the nominal number of megapixels, so a 200%
    digital zoom on an 8MP sensor uses the middle 2MP, but interpolates the
    result to 8MP. Under some circumstances this can be useful - I've made
    tests where the JPEG from a digital zoom image is marginally better than a
    2:1 resize in post-processing. A 200% "extended optical zoom" simply
    outputs the middle part of the image as a 2MP image.

    In both cases, by only using the central part of the image, the focus and
    exposure measurement functions can be restricted to a smaller part of the
    total image, and may therefore, be faster or more accurate.

    I have turned off the digital zoom on my cameras, though.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 4, 2009
  13. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
    message news:Fp9Im.1484$...
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    > news:ES%Hm.50390$Db2.20586@edtnps83...
    > []
    >> 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

    >
    > No, digital zoom is something else. In the digital zoom systems I've used
    > the camera output remains at the nominal number of megapixels, so a 200%
    > digital zoom on an 8MP sensor uses the middle 2MP, but interpolates the
    > result to 8MP. Under some circumstances this can be useful - I've made
    > tests where the JPEG from a digital zoom image is marginally better than a
    > 2:1 resize in post-processing. A 200% "extended optical zoom" simply
    > outputs the middle part of the image as a 2MP image.
    >
    > In both cases, by only using the central part of the image, the focus and
    > exposure measurement functions can be restricted to a smaller part of the
    > total image, and may therefore, be faster or more accurate.
    >
    > I have turned off the digital zoom on my cameras, though.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    So, the Panasonic's extended optical zoom over-rides the image size
    selection and outputs a smaller image as you progressively zoom out?

    That would be roughly equivalent to using the digital zoom on a Canon and
    setting the image to a smaller size?

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 4, 2009
  14. "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message news:GP9Im.50457$Db2.22371@edtnps83...
    []
    > So, the Panasonic's extended optical zoom over-rides the image size
    > selection and outputs a smaller image as you progressively zoom out?


    As I understand it, yes.

    > That would be roughly equivalent to using the digital zoom on a Canon
    > and setting the image to a smaller size?
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley


    When you say "setting the image to a smaller size", Dudley, if you mean
    setting the camera to 5MP rather then 10MP, the answer is no, it's not
    equivalent. Setting the image to a smaller size on the Canon still uses
    the full sensor area, and doesn't change the field of view. It simply
    interpolates the 10MP sensor down to 5MP (or whatever is chosen).

    The extended optical zoom is more equivalent to taking a 10MP image, and
    cropping it in the camera down to 5MP. Perhaps what's what you meant,
    though.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 4, 2009
  15. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
    message news:E2aIm.1500$...
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message news:GP9Im.50457$Db2.22371@edtnps83...
    > []
    >> So, the Panasonic's extended optical zoom over-rides the image size
    >> selection and outputs a smaller image as you progressively zoom out?

    >
    > As I understand it, yes.
    >
    >> That would be roughly equivalent to using the digital zoom on a Canon and
    >> setting the image to a smaller size?
    >>
    >> Take Care,
    >> Dudley

    >
    > When you say "setting the image to a smaller size", Dudley, if you mean
    > setting the camera to 5MP rather then 10MP, the answer is no, it's not
    > equivalent. Setting the image to a smaller size on the Canon still uses
    > the full sensor area, and doesn't change the field of view. It simply
    > interpolates the 10MP sensor down to 5MP (or whatever is chosen).
    >
    > The extended optical zoom is more equivalent to taking a 10MP image, and
    > cropping it in the camera down to 5MP. Perhaps what's what you meant,
    > though.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David



    Yes, the latter is what I meant.

    I realize that simply setting the image to a smaller size will interpolate a
    full sensor image down to the smaller rez, but I was thinking about the
    smaller size being selected in conjunction with the digital zoom being used.

    I don't think the firmware would up-size the digitally zoomed image only to
    have to down-size it again back to something equivalent to the portion
    "zoomed" in to.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 4, 2009
  16. "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    news:fqaIm.50462$Db2.10523@edtnps83...
    []
    > I realize that simply setting the image to a smaller size will
    > interpolate a full sensor image down to the smaller rez, but I was
    > thinking about the smaller size being selected in conjunction with the
    > digital zoom being used.
    >
    > I don't think the firmware would up-size the digitally zoomed image only
    > to have to down-size it again back to something equivalent to the
    > portion "zoomed" in to.
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley


    Correct - it's not a double operation in the firmware, just a simple
    in-camera crop. Like digital zoom, it may have the advantage that
    functions like exposure or focus measurement can be carried out on fewer
    pixels, in the wanted part of the image, and may therefore be faster or
    more accurate. Digital zoom then simply expands the result of a crop to
    create the number of pixels the user expects.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 4, 2009
  17. PaddleHard

    -hh Guest

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


    > >>Sure, there's better (such as my f/4 solution), but
    > >> [the Canon EF 75-300mm] lens is adequate for all
    > >>of those "typical" uses, such as 4"x6" prints and
    > >>online Web presentation, that we hear justifies a P&S
    > >>because proverbially no one ever needs the big dSLR/lens
    > >> 'overkill' to make huge prints.

    >
    > >Not even close to the Leica super-zoom lens on the Panasonic.

    >
    > Bullshitting is a poor substitute for facts.


    Its also hypocrisy: since "not even close" is claiming vastly higher
    performance, this means that it is 'overkill' for the general
    application, and since it cost more than $160, then he paid 'extra'
    for something not needed. The only difference between what John does
    and what he criticizes is merely the magnitude of the infraction.

    FWIW, I probably could have offered some images to 'defend' Canon's
    75-300 lens series, such as:

    <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2004/peru/SV_cock-of-rock-ff_
    (24_0445).jpg>
    (full frame)

    ....but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of
    which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions: the 75-300 is
    known to be soft when wide open at full extension, and this shot was
    under a heavy tree canopy which made it ~5 stops darker than John's
    comparatively easy full sunlight photo. Similarly, it was shot on
    film, which precluded easy/fast bumping of ISO, so combined with it
    being handheld, there's blur from its very slow shutter speed
    (1/30sec). Finally, it was only later digitized, which introduces a
    loss step as well.

    I haven't sold off the lens, so perhaps I'll try some new shots with a
    digital SLR body in the next month. I'll try to make them closer to
    the "Sunny 16" conditions that John had, for sake of parity.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 4, 2009
  18. On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 04:15:26 -0800 (PST), -hh
    <> wrote:

    >
    >...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of
    >which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions: the 75-300 is
    >known to be soft when wide open at full extension, and this shot was
    >under a heavy tree canopy which made it ~5 stops darker than John's
    >comparatively easy full sunlight photo. Similarly, it was shot on
    >film, which precluded easy/fast bumping of ISO, so combined with it
    >being handheld, there's blur from its very slow shutter speed
    >(1/30sec). Finally, it was only later digitized, which introduces a
    >loss step as well.


    And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot
    your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your
    shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ...
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Nov 4, 2009
  19. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
    message news:bCaIm.1511$...
    >
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    > news:fqaIm.50462$Db2.10523@edtnps83...
    > []
    >> I realize that simply setting the image to a smaller size will
    >> interpolate a full sensor image down to the smaller rez, but I was
    >> thinking about the smaller size being selected in conjunction with the
    >> digital zoom being used.
    >>
    >> I don't think the firmware would up-size the digitally zoomed image only
    >> to have to down-size it again back to something equivalent to the portion
    >> "zoomed" in to.
    >>
    >> Take Care,
    >> Dudley

    >
    > Correct - it's not a double operation in the firmware, just a simple
    > in-camera crop. Like digital zoom, it may have the advantage that
    > functions like exposure or focus measurement can be carried out on fewer
    > pixels, in the wanted part of the image, and may therefore be faster or
    > more accurate. Digital zoom then simply expands the result of a crop to
    > create the number of pixels the user expects.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    On my Canon A720, there is a setting that limits the amount of digital zoom
    depending on the image size selected.

    Effectively, it won't allow upsizing.

    If the large image size is selected, digital zoom is disabled, but if a
    smaller size is chosen, then digital zoom is allowed up until upsizing would
    need to be done.

    It's a handy setting.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 4, 2009
  20. PaddleHard

    -hh Guest

    the lame Copy & Paste troll writes:
    > -hh <> wrote:
    >
    > >...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of
    > >which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions...

    >
    > And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot
    > your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your
    > shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ...


    Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I
    also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online
    years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S.

    And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that
    represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy
    & flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far
    revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's
    sunlit shot.

    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 4, 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:
    2,980
    Lionel
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. Mike Kozlowski
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    813
  3. Amyotte
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    726
    amyotte
    Feb 11, 2004
  4. SteveJ

    Canon 10D lens Nikon Lens

    SteveJ, Jun 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    860
    Steve m...
    Jun 14, 2004
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    4,497
    Doug Jewell
    May 31, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page