Never a better time to jettison that P&S

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 14, 2011.

  1. On Jun 14, 3:42 pm, DanP <> wrote:

    > A zoom design is a compromise, and the longer the range the worst.
    > See what if you can find lenses for medium format cameras. And tell me
    > their zoom range.


    See if you can find zoom lenses for cinematographers, the
    most picky photographers in the world. Oh, hey, look at
    that, you can -- and often long-ratio zooms at that.

    One of the big variables is the format they have to cover.
    Medium format is large, 35mm is intermediate, 35mm motion
    picture is half that, 16mm is smaller yet.

    And then, one is the price; the Zeiss 10-100/1.8 we used
    for a 16mm movie production I was assistant camera on was a
    very fine lens -- but cost about $25k.

    The Nikon 24-70/2.8 zoom is rather better than their prime
    24s, except maybe the new 24/1.4 AF-S (which costs $2000).
    I've heard that the 14-24mm zoom is better at 14mm than the
    prime was (and cost about the same).

    It's certainly true that zooms ARE more complex and harder
    to design, and to build precisely, than primes. But we've
    gotten good enough at it that the good ones are solidly in
    the land of "good enough". Often new zoom designs beat old
    primes.

    And that's top-drawer zooms. I used the 17-55/2.8 and
    70-200/2.8 on my D200 -- but never bought an 18-200.
    (Traded in the 17-55 for a 24-70 when I went to the D700).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 15, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Jun 15, 12:12 am, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > On Jun 14, 3:42 pm, DanP <> wrote:
    >
    > > A zoom design is a compromise, and the longer the range the worst.
    > > See what if you can find lenses for medium format cameras. And tell me
    > > their zoom range.

    >
    > See if you can find zoom lenses for cinematographers, the
    > most picky photographers in the world.  Oh, hey, look at
    > that, you can -- and often long-ratio zooms at that.


    But their needs are different, shots where they focus on something
    near then shift to something further are pretty cool. Or the vertigo
    thing.

    > One of the big variables is the format they have to cover.
    > Medium format is large, 35mm is intermediate, 35mm motion
    > picture is half that, 16mm is smaller yet.
    >
    > And then, one is the price; the Zeiss 10-100/1.8 we used
    > for a 16mm movie production I was assistant camera on was a
    > very fine lens -- but cost about $25k.


    There you go, if you really want quality and zoom you have to pay for
    each.

    > The Nikon 24-70/2.8 zoom is rather better than their prime
    > 24s, except maybe the new 24/1.4 AF-S (which costs $2000).
    > I've heard that the 14-24mm zoom is better at 14mm than the
    > prime was (and cost about the same).
    >
    > It's certainly true that zooms ARE more complex and harder
    > to design, and to build precisely, than primes.  But we've
    > gotten good enough at it that the good ones are solidly in
    > the land of "good enough".  Often new zoom designs beat old
    > primes.


    Not surprised, new design is better.

    > And that's top-drawer zooms.  I used the 17-55/2.8 and
    > 70-200/2.8 on my D200 -- but never bought an 18-200.
    > (Traded in the 17-55 for a 24-70 when I went to the D700).


    We agree here, zoom is good to have but in moderation ;)


    DanP
     
    DanP, Jun 15, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    <big snip>

    >It's certainly true that zooms ARE more complex and harder
    >to design, and to build precisely, than primes. But we've
    >gotten good enough at it that the good ones are solidly in
    >the land of "good enough". Often new zoom designs beat old
    >primes.
    >
    >And that's top-drawer zooms. I used the 17-55/2.8 and
    >70-200/2.8 on my D200 -- but never bought an 18-200.
    >(Traded in the 17-55 for a 24-70 when I went to the D700).



    The problem is that these good zooms - and I agree that some of them
    are at least as good as fixed focal length lenses - cost a fortune. In
    your last paragraph you hinted at the real problem, which is that most
    affordable zooms just aren't good enough.

    You mentioned that you avoided buying an 18-200mm Nikkor. A wise
    decision. Yet this is a top selling zoom lens. People buy it for
    convenience - they call it a 'walkaround' lens - because they would
    rather buy one lens than have a selection of lenses that cover a range
    of different types of shot.

    The problem is that you cannot have your cake and eat it. These
    people are trading optical competence for their own convenience.

    It is sheer laziness, tinged with a little meanness because they think
    they will never have to buy another lens - and that's true in many
    cases. That is why manufacturers ensure that these lenses carry a
    good profit margin for dealers, who will probably sell one of these
    zoom lenses and never see the customer again.

    Of course there are those customers who will look at the poor quality
    results and see the error of their ways, but I think they would
    probably represent only a very small proportion of 18-200mm buyers.

    The irony is that these people bask in the satisfaction of having
    bought a DSLR that can produce "better" results than a P&S, then they
    handicap that camera with a consumer grade lens that produces results
    that are no better than a good P&S can deliver.
     
    Bruce, Jun 15, 2011
    #23
  4. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > You mentioned that you avoided buying an 18-200mm Nikkor. A wise
    > decision. Yet this is a top selling zoom lens. People buy it for
    > convenience - they call it a 'walkaround' lens - because they would
    > rather buy one lens than have a selection of lenses that cover a range
    > of different types of shot.
    >
    > The problem is that you cannot have your cake and eat it. These
    > people are trading optical competence for their own convenience.
    >
    > It is sheer laziness, tinged with a little meanness because they think
    > they will never have to buy another lens - and that's true in many
    > cases. That is why manufacturers ensure that these lenses carry a
    > good profit margin for dealers, who will probably sell one of these
    > zoom lenses and never see the customer again.
    >
    > Of course there are those customers who will look at the poor quality
    > results and see the error of their ways, but I think they would
    > probably represent only a very small proportion of 18-200mm buyers.
    >
    > The irony is that these people bask in the satisfaction of having
    > bought a DSLR that can produce "better" results than a P&S, then they
    > handicap that camera with a consumer grade lens that produces results
    > that are no better than a good P&S can deliver.


    It's neither laziness nor meanness, Bruce, at least for some. There may
    simply not be enough time to change lenses, or one may not be allowed to
    carry round a large camera bag with a selection of lenses, or one might
    have extremely limited space. The 18-200mm zoom represents the most
    acceptable compromise for the particular photographer in their particular
    circumstances. I do agree that the choice should be made with eyes open,
    being aware of the compromises being made.

    Not everyone is made of money, nor do they want to lug round a heavy
    photographic kit, nor do they produce large prints. The DSLR can still
    produce better results at higher ISOs.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2011
    #24
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> You mentioned that you avoided buying an 18-200mm Nikkor. A wise
    >> decision. Yet this is a top selling zoom lens. People buy it for
    >> convenience - they call it a 'walkaround' lens - because they would
    >> rather buy one lens than have a selection of lenses that cover a range
    >> of different types of shot.
    >>
    >> The problem is that you cannot have your cake and eat it. These
    >> people are trading optical competence for their own convenience.
    >>
    >> It is sheer laziness, tinged with a little meanness because they think
    >> they will never have to buy another lens - and that's true in many
    >> cases. That is why manufacturers ensure that these lenses carry a
    >> good profit margin for dealers, who will probably sell one of these
    >> zoom lenses and never see the customer again.
    >>
    >> Of course there are those customers who will look at the poor quality
    >> results and see the error of their ways, but I think they would
    >> probably represent only a very small proportion of 18-200mm buyers.
    >>
    >> The irony is that these people bask in the satisfaction of having
    >> bought a DSLR that can produce "better" results than a P&S, then they
    >> handicap that camera with a consumer grade lens that produces results
    >> that are no better than a good P&S can deliver.

    >
    >It's neither laziness nor meanness, Bruce, at least for some. There may
    >simply not be enough time to change lenses, or one may not be allowed to
    >carry round a large camera bag with a selection of lenses, or one might
    >have extremely limited space. The 18-200mm zoom represents the most
    >acceptable compromise for the particular photographer in their particular
    >circumstances. I do agree that the choice should be made with eyes open,
    >being aware of the compromises being made.
    >
    >Not everyone is made of money, nor do they want to lug round a heavy
    >photographic kit, nor do they produce large prints. The DSLR can still
    >produce better results at higher ISOs.



    Not with a junk lens on the front, it can't.

    Perhaps your obsession with noise - or an inability to deal with it in
    post-processing - is clouding your judgement when it comes to choosing
    your camera and optics. Or, in your case, your optic.

    Even those with very little money to spend should be able to afford to
    buy a used AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Every Nikon outfit should include
    one. Early versions of this lens are available very cheaply indeed.

    A little time spent comparing the results from a top quality, but very
    inexpensive, prime lens with those from a poor quality but quite
    expensive 18-200mm lens will quickly convince anyone who has the
    slightest interest in image quality that they need to think again.

    Whether people who buy a camera that offers the ability to use
    interchangeable lenses, then buy a lens that they hope never to take
    off the camera, are capable of such thinking, is a moot point.
     
    Bruce, Jun 15, 2011
    #25
  6. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Jun 15, 12:12 am, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > On Jun 14, 3:42 pm, DanP <> wrote:
    >
    > > A zoom design is a compromise, and the longer the range the worst.
    > > See what if you can find lenses for medium format cameras. And tell me
    > > their zoom range.

    >
    > See if you can find zoom lenses for cinematographers, the
    > most picky photographers in the world.


    Why are they the most picky ?
    Few of them have to rely on just a one or frames to make a living.
    They are actually less fussy about that type of quality, they want
    easy of use
    and zoom range.



    >  Oh, hey, look at
    > that, you can -- and often long-ratio zooms at that.


    yes, so.




    >
    > It's certainly true that zooms ARE more complex and harder
    > to design, and to build precisely, than primes.


    For the same quality yes.

     But we've
    > gotten good enough at it that the good ones are solidly in
    > the land of "good enough".  Often new zoom designs beat old
    > primes.


    For some people yes, but doesn't it depend on what you mean by beat.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 15, 2011
    #26
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 14, 7:12 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > On Jun 14, 3:42 pm, DanP <> wrote:
    >
    > > A zoom design is a compromise, and the longer the range the worst.
    > > See what if you can find lenses for medium format cameras. And tell me
    > > their zoom range.

    >
    > See if you can find zoom lenses for cinematographers, the
    > most picky photographers in the world.  Oh, hey, look at
    > that, you can -- and often long-ratio zooms at that.
    >
    > One of the big variables is the format they have to cover.
    > Medium format is large, 35mm is intermediate, 35mm motion
    > picture is half that, 16mm is smaller yet.
    >
    > And then, one is the price; the Zeiss 10-100/1.8 we used
    > for a 16mm movie production I was assistant camera on was a
    > very fine lens -- but cost about $25k.
    >
    > The Nikon 24-70/2.8 zoom is rather better than their prime
    > 24s, except maybe the new 24/1.4 AF-S (which costs $2000).
    > I've heard that the 14-24mm zoom is better at 14mm than the
    > prime was (and cost about the same).


    Nikon's 14mm prime is no miracle. The Nikon zoom is not as good wide
    open as a Zeiss prime tested against it, but was as good, maybe
    somewhat better stopped down to f8.0. At least, for one test I saw.
    Still, these latest FX zooms from Nikon are pretty amazing.
     
    RichA, Jun 15, 2011
    #27
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Jun 14, 7:12 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> The Nikon 24-70/2.8 zoom is rather better than their prime
    >> 24s, except maybe the new 24/1.4 AF-S (which costs $2000).
    >> I've heard that the 14-24mm zoom is better at 14mm than the
    >> prime was (and cost about the same).

    >
    >Nikon's 14mm prime is no miracle. The Nikon zoom is not as good wide
    >open as a Zeiss prime tested against it, but was as good, maybe
    >somewhat better stopped down to f8.0. At least, for one test I saw.



    Since when did Carl Zeiss offer a 14mm f/2.8 prime lens?


    >Still, these latest FX zooms from Nikon are pretty amazing.



    At 14mm, the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G performs *much better* than
    any 14mm prime lens ever made for FX. Quite an achievement.

    But you'll bitch about the price, as always. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jun 15, 2011
    #28
  9. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > Not with a junk lens on the front, it can't.


    Fortunately, the Nikon 18-200mm isn't a "junk" lens.

    > Perhaps your obsession with noise - or an inability to deal with it in
    > post-processing - is clouding your judgement when it comes to choosing
    > your camera and optics. Or, in your case, your optic.
    >
    > Even those with very little money to spend should be able to afford to
    > buy a used AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Every Nikon outfit should include
    > one. Early versions of this lens are available very cheaply indeed.


    You're missing the point. I have the excellent Nikon 35mm f/1.8, but
    there are times when I prefer one lens to several.

    > A little time spent comparing the results from a top quality, but very
    > inexpensive, prime lens with those from a poor quality but quite
    > expensive 18-200mm lens will quickly convince anyone who has the
    > slightest interest in image quality that they need to think again.
    >
    > Whether people who buy a camera that offers the ability to use
    > interchangeable lenses, then buy a lens that they hope never to take
    > off the camera, are capable of such thinking, is a moot point.


    Just because they come to a different decision to you, make different
    compromises, doesn't make them incapable of thinking!

    Compare high-ISO images from a range of cameras and see for yourself how
    sensor size affects image quality. No-one's doubting that, given plenty
    of light, the best P&S (those with the fewer pixels and better optics) can
    produce good enough results for most people.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2011
    #29
  10. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> Not with a junk lens on the front, it can't.

    >
    >Fortunately, the Nikon 18-200mm isn't a "junk" lens.



    On the contrary, only carefully selected examples have gained a couple
    of strategically well-placed good reviews. The trouble is that the
    lens that people buy in the camera store simply won't reproduce the
    test results. Only people who have rock-bottom standards will find
    that lenses with such an excessive zoom range will produce acceptable
    results.

    As usual, the problem is that accurately centering the multiple
    elements is a difficult and time consuming task, and that time and
    effort is probably only reserved for review samples. This lens has a
    whopping 16 elements in 12 groups, so centering those is a major
    exercise. There is no way that mass produced versions for general
    sale to the public are going to get that treatment.

    One of the better reviews of this lens, at DPReview, damns it with the
    faintest of praise while diplomatically revealing the real truth; it
    is an expensive snapshot lens, nothing more. Let me quote:

    "Overall conclusion:
    Just occasionally, the old cliches are still the best, and with the
    18-200mm VR the phrase 'jack of all trades, master of none' springs
    immediately to mind. It's a lens which delivers somewhat flawed
    results over its entire zoom range; where it's sharp, it has heavy
    distortion, and when that distortion comes under control at the long
    end, it loses sharpness. Its close-up performance is reasonable, but
    not spectacular, and overall it will likely be outperformed optically
    by a cheaper combination of standard and telephoto zooms. So for a
    certain type of photographer interested mainly in absolute image
    quality, this may well cause it to be regarded as nothing more than an
    expensive snapshot lens."

    http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/


    >> Perhaps your obsession with noise - or an inability to deal with it in
    >> post-processing - is clouding your judgement when it comes to choosing
    >> your camera and optics. Or, in your case, your optic.
    >>
    >> Even those with very little money to spend should be able to afford to
    >> buy a used AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Every Nikon outfit should include
    >> one. Early versions of this lens are available very cheaply indeed.

    >
    >You're missing the point. I have the excellent Nikon 35mm f/1.8, but
    >there are times when I prefer one lens to several.
    >
    >> A little time spent comparing the results from a top quality, but very
    >> inexpensive, prime lens with those from a poor quality but quite
    >> expensive 18-200mm lens will quickly convince anyone who has the
    >> slightest interest in image quality that they need to think again.
    >>
    >> Whether people who buy a camera that offers the ability to use
    >> interchangeable lenses, then buy a lens that they hope never to take
    >> off the camera, are capable of such thinking, is a moot point.

    >
    >Just because they come to a different decision to you, make different
    >compromises, doesn't make them incapable of thinking!



    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.


    >Compare high-ISO images from a range of cameras and see for yourself how
    >sensor size affects image quality. No-one's doubting that, given plenty
    >of light, the best P&S (those with the fewer pixels and better optics) can
    >produce good enough results for most people.



    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.

    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.
     
    Bruce, Jun 15, 2011
    #30
  11. "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, Jun 15, 2011
    #31
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> 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, Jun 15, 2011
    #32
  13. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J Taylor" <> 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/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_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
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 16, 2011
    #33
  14. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    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.
     
    Bruce, Jun 16, 2011
    #34
  15. 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
     
    Mike Benveniste, Jun 29, 2011
    #35
  16. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    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>
     
    John Turco, Jun 30, 2011
    #36
  17. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    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>
     
    John Turco, Jun 30, 2011
    #37
  18. Doug Bashford <> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    >> On Jun 14, 9:22 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> > RichA <> 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.  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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 3, 2011
    #38
  19. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Doug Bashford wrote:
    >
    > > On Jun 14, 9:22 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > > > RichA <> 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>
     
    John Turco, Jul 10, 2011
    #39
    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. Fred A Stover
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    896
    pcbutts1
    Dec 26, 2007
  2. Andrew Tang
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    676
    Andrew Tang
    Jul 5, 2003
  3. Pikoro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    637
    Ronnie Broyles
    Jul 6, 2003
  4. xxx xxx
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    741
  5. chris
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    626
    chris
    Jul 7, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page