Re: Slow lens rant

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by George Kerby, Jul 24, 2003.

  1. George Kerby

    George Kerby Guest

    On 7/24/03 12:45 PM, in article , "JK"
    <> wrote:

    > Why are many new digital cameras being released with lenses that
    > are f4.8 or slower at max telephoto? Do the camera makers think
    > that consumers won't realize how much this limits the existing light
    > abilities of the cameras? Many people want to take photos indoors
    > without using a flash or tripod. It is sad that there are so few digital
    > cameras(especially small small ones) that perform well in low light.
    >

    It's like my Grandfather used to say about horses and oats.
    "You gotta pay a little more for the oats that haven't yet been through the
    horse"
    GEEZ! Stop Bitching!!!
    If you want large glass you gotta PAY for it in $$$ AND size...


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Jul 24, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. George Kerby

    Tiny Tim Guest

    Tiny Tim wrote:
    > JK wrote:
    >> I remember years ago, 35mm slrs came with 50mm f1.4 lenses as
    >> standard.
    >> I want to find a compact digital camera with something like that.

    >
    > You started this thread by wanting a lens that was fast at the
    > telephoto end and moaning about f4.8 being slow. Now you're talking
    > about fixed standard focal length lenses by way of comparison.
    >
    > How many 150mm f1.4 lenses do you know of for 35mm film, never mind
    > 50-150mm or 35-105mm zooms?
    >
    > Don't you think you're being a tad unrealistic? What price range did
    > you have in mind?


    Here's a link to zoom lenses available at Calumet.

    http://www.calumetphoto.com/syrinx/...&ac.cat.CatTree.prodIndex.branch.node3=ABD-AB

    Perhaps you can find a lens that meets your expectation for focal length and
    speed as a 35mm equivalent and then let us know how much it costs. Thanks in
    eager anticipation.
     
    Tiny Tim, Jul 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. George Kerby

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    >JK writes:
    >
    >> I remember years ago, 35mm slrs came with 50mm f1.4 lenses as standard.
    >> I want to find a compact digital camera with something like that.

    >
    >Even 35mm SLRs don't come with that today. If anything, they come with
    >a really cheap zoom. Vendors know that serious photographers will just
    >buy the body, and they buy lenses separately; and they also know that
    >clueless consumers will want a lens already supplied and ready to go,
    >and that they won't want to pay more for it, and that they won't know or
    >care if it is of bad optical quality.


    If the target is 4x6 prints, an excellent lens is less appreciable.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 25, 2003
    #3
  4. George Kerby

    Mxsmanic Guest

    writes:

    > If the target is 4x6 prints, an excellent lens
    > is less appreciable.


    Resolution and some aberrations are not as important, but things like
    contrast can still be obvious.

    Compare these two photos:

    http://www.mxsmanic.com/church2.jpg
    http://www.mxsmanic.com/church3.jpg

    The first was taken with a Leica lens, the second was taken with a
    disposable camera. Even at this small Web site, you can see a
    difference between the cheap plastic lens of the disposable and the
    Leica ... although it's not as big as you might expect.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 25, 2003
    #4
  5. George Kerby

    JK Guest

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > JK writes:
    >
    > > I remember years ago, 35mm slrs came with 50mm f1.4 lenses as standard.
    > > I want to find a compact digital camera with something like that.

    >
    > Even 35mm SLRs don't come with that today. If anything, they come with
    > a really cheap zoom.


    Many do. That really sucks! It reminds me of the portable cd players
    that come with horrible headphones.

    > Vendors know that serious photographers will just
    > buy the body, and they buy lenses separately; and they also know that
    > clueless consumers will want a lens already supplied and ready to go,
    > and that they won't want to pay more for it, and that they won't know or
    > care if it is of bad optical quality.


    That sucks.

    >
    >
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    JK, Jul 25, 2003
    #5
  6. George Kerby

    Mark M Guest


    >> Vendors know that serious photographers will just
    >> buy the body, and they buy lenses separately; and they also know that
    >> clueless consumers will want a lens already supplied and ready to go,
    >> and that they won't want to pay more for it, and that they won't
    >> know or care if it is of bad optical quality.

    >
    > That sucks.


    So which one are you...
    Beavis, or Butthead?
    :)
     
    Mark M, Jul 25, 2003
    #6
  7. George Kerby

    chibitul Guest

    In article <>,
    Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    > writes:
    >
    > > If the target is 4x6 prints, an excellent lens
    > > is less appreciable.

    >
    > Resolution and some aberrations are not as important, but things like
    > contrast can still be obvious.
    >
    > Compare these two photos:
    >
    > http://www.mxsmanic.com/church2.jpg
    > http://www.mxsmanic.com/church3.jpg
    >
    > The first was taken with a Leica lens, the second was taken with a
    > disposable camera. Even at this small Web site, you can see a
    > difference between the cheap plastic lens of the disposable and the
    > Leica ... although it's not as big as you might expect.


    what aboout http://www.mxsmanic.com/church1.jpg ??? Polarizer???
     
    chibitul, Jul 26, 2003
    #7
  8. George Kerby

    Mxsmanic Guest

    chibitul writes:

    > what aboout http://www.mxsmanic.com/church1.jpg ??? Polarizer???


    Hasselblad.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 26, 2003
    #8
    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. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Slow lens rant

    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    1,191
    George Kerby
    Jul 29, 2003
  2. Andrew McDonald

    Re: Slow lens rant

    Andrew McDonald, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    330
    George Kerby
    Jul 26, 2003
  3. Lionel

    Re: Slow lens rant

    Lionel, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    326
  4. T.N.O.

    spam increasing? <rant></rant>

    T.N.O., Nov 19, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    506
    T.N.O.
    Nov 21, 2003
  5. XPD

    /rant CRAP ADSL /rant

    XPD, Apr 25, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    621
    Enkidu
    Apr 27, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page