P&S Teleconverters

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Eric Stevens, Nov 4, 2008.

  1. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
    telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:

    The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
    http://www.amazon.com/review/produc...cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

    "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
    cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
    already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
    focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
    in, or better still, a digital SLR."

    "This lens works very well outdoors or when there is a lot of light
    but is terrible indoors and takes very dark grainy photos. The
    photos taken outside with full sun exposure were very good though.
    Another problem is that for closer subjects you will see a circle
    in the center of your photo until you zoom out enough to move past
    this circle. "

    "this add-on lens completely obscures the view through the optical
    viewfinder, so you have to rely on the LCD screen for framing your
    shots. You will need good light to be using a shutter speed that is
    fast enough to hold the camera at arm's length, like you need to do
    to see the screen, and the visibility of the screen in bright
    sunlight can be less than ideal. It can be done. A tripod or
    monopod would work better, provided your subject doesn't move
    too quickly or erratically. My percentage of keepers shooting birds
    in flight, for example, was pretty low. "

    "While the G7/G9 lens zooms from 35mm to 210mm (equivalent in
    35mm terms), and this 2x converter gets you out to 420mm at the
    long end, you can't use it down to the 70mm (=2x35mm)you might
    expect, as you will run into severe vignetting. I *think* you can
    use it for all or most of the range above 210mm. "

    The Nikon TC-E3ED 3X teleconvertor lens from Amazon
    http://www.amazon.com/review/produc...cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

    "When I first saw tis lens I was excited about the possibility of
    converting my coolpix from a 38-115mm to a 114-345mm lens.
    Since this lens front mounts to the existing lens it vignettes at
    the wider end of the lens all the way to approx 85mm. Leaving
    you with an effective approx. range of only 250-345mm. While
    shooting in this range you better have a lot of light on your
    subject or a tripod. Otherwise you will get the predictable blurs
    from using such a long lens hand held. Since the cool pix is not
    the greatest in low light situations this extender compounds those
    blur problems. It also blocks the crappy built in flash if you are
    using it. Another problem you may notice is the size of this
    converter. It's huge for such a small camera. If you bring your
    camera for some quick snaps you may not want to lug this lens
    around."


    .... there is a down side.





    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 4, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eric Stevens

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
    > telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
    >
    > The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
    > http://www.amazon.com/review/produc...cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
    >
    > "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
    > cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
    > already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
    > focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
    > in, or better still, a digital SLR."
    >
    > "This lens works very well outdoors or when there is a lot of light
    > but is terrible indoors and takes very dark grainy photos. The
    > photos taken outside with full sun exposure were very good though.
    > Another problem is that for closer subjects you will see a circle
    > in the center of your photo until you zoom out enough to move past
    > this circle. "
    >
    > "this add-on lens completely obscures the view through the optical
    > viewfinder, so you have to rely on the LCD screen for framing your
    > shots. You will need good light to be using a shutter speed that is
    > fast enough to hold the camera at arm's length, like you need to do
    > to see the screen, and the visibility of the screen in bright
    > sunlight can be less than ideal. It can be done. A tripod or
    > monopod would work better, provided your subject doesn't move
    > too quickly or erratically. My percentage of keepers shooting birds
    > in flight, for example, was pretty low. "
    >
    > "While the G7/G9 lens zooms from 35mm to 210mm (equivalent in
    > 35mm terms), and this 2x converter gets you out to 420mm at the
    > long end, you can't use it down to the 70mm (=2x35mm)you might
    > expect, as you will run into severe vignetting. I *think* you can
    > use it for all or most of the range above 210mm. "
    >
    > The Nikon TC-E3ED 3X teleconvertor lens from Amazon
    > http://www.amazon.com/review/produc...cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
    >
    > "When I first saw tis lens I was excited about the possibility of
    > converting my coolpix from a 38-115mm to a 114-345mm lens.
    > Since this lens front mounts to the existing lens it vignettes at
    > the wider end of the lens all the way to approx 85mm. Leaving
    > you with an effective approx. range of only 250-345mm. While
    > shooting in this range you better have a lot of light on your
    > subject or a tripod. Otherwise you will get the predictable blurs
    > from using such a long lens hand held. Since the cool pix is not
    > the greatest in low light situations this extender compounds those
    > blur problems. It also blocks the crappy built in flash if you are
    > using it. Another problem you may notice is the size of this
    > converter. It's huge for such a small camera. If you bring your
    > camera for some quick snaps you may not want to lug this lens
    > around."
    >
    >
    > ... there is a down side.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    If people are careful when they buy their p&s, there's no reason to use a
    converter.

    How many times have we seen DSLR shooters post pics taken with a zoom ending
    in the 200mm range? Picking up a p&s with a 200mm zoom isn't that
    difficult, and I doubt there are many times when the typical family /
    recreational pic will need anything longer.

    If one does need something longer, cameras in the 400mm to +500mm range are
    available for a cheaper cost than an equivalent DSLR setup.

    As for the p&s teleconverters, themselves, as noted above, it is possible to
    find some that give good results in bright sunlight. While the setup isn't
    going to work for indoor concerts, sporting events, etc, I'm guessing most
    people would buy something like that mainly for outdoor usage. Typically, a
    420mm lens just isn't going to be of much use at a family reunion,
    kindergarten xmas concert, etc...

    Just my thoughts,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 4, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eric Stevens

    Roy G Guest

    "ResidentTrollSpotter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:32:50 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer


    >>>>>>Snipped


    >>... there is a down side.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Eric Stevens

    >
    > Yes, there is a downside. Listening to your lame, inexperienced,
    > DSLR-troll
    > advice is the biggest downside. You list the 2 worst ones made. To top it
    > off,
    > you take the words of those who don't even know how to use their camera
    > properly. That alone is proved in their descriptions of how they use their
    > cameras and lenses.
    >
    > But then ... how would YOU know that. You've NEVER held any camera. You
    > prove
    > that over and over and over again.
    >


    You are saying that he lists only the 2 worst ones.

    How often have I asked you to tell us which "High Quality" ones you claim to
    use.

    Your failure to respond leaves the field open for others to make counter
    claims. So why are you complaining.

    Put up or shut up.

    Roy G
     
    Roy G, Nov 4, 2008
    #3
  4. Eric Stevens

    Roy G Guest

    "TrentBaxter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 4 Nov 2008 04:30:03 -0600, "Toby" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    >>news:D...
    >>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>> ... there is a down side.
    >>>
    >>> In other news there is NO ultimate camera.
    >>>
    >>> Resolution, sharpness, convenience, ease of use,
    >>> weight, cost, speed of response all vary,
    >>> and in some cases conflict.

    >>
    >>And that is the basic truth of the matter. Each type of camera and lens
    >>and
    >>accessory offers some advantages and some disadvantages. Wise users
    >>research
    >>the pros and cons of each, and then make an informed choice according to
    >>their needs and desires.
    >>
    >>Toby
    >>

    >
    > Those even more wise, borne of lifetime of true real-world photography
    > experience,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>SNIPPED

    > all the other virtual-photographer DSLR-trolls) even more glaringly
    > obvious to
    > the world.
    >



    I do not make claims for any particular type of equipment, and happen to
    agree with Toby.

    You make claims for only one type of equipment, and seem to state that P & S
    cameras are the ultimate in every respect.

    Worse, you very clearly insult the intelligence of anyone who does not agree
    with you.

    You never seem to post on any other topic, except to extoll the virtues of P
    & S or damn the shortcomings of SLRs.

    You keep changing your alias, and have replied to your own postings using
    another alias.

    AND you seem unwilling or unable to specify which make or models you use.

    It is long past the time for you to come clean, and start giving some real
    information, instead of just spouting far fetched theory and poisonous bile.

    Put up or shut up.

    Roy G
     
    Roy G, Nov 4, 2008
    #4
  5. Eric Stevens

    Steve Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:09:51 -0600, TrentBaxter
    <> wrote:

    [...]
    >In case you missed them, here's just a few of the vast benefits of P&S cameras
    >and the huge related drawbacks of ALL DSLRs (some sections further edited for
    >clarity):
    >

    [snipped a bunch of crap but I figured I'd comment on this one:]
    >7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations.
    >Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter
    >distortions, e.g.
    >http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
    >do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees


    I've taken a lot of pictures of helicopters and prop planes with a
    DSLR and the blades in all sorts of various directios and not one
    shows a curved blade like that

    [snipped a whole bunch more crap]

    You can spout all the reasons you think P&S cameras are better but the
    fact remains that DSLRs and good lenses in general have much better
    image quality than any P&S.

    Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed,
    the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly
    by using physical dials and buttons instead of going through onscreen
    menus) is most important, use a DSLR. Where convenience is most
    important, use a P&S. That's why I have several of both.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Nov 4, 2008
    #5
  6. Eric Stevens

    frank_temmor Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:20:14 GMT, Steve <> wrote:

    >Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed,
    >the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly
    >by using physical dials and buttons


    That's why I would rather choose the P&S cameras that I have. Every button,
    option, and adjustment that I need is right under each finger. Only the
    occasionally used options are on menus, usually no more than 1 click away. The
    image quality is about the same as, and in some instances (DSLR glass dependent)
    can even be better from my P&S cameras. Shutter-lag is shorter on my P&S cameras
    too because I rarely depend on auto-anything. Real pros are like that. I might
    use the "instant AF override" button press to get the lens into the range I need
    rapidly, but then I focus manually. See, I know how to use my cameras, most do
    not. You have revealed that you do not.

    You need to learn how to do your research before wasting your money on cameras
    that won't do what you want them to do.

    If you think a DSLR is the only kind that will do what you need and want, you
    are sorely mistaken, and a REALLY bad shopper. Then on top of it, because of
    your stupidity and ignorance you advise all others to follow in your footsteps.
    How completely foolish.
     
    frank_temmor, Nov 4, 2008
    #6
  7. Eric Stevens

    J. Clarke Guest

    Steve wrote:
    > On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:09:51 -0600, TrentBaxter
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > [...]
    >> In case you missed them, here's just a few of the vast benefits of
    >> P&S cameras and the huge related drawbacks of ALL DSLRs (some
    >> sections further edited for clarity):
    >>

    > [snipped a bunch of crap but I figured I'd comment on this one:]
    >> 7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
    >> limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
    >> (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
    >> http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
    >> do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
    >> 90-degrees

    >
    > I've taken a lot of pictures of helicopters and prop planes with a
    > DSLR and the blades in all sorts of various directios and not one
    > shows a curved blade like that


    Nontheless that is a known issue with focal plane shutters when
    photographing propellers at high shutter speed.

    > [snipped a whole bunch more crap]
    >
    > You can spout all the reasons you think P&S cameras are better but
    > the
    > fact remains that DSLRs and good lenses in general have much better
    > image quality than any P&S.
    >
    > Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed,
    > the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly
    > by using physical dials and buttons instead of going through
    > onscreen
    > menus) is most important, use a DSLR. Where convenience is most
    > important, use a P&S. That's why I have several of both.


    Know what they do, use what you need.


    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 4, 2008
    #7
  8. Eric Stevens

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:09:51 -0600, TrentBaxter, the self-hating
    anti-DSLR sock puppet troll wrote:

    > 4. P&S cameras are silent.


    Then you are a DSLR, Biddy.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 4, 2008
    #8
  9. Eric Stevens

    Me Here Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
    > telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
    >
    > The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
    > http://www.amazon.com/review/produc...cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
    >
    > "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
    > cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
    > already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
    > focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
    > in, or better still, a digital SLR."
    >
    >
    > ... there is a down side.
    >

    The lag time of a P&S versus a dSLR makes even the cheapest dSLR appealing.
     
    Me Here, Nov 4, 2008
    #9
  10. Eric Stevens

    Al_Parker Guest

    On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:43:13 -0500, "Me Here" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
    >> telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
    >>
    >> The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
    >> http://www.amazon.com/review/produc...cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
    >>
    >> "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
    >> cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
    >> already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
    >> focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
    >> in, or better still, a digital SLR."
    >>
    >>
    >> ... there is a down side.
    >>

    >The lag time of a P&S versus a dSLR makes even the cheapest dSLR appealing.
    >
    >


    That would only be true for some snapshooter that has to depend on
    auto-everything. REAL pros know how to use hyperfocal settings and manual focus,
    making the lag-time of P&S cameras even less than *all* DSLRs. But then ...
    you'll never know this, you're a troll that's never figured out how to use ANY
    camera professionally.
     
    Al_Parker, Nov 4, 2008
    #10
  11. Eric Stevens

    Steve Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:35:37 -0600, frank_temmor
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:20:14 GMT, Steve <> wrote:
    >
    >>Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed,
    >>the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly
    >>by using physical dials and buttons

    >
    >That's why I would rather choose the P&S cameras that I have. Every button,
    >option, and adjustment that I need is right under each finger. Only the
    >occasionally used options are on menus, usually no more than 1 click away. The
    >image quality is about the same as, and in some instances (DSLR glass dependent)
    >can even be better from my P&S cameras. Shutter-lag is shorter on my P&S cameras
    >too because I rarely depend on auto-anything. Real pros are like that. I might
    >use the "instant AF override" button press to get the lens into the range I need
    >rapidly, but then I focus manually. See, I know how to use my cameras, most do
    >not. You have revealed that you do not.
    >
    >You need to learn how to do your research before wasting your money on cameras
    >that won't do what you want them to do.


    Why do you think I have both and use the one that's appropriate for
    the situation?

    >If you think a DSLR is the only kind that will do what you need and want, you
    >are sorely mistaken, and a REALLY bad shopper. Then on top of it, because of
    >your stupidity and ignorance you advise all others to follow in your footsteps.
    >How completely foolish.


    A DSLR is the only kind that will do what I want in certain
    situations. The fact that you don't realize that and think a P&S can
    do everything proves just foolish you really are and how little you
    really know about cameras.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Nov 5, 2008
    #11
  12. On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:11:50 -0500, "RichA" <> wrote:

    >P&S's are cursed when it comes to lag time. They stink, and a wide
    >"hyperfocal" distance isn't something someone wants every time and is
    >useless if you are talking about something that simply can't be captured
    >with a dog-slow response time.
    >Also, "add on" teleconverters are putrid when it comes to optical quality.
    >I've never seen one yet that didn't horribly degrade the original lens's
    >image. But then P&S lenses, especially "superzooms" at their longest length
    >have so many optical aberrations and so many focus problems people using
    >crappy teleconverters probably don't even notice the difference.
    >


    And thus, you quickly reveal your amateurish photography ability and lack of
    experiences with better P&S cameras and their related accessories so quickly and
    completely.

    How does it feel to have outted yourself as a totally inexperienced DSLR troll?
     
    Brandon Grant, Nov 5, 2008
    #12
  13. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" <> wrote:

    >
    >"John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Toby wrote:
    >>> My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
    >>> don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I
    >>> do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would
    >>> be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his
    >>> claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he
    >>> is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a
    >>> simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them
    >>> unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which
    >>> the frame could still be seen.
    >>>
    >>> He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues,
    >>> who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.

    >>
    >> That's why most have ceased replying to him.
    >>
    >> Please put your replies following what you respond to.
    >>
    >> --
    >> john mcwilliams

    >
    >Yes, I will stop replying as well.
    >
    >Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people
    >consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes
    >prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when
    >reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very
    >long).
    >
    >There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
    >this time at the bottom.
    >

    Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
    long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the
    problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple
    scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but
    the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at
    the top and mark the fact that have done so with

    --- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar.

    This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
    but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads
    becoming intolerably long.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 5, 2008
    #13
  14. Eric Stevens

    robert_manx Guest

    These off-topic control-freak comments (as are all your off-topic comments in
    all threads) and the resulting replies that are coming from someone without a
    spine, kneeling to your advice, are what is commonly referred to in
    animal-behavior studies as "displacement activity".

    Google and educate yourself.



    On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <> wrote:

    >On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Toby wrote:
    >>>> My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
    >>>> don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I
    >>>> do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would
    >>>> be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his
    >>>> claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he
    >>>> is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a
    >>>> simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them
    >>>> unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which
    >>>> the frame could still be seen.
    >>>>
    >>>> He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues,
    >>>> who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.
    >>>
    >>> That's why most have ceased replying to him.
    >>>
    >>> Please put your replies following what you respond to.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> john mcwilliams

    >>
    >>Yes, I will stop replying as well.
    >>
    >>Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people
    >>consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes
    >>prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when
    >>reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very
    >>long).
    >>
    >>There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
    >>this time at the bottom.
    >>

    >Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
    >long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the
    >problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple
    >scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but
    >the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at
    >the top and mark the fact that have done so with
    >
    > --- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar.
    >
    >This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
    >but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads
    >becoming intolerably long.
    >
    >
    >
    >Eric Stevens
     
    robert_manx, Nov 5, 2008
    #14
  15. Eric Stevens

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

    >> There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
    >> this time at the bottom.

    >
    > Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
    > long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups.


    Yes.


    > I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it
    > is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new
    > text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_
    > rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with


    Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to
    get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies
    are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be
    placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was
    done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist.
    Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it
    will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses.


    > This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
    > but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to
    > threads becoming intolerably long.


    Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
    could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
    Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
    and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
    were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
    re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
    trim the irrelevant text.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 5, 2008
    #15
  16. Eric Stevens

    ASAAR Guest

    On 5 Nov 2008 08:10:01 -0600, Toby wrote:

    > But things evolve according to the exigencies of the time, and just as we
    > are now dropping the 'm' from the objective case of 'who' and saying,
    > 'that's the place I went' without collective gasps of horror, I think you
    > are fighting a rearguard action against top posting.


    Nope, I'm not fighting it at all. At most I criticize some who
    provide elaborate but faulty justifications for top posting or as
    you noted, appending a three word response below pages of quotes.
    As for these types of replies, they never really bothered me, they
    just lost a wee bit of respect for such posters. How do you feel
    about the new (well, it's been going on for years) penchant for
    people, in real life and in commercials to say things such as "That
    was the funnest movie I've seen!" or "I had the funnest time."?
    Even my spell checker balks at those two examples. :)

    "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." -- Baby Hughey
     
    ASAAR, Nov 5, 2008
    #16
  17. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:50:39 -0600, robert_manx
    <> wrote:

    >
    >

    TOP POSTING CORRECTED
    >
    >
    >
    >On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >
    >>On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> Toby wrote:
    >>>>> My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
    >>>>> don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I
    >>>>> do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would
    >>>>> be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his
    >>>>> claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he
    >>>>> is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a
    >>>>> simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them
    >>>>> unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which
    >>>>> the frame could still be seen.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues,
    >>>>> who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's why most have ceased replying to him.
    >>>>
    >>>> Please put your replies following what you respond to.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> john mcwilliams
    >>>
    >>>Yes, I will stop replying as well.
    >>>
    >>>Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people
    >>>consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes
    >>>prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when
    >>>reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very
    >>>long).
    >>>
    >>>There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
    >>>this time at the bottom.
    >>>

    >>Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
    >>long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the
    >>problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple
    >>scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but
    >>the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at
    >>the top and mark the fact that have done so with
    >>
    >> --- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar.
    >>
    >>This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
    >>but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads
    >>becoming intolerably long.
    >>


    >These off-topic control-freak comments (as are all your off-topic comments in
    >all threads) and the resulting replies that are coming from someone without a
    >spine, kneeling to your advice, are what is commonly referred to in
    >animal-behavior studies as "displacement activity".
    >
    >Google and educate yourself.


    It's not a question of being a control freak. Usenet is not email.
    When you respond to a complex point in an article it makes sense to do
    so after the point in question. That's why I'm responding to you after
    your text and not before it. It makes it easier for other people to
    follow the argument. Of course, if you don't want that ....



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 5, 2008
    #17
  18. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:54:53 -0500, ASAAR <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    >>> There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
    >>> this time at the bottom.

    >>
    >> Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
    >> long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups.

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >
    >> I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it
    >> is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new
    >> text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_
    >> rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with

    >
    > Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to
    >get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies
    >are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be
    >placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was
    >done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist.
    >Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it
    >will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses.


    I agree entirely.
    >
    >
    >> This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
    >> but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to
    >> threads becoming intolerably long.

    >
    > Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
    >could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
    >Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
    >and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
    >were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
    >re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
    >trim the irrelevant text.


    But then came Microsoft email which instructed people to top post.
    This might be OK for short messages but Usenet is not email.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 5, 2008
    #18
  19. Eric Stevens

    SMS Guest

    Eric Stevens wrote:
    > For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
    > telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
    >
    > The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
    > http://www.amazon.com/review/produc...cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
    >
    > "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
    > cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
    > already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
    > focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
    > in, or better still, a digital SLR."


    <snip>

    You have to be really careful when choosing tele-converters and wide
    angle converters. You don't need to choose the same brand as the camera.
    Find the best tele-converter on the market, and find a lens tube and
    adapters that connect it to the camera. I.e., the wide angle converter I
    got for my Canon G series was not the Canon brand, it was much higher
    end and much more expensive, and it worked with the Lensmate tube. Of
    course it was also discontinued, greatly increasing the resale value on
    eBay!

    Needless to say, you can spend a lot of money on a kludge with those
    conversion lenses, and achieve only moderate results. That's why the
    advent of reasonably priced digital SLRs has destroyed the market for
    high end point and shoot cameras.

    The Panasonic G1 is essentially a high-end point and shoot but with
    interchangeable lenses. For someone willing to put up with the major
    disadvantages of a P&S, but that wants lenses for wide-angle and
    telephot, the G1 at least is better than the kludgey adapters, but it's
    certainly no bargain compared to a D-SLR that has far more capability.
     
    SMS, Nov 5, 2008
    #19
  20. Eric Stevens

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:4FoQk.6222$...
    > Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
    >> telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
    >>
    >> The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
    >> http://www.amazon.com/review/produc...cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
    >>
    >> "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
    >> cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
    >> already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
    >> focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
    >> in, or better still, a digital SLR."

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > You have to be really careful when choosing tele-converters and wide angle
    > converters. You don't need to choose the same brand as the camera. Find
    > the best tele-converter on the market, and find a lens tube and adapters
    > that connect it to the camera. I.e., the wide angle converter I got for my
    > Canon G series was not the Canon brand, it was much higher end and much
    > more expensive, and it worked with the Lensmate tube. Of course it was
    > also discontinued, greatly increasing the resale value on eBay!
    >
    > Needless to say, you can spend a lot of money on a kludge with those
    > conversion lenses, and achieve only moderate results. That's why the
    > advent of reasonably priced digital SLRs has destroyed the market for high
    > end point and shoot cameras.


    It would seem Canon never got that memo. With the introduction of the
    Powershot SX 1 / 10 cameras, it has that market covered. By the time you
    pick up a p&s camera, a wide angle and tele converter, you will likely have
    shelled out more than the cost of either of these models, and your pics
    won't be as good.

    Also, with the SX 1 / 10 cameras, you can start building up some flash
    accessories which will work with EOS DSLRs, should your interest in
    photography develop as your skills increase...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 5, 2008
    #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. rs11

    Need info on teleconverters please

    rs11, Aug 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    413
  2. Vin

    Digital Camera Crops and 0.7x Teleconverters

    Vin, Oct 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    704
  3. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Which teleconverters fit on the Sony F717?

    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Jan 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    398
    Bob Salomon
    Jan 23, 2004
  4. HIKER4LIFE

    teleconverters

    HIKER4LIFE, Apr 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    339
    Bowzer
    Apr 27, 2004
  5. EBL

    Teleconverters for the Canon Rebel

    EBL, Aug 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    3,211
Loading...

Share This Page