P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Nov 25, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    me Guest

    On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:35:56 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >Poor fellow. I tried with with an Olympus C-8080 years ago and even
    >with it's lens, the images sucked. The worst 70-300mm $180 zoom on a
    >DSLR would do better.
    >
    >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=33791622


    Once again too bad Rich makes generalizations from everything he
    reads!

    The Nikon 990/4500 series + converters was a awell thought out and
    designed system. TC, WA and Fisheye.
     
    me, Nov 25, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    me Guest

    On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:35:56 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >Poor fellow. I tried with with an Olympus C-8080 years ago and even
    >with it's lens, the images sucked. The worst 70-300mm $180 zoom on a
    >DSLR would do better.
    >
    >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=33791622


    Even worse RichA BS. All photos are taken at 1/200s or less shutter
    speed. With camera only 35mm equiv fl of 485-500+ let alone add
    theTC. Just one 1/160s with the FZ-18 is shown for comparison with
    the conclusion the FZ-18 is superior to the FZ-35.

    Looks more like it's the inability to handhold long exposures at lomg
    focal lengths might be the real issue here.

    Another example of why we should killfile richA.
     
    me, Nov 25, 2009
    #3
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    me wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:35:56 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Poor fellow. I tried with with an Olympus C-8080 years ago and even
    > >with it's lens, the images sucked. The worst 70-300mm $180 zoom on a
    > >DSLR would do better.
    > >
    > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=33791622

    >
    > Even worse RichA BS. All photos are taken at 1/200s or less shutter
    > speed. With camera only 35mm equiv fl of 485-500+ let alone add
    > theTC. Just one 1/160s with the FZ-18 is shown for comparison with
    > the conclusion the FZ-18 is superior to the FZ-35.
    >
    > Looks more like it's the inability to handhold long exposures at lomg
    > focal lengths might be the real issue here.
    >
    > Another example of why we should killfile richA.


    Forget the blurring from motion, look at the fuzziness from spherical
    aberration and the gross chromatic aberration! You can't just slap a
    "lens on a lens" and expect it to work well.
     
    Rich, Nov 25, 2009
    #4
  5. Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:44:02 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >me wrote:
    >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:35:56 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Poor fellow. I tried with with an Olympus C-8080 years ago and even
    >> >with it's lens, the images sucked. The worst 70-300mm $180 zoom on a
    >> >DSLR would do better.
    >> >
    >> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=33791622

    >>
    >> Even worse RichA BS. All photos are taken at 1/200s or less shutter
    >> speed. With camera only 35mm equiv fl of 485-500+ let alone add
    >> theTC. Just one 1/160s with the FZ-18 is shown for comparison with
    >> the conclusion the FZ-18 is superior to the FZ-35.
    >>
    >> Looks more like it's the inability to handhold long exposures at lomg
    >> focal lengths might be the real issue here.
    >>
    >> Another example of why we should killfile richA.

    >
    >Forget the blurring from motion, look at the fuzziness from spherical
    >aberration and the gross chromatic aberration! You can't just slap a
    >"lens on a lens" and expect it to work well.


    Are you aware that all the zoom lenses for DSLRs are just slapping lenses
    on other lens arrays to achieve those longer focal lengths? The only
    difference is that you buy them that way already attached together in a
    single lens barrel. In P&S cameras you just happen to have the front
    elements that comprise the telescopic part removable when needed, or if you
    don't want to buy that portion of a longer focal-length lens. While some
    might consider "shopping around" for the right conversion lenses to match
    the existing optics on your camera a major pain in the ass, I actually
    enjoy the hunt in trying to find the best teleconverter or wide-angle
    adapter from Company-A that works best with P&S camera from Company-B. Many
    cross-company matches working far better than A's converter matched to A's
    camera. In doing so I also found fish-eye adapters for under $100 that beat
    the pants off of any dedicated $2500 Nikkor fisheye lenses for any D/SLR.
    But you wouldn't know anything about this, because you've never owned ANY
    camera, P&S or otherwise.

    Like this quick example:
    <http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2512/4132272547_6448e0b6f2_o.jpg>

    [Note to moron trolls: Do not misconstrue the pixel-sharp details due to
    over-sharpening. That's due to Lanczos-8 downsampling retaining as much
    detail as possible from the original image along with JPG compression
    artifacts for web posting. Pixel-peeping reveals no halos, just JPG
    compression artifacts that you will ignorantly try to see as
    over-sharpening.]


    But you're right, you can't slap "a lens on a lens" and expect good
    results. You get even better results if you slap "a lens on a lens on a
    lens". To borrow a well known example posted by someone else long ago:

    "Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
    f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
    high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
    photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
    of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
    directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
    JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
    lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
    empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
    2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
    any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
    whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
    sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
    decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
    more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
    aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm
    equivalent)."

    Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
    EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
    open for as long as you live.

    If not, you get to shut up now.
     
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 25, 2009
    #5
  6. Rich

    Bhogi Guest

    Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On 25 nov., 07:05, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    > Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
    > EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
    > open for as long as you live.
    >
    > If not, you get to shut up now.


    So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
    your camera?
     
    Bhogi, Nov 25, 2009
    #6
  7. Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:37 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:

    >On 25 nov., 07:05, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    >> Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
    >> EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
    >> open for as long as you live.
    >>
    >> If not, you get to shut up now.

    >
    >So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
    >your camera?


    An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.

    2197mm EFL / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL

    1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm EFL

    215mm EFL / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical diameter.

    Nearly all teleconverters for all P&S cameras have more physical diameter
    than 2.4 inches. My favorite one to ensure no aperture loss has an
    entrance-pupil of 80mm (3.15 inches).

    Got that?

    Now go stick your tongue in a light-socket with it plugged in and turned on
    to find out how electricity works.
     
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 25, 2009
    #7
  8. Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
    equations. It was so much easier to type.

    On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:37 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:

    >On 25 nov., 07:05, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    >> Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
    >> EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
    >> open for as long as you live.
    >>
    >> If not, you get to shut up now.

    >
    >So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
    >your camera?


    An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.

    2197mm EFL / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL

    1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm true focal length

    215mm true focal length / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical
    diameter of the entrance pupil.

    Nearly all teleconverters for all P&S cameras have more physical diameter
    than 2.4 inches. My favorite one to ensure no aperture loss has an
    entrance-pupil of 80mm (3.15 inches).

    Got that?

    Now go stick your tongue in a light-socket with it plugged in and turned on
    to find out how electricity works.
     
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 25, 2009
    #8
  9. Rich

    Bhogi Guest

    Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On 25 nov., 15:34, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    > Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
    > equations. It was so much easier to type.


    Don't worry you're still wrong.

    Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
    your mistake.
    What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
    With respect to things that matter in photography (light sensitivity,
    DOF, softening due to diffraction) when you compare EFLs of P&S to
    DSLR you should also calculate "effective aperture ratio", which in
    your case is about f/12.
    Tried some night shots with your super duper fast 61.5mm telescope
    lately?

    p.s.
    Why compare with DSLRs, compare with 4x5 large format, then you'll
    kick some serious ass with 12000mm EFL @ f/3.5!
    Think about it.


    > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:37 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:
    > >On 25 nov., 07:05, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    > >> Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
    > >> EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
    > >> open for as long as you live.

    >
    > >> If not, you get to shut up now.

    >
    > >So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
    > >your camera?

    >
    > An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes..
    >
    > 2197mm EFL  / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL
    >
    > 1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm true focal length
    >
    > 215mm true focal length  / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical
    > diameter of the entrance pupil.
    >
    > Nearly all teleconverters for all P&S cameras have more physical diameter
    > than 2.4 inches. My favorite one to ensure no aperture loss has an
    > entrance-pupil of 80mm (3.15 inches).
    >
    > Got that?
    >
    > Now go stick your tongue in a light-socket with it plugged in and turned on
    > to find out how electricity works.
     
    Bhogi, Nov 25, 2009
    #9
  10. Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:37:34 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:

    >On 25 nov., 15:34, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    >> Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
    >> equations. It was so much easier to type.

    >
    >Don't worry you're still wrong.
    >
    >Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
    >your mistake.
    >What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
    >With respect to things that matter in photography (light sensitivity,
    >DOF, softening due to diffraction) when you compare EFLs of P&S to
    >DSLR you should also calculate "effective aperture ratio", which in
    >your case is about f/12.


    That's only relevant to DOF.

    Holy **** are you DSLR trolls ever fucking iditos.


    >Tried some night shots with your super duper fast 61.5mm telescope
    >lately?
    >
    >p.s.
    >Why compare with DSLRs, compare with 4x5 large format, then you'll
    >kick some serious ass with 12000mm EFL @ f/3.5!
    >Think about it.
    >
    >
    >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:37 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:
    >> >On 25 nov., 07:05, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    >> >> Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
    >> >> EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
    >> >> open for as long as you live.

    >>
    >> >> If not, you get to shut up now.

    >>
    >> >So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
    >> >your camera?

    >>
    >> An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.
    >>
    >> 2197mm EFL  / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL
    >>
    >> 1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm true focal length
    >>
    >> 215mm true focal length  / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical
    >> diameter of the entrance pupil.
    >>
    >> Nearly all teleconverters for all P&S cameras have more physical diameter
    >> than 2.4 inches. My favorite one to ensure no aperture loss has an
    >> entrance-pupil of 80mm (3.15 inches).
    >>
    >> Got that?
    >>
    >> Now go stick your tongue in a light-socket with it plugged in and turned on
    >> to find out how electricity works.
     
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 25, 2009
    #10
  11. Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:37:34 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:

    >On 25 nov., 15:34, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    >> Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
    >> equations. It was so much easier to type.

    >
    >Don't worry you're still wrong.
    >
    >Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
    >your mistake.
    >What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
    >With respect to things that matter in photography (light sensitivity,
    >DOF, softening due to diffraction) when you compare EFLs of P&S to
    >DSLR you should also calculate "effective aperture ratio", which in
    >your case is about f/12.


    That's only relevant to DOF.

    Holy **** are you DSLR-Trolls ever fucking idiots.


    >Tried some night shots with your super duper fast 61.5mm telescope
    >lately?
    >
    >p.s.
    >Why compare with DSLRs, compare with 4x5 large format, then you'll
    >kick some serious ass with 12000mm EFL @ f/3.5!
    >Think about it.
    >
    >
    >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:37 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:
    >> >On 25 nov., 07:05, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    >> >> Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
    >> >> EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
    >> >> open for as long as you live.

    >>
    >> >> If not, you get to shut up now.

    >>
    >> >So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
    >> >your camera?

    >>
    >> An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.
    >>
    >> 2197mm EFL  / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL
    >>
    >> 1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm true focal length
    >>
    >> 215mm true focal length  / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical
    >> diameter of the entrance pupil.
    >>
    >> Nearly all teleconverters for all P&S cameras have more physical diameter
    >> than 2.4 inches. My favorite one to ensure no aperture loss has an
    >> entrance-pupil of 80mm (3.15 inches).
    >>
    >> Got that?
    >>
    >> Now go stick your tongue in a light-socket with it plugged in and turned on
    >> to find out how electricity works.
     
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 25, 2009
    #11
  12. Rich

    Bhogi Guest

    Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On 25 nov., 17:45, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:37:34 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:
    > >On 25 nov., 15:34, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    > >> Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
    > >> equations. It was so much easier to type.

    >
    > >Don't worry you're still wrong.

    >
    > >Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
    > >your mistake.
    > >What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
    > >With respect to things that matter in photography (light sensitivity,
    > >DOF, softening due to diffraction) when you compare EFLs of P&S to
    > >DSLR you should also calculate "effective aperture ratio", which in
    > >your case is about f/12.

    >
    > That's only relevant to DOF.


    No, that's relevant to all things that matter in photography:
    - DOF
    - light sensitivity
    - softening due to diffraction
    Can't have it only the way you decide, you should take all things into
    account.

    Here is "DSLR-Troll Killer"'s reasoning for anyone with half a brain
    in need of a good laugh, even P&S owners (which are quite nice
    actually!):
    1) all that matters is field of view
    2) P&S have about 4x smaller sensors (16x smaller area) than DSLRs
    3) to get a DSLR effective focal length (EFL) multiply FL by 4
    4) focal ratio stays the same

    Let's see where this reasoning takes us:

    A) ultra large format cameras with film about 70x larger (4900x larger
    area) than P&S sensor
    For a lens of 2200mm EFL @ f/3.5 those misguided suckers need 44000mm
    EFL @ f/3.5
    Good luck with that!

    B) mobile phone camera with sensor about 2x smaller (4x smaller area)
    than P&S sensor
    For a lens of 2200mm EFL @ f/3.5 these lucky photographers need only
    300mm EFL @ f/3.5
    These guys really know how things go!

    It is clear that the smaller the sensor the better. Best overall is
    not P&S it is a mobile phone camera (the smaller the better!), that's
    why we all have at least one after all.


    > Holy **** are you DSLR-Trolls ever fucking idiots.
    >
    > >Tried some night shots with your super duper fast 61.5mm telescope
    > >lately?

    >
    > >p.s.
    > >Why compare with DSLRs, compare with 4x5 large format, then you'll
    > >kick some serious ass with 12000mm EFL @ f/3.5!
    > >Think about it.

    >
    > >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:37 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:
    > >> >On 25 nov., 07:05, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    > >> >> Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
    > >> >> EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
    > >> >> open for as long as you live.

    >
    > >> >> If not, you get to shut up now.

    >
    > >> >So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
    > >> >your camera?

    >
    > >> An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.

    >
    > >> 2197mm EFL  / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL

    >
    > >> 1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm true focal length

    >
    > >> 215mm true focal length  / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical
    > >> diameter of the entrance pupil.

    >
    > >> Nearly all teleconverters for all P&S cameras have more physical diameter
    > >> than 2.4 inches. My favorite one to ensure no aperture loss has an
    > >> entrance-pupil of 80mm (3.15 inches).

    >
    > >> Got that?

    >
    > >> Now go stick your tongue in a light-socket with it plugged in and turned on
    > >> to find out how electricity works.
     
    Bhogi, Nov 25, 2009
    #12
  13. Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:15:14 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:

    >On 25 nov., 17:45, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:37:34 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:
    >> >On 25 nov., 15:34, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    >> >> Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
    >> >> equations. It was so much easier to type.

    >>
    >> >Don't worry you're still wrong.

    >>
    >> >Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
    >> >your mistake.
    >> >What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
    >> >With respect to things that matter in photography (light sensitivity,
    >> >DOF, softening due to diffraction) when you compare EFLs of P&S to
    >> >DSLR you should also calculate "effective aperture ratio", which in
    >> >your case is about f/12.

    >>
    >> That's only relevant to DOF.

    >
    >No, that's relevant to all things that matter in photography:
    >- DOF
    >- light sensitivity
    >- softening due to diffraction
    >Can't have it only the way you decide, you should take all things into
    >account.
    >
    >Here is "DSLR-Troll Killer"'s reasoning for anyone with half a brain
    >in need of a good laugh, even P&S owners (which are quite nice
    >actually!):
    >1) all that matters is field of view
    >2) P&S have about 4x smaller sensors (16x smaller area) than DSLRs
    >3) to get a DSLR effective focal length (EFL) multiply FL by 4
    >4) focal ratio stays the same
    >
    >Let's see where this reasoning takes us:
    >
    >A) ultra large format cameras with film about 70x larger (4900x larger
    >area) than P&S sensor
    >For a lens of 2200mm EFL @ f/3.5 those misguided suckers need 44000mm
    >EFL @ f/3.5
    >Good luck with that!
    >
    >B) mobile phone camera with sensor about 2x smaller (4x smaller area)
    >than P&S sensor
    >For a lens of 2200mm EFL @ f/3.5 these lucky photographers need only
    >300mm EFL @ f/3.5
    >These guys really know how things go!
    >
    >It is clear that the smaller the sensor the better. Best overall is
    >not P&S it is a mobile phone camera (the smaller the better!), that's
    >why we all have at least one after all.
    >
    >
    >> Holy **** are you DSLR-Trolls ever fucking idiots.
    >>


    LOL!!!!!!!!!! You wasted all that time to try to convince your
    pretend-photographer's troll self that your chosen ideal of a camera MUST
    be better. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Oh, too fuckin' funny. Good thing I don't have to pay for this
    entertainment.

    ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 25, 2009
    #13
  14. Rich

    Bhogi Guest

    Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On 25 nov., 18:35, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:15:14 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:
    > >On 25 nov., 17:45, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    > >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:37:34 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:
    > >> >On 25 nov., 15:34, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    > >> >> Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
    > >> >> equations. It was so much easier to type.

    >
    > >> >Don't worry you're still wrong.

    >
    > >> >Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
    > >> >your mistake.
    > >> >What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
    > >> >With respect to things that matter in photography (light sensitivity,
    > >> >DOF, softening due to diffraction) when you compare EFLs of P&S to
    > >> >DSLR you should also calculate "effective aperture ratio", which in
    > >> >your case is about f/12.

    >
    > >> That's only relevant to DOF.

    >
    > >No, that's relevant to all things that matter in photography:
    > >- DOF
    > >- light sensitivity
    > >- softening due to diffraction
    > >Can't have it only the way you decide, you should take all things into
    > >account.

    >
    > >Here is "DSLR-Troll Killer"'s reasoning for anyone with half a brain
    > >in need of a good laugh, even P&S owners (which are quite nice
    > >actually!):
    > >1) all that matters is field of view
    > >2) P&S have about 4x smaller sensors (16x smaller area) than DSLRs
    > >3) to get a DSLR effective focal length (EFL) multiply FL by  4
    > >4) focal ratio stays the same

    >
    > >Let's see where this reasoning takes us:

    >
    > >A) ultra large format cameras with film about 70x larger (4900x larger
    > >area) than P&S sensor
    > >For a lens of 2200mm EFL @ f/3.5 those misguided suckers need 44000mm
    > >EFL @ f/3.5
    > >Good luck with that!

    >
    > >B) mobile phone camera with sensor about 2x smaller (4x smaller area)
    > >than P&S sensor
    > >For a lens of 2200mm EFL @ f/3.5 these lucky photographers need only
    > >300mm EFL @ f/3.5
    > >These guys really know how things go!

    >
    > >It is clear that the smaller the sensor the better. Best overall is
    > >not P&S it is a mobile phone camera (the smaller the better!), that's
    > >why we all have at least one after all.

    >
    > >> Holy **** are you DSLR-Trolls ever fucking idiots.

    >
    > LOL!!!!!!!!!! You wasted all that time to try to convince your
    > pretend-photographer's troll self that your chosen ideal of a camera MUST
    > be better. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    >
    > Oh, too fuckin' funny. Good thing I don't have to pay for this
    > entertainment.
    >
    > ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!


    This is how troll killer kills its prey.

    ....head on the wall, next!
     
    Bhogi, Nov 25, 2009
    #14
  15. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:37 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:
    >
    >>On 25 nov., 07:05, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    >>> Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
    >>> EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
    >>> open for as long as you live.
    >>>
    >>> If not, you get to shut up now.

    >>
    >>So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
    >>your camera?

    >
    >An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.


    Someone like you.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 25, 2009
    #15
  16. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    Bhogi <> wrote:
    >On 25 nov., 15:34, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    >> Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
    >> equations. It was so much easier to type.

    >
    >Don't worry you're still wrong.
    >
    >Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
    >your mistake.
    >What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?


    You're trying to educate someone who is only interested in being an
    asshole troll.

    FYI.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 25, 2009
    #16
  17. Rich

    Guest

    On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:24:18 -0500, me <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:35:56 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Poor fellow. I tried with with an Olympus C-8080 years ago and even
    >>with it's lens, the images sucked. The worst 70-300mm $180 zoom on a
    >>DSLR would do better.
    >>
    >>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=33791622

    >
    >Once again too bad Rich makes generalizations from everything he
    >reads!
    > ...


    Not true, he only makes generalizations from everything that
    does not fit his preconcived opinioins.
     
    , Nov 25, 2009
    #17
  18. Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:37:34 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:

    >Tried some night shots with your super duper fast 61.5mm telescope
    >lately?
    >


    Actually, I have. One of my cameras can shoot images by IR light alone in
    the total dark. I have 2 IR floods that allow me to take perfectly exposed
    images (and videos) in total darkness up to 120 ft. away without disturbing
    nor alerting any wildlife to my presence, undisturbed by neither light nor
    sounds from my P&S camera. Got some fine shots and video of the endangered
    Florida Panther's behavior in the wilds that way.

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2717/4134380269_24ae01453e.jpg

    (only a small image down-size of full-frame available for public trolls'
    consumption)

    How's your dSLR doing for things like that?

    I wouldn't mind seeing the results of you shooting panthers in the wilds in
    the dead of night with your clattering and flashing DSLR. Better stay
    inside that attack-proof wildlife blind of yours and hope they show up
    where you are -- some day.

    LOL

    ****, are you ever an ignorant basement-living DSLR-Troll.
     
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 26, 2009
    #18
  19. Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:15:21 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >On 2009-11-25 18:29:47 -0800, DSLR-Troll Killer <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:37:34 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Tried some night shots with your super duper fast 61.5mm telescope
    >>> lately?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Actually, I have. One of my cameras can shoot images by IR light alone in
    >> the total dark. I have 2 IR floods that allow me to take perfectly exposed
    >> images (and videos) in total darkness up to 120 ft. away without disturbing
    >> nor alerting any wildlife to my presence, undisturbed by neither light nor
    >> sounds from my P&S camera. Got some fine shots and video of the endangered
    >> Florida Panther's behavior in the wilds that way.
    >>
    >> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2717/4134380269_24ae01453e.jpg
    >>
    >> (only a small image down-size of full-frame available for public trolls'
    >> consumption)
    >>
    >> How's your dSLR doing for things like that?
    >>
    >> I wouldn't mind seeing the results of you shooting panthers in the wilds in
    >> the dead of night with your clattering and flashing DSLR. Better stay
    >> inside that attack-proof wildlife blind of yours and hope they show up
    >> where you are -- some day.
    >>
    >> LOL
    >>
    >> ****, are you ever an ignorant basement-living DSLR-Troll.

    >
    >Let's see your panther shots. Put up or shut up.


    Shots, plural? Nope, you only get to see that one. One of the few I'm
    willing to share with online trolls. It's not even a good one. I never
    share good things with trolls. Just the barest minimum needed to prove them
    to be the fools and trolls that they are.
     
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 26, 2009
    #19
  20. Rich

    Bhogi Guest

    Re: P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

    On 26 nov., 12:51, DSLR-Troll Killer <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:15:21 -0800, C J Campbell
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On 2009-11-25 18:29:47 -0800, DSLR-Troll Killer <> said:

    >
    > >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:37:34 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> Tried some night shots with your super duper fast 61.5mm telescope
    > >>> lately?

    >
    > >> Actually, I have. One of my cameras can shoot images by IR light alone in
    > >> the total dark. I have 2 IR floods that allow me to take perfectly exposed
    > >> images (and videos) in total darkness up to 120 ft. away without disturbing
    > >> nor alerting any wildlife to my presence, undisturbed by neither light nor
    > >> sounds from my P&S camera. Got some fine shots and video of the endangered
    > >> Florida Panther's behavior in the wilds that way.

    >
    > >>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2717/4134380269_24ae01453e.jpg

    >
    > >> (only a small image down-size of full-frame available for public trolls'
    > >> consumption)

    >
    > >> How's your dSLR doing for things like that?

    >
    > >> I wouldn't mind seeing the results of you shooting panthers in the wilds in
    > >> the dead of night with your clattering and flashing DSLR. Better stay
    > >> inside that attack-proof wildlife blind of yours and hope they show up
    > >> where you are -- some day.

    >
    > >> LOL

    >
    > >> ****, are you ever an ignorant basement-living DSLR-Troll.

    >
    > >Let's see your panther shots. Put up or shut up.

    >
    > Shots, plural? Nope, you only get to see that one. One of the few I'm
    > willing to share with online trolls. It's not even a good one. I never
    > share good things with trolls. Just the barest minimum needed to prove them
    > to be the fools and trolls that they are.


    No, you misunderstood. He's trying to tell you nobody believes that is
    your shot.
    It's impossible to be so serious about photography as you make us
    believe you are and at the same time be so close-minded and stupid as
    you demonstrate all the time. It's impossible to believe one word you
    say.
    But I nevertheless do believe you have a super duper 61.5mm diameter
    fast telescope.

    It's dumb to say P&S is better than DSLR as it is to say DSLR is
    better than P&S.
    It's dumb to make comparisons as you make them.

    P&S are different from DSLR and that's all. Ultra large format of say
    500mmx400mm is also different so what.

    Your trolling is dumb.

    ....then again maybe you are dumb.
     
    Bhogi, Nov 26, 2009
    #20
    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. thing2

    Sony's day just gets worse and worse

    thing2, Nov 23, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,172
    Murray Symon
    Dec 1, 2005
  2. Rita Berkowitz
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    407
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 24, 2008
  3. Rita Berkowitz
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    464
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 28, 2008
  4. Rita Berkowitz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,059
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 25, 2008
  5. Rita Berkowitz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    424
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 25, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page