Re: Time to chuck the P&S's into the garbage

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 5, 2011.

  1. On Tuesday, April 5, 2011 3:58:37 PM UTC-5, Schneider wrote:
    > On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 07:32:44 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Now, about those long lens apertures -- cite some numbers. What do
    > >the superzooms have to rival a 400/2.8 or 600/4? (It's entirely
    > >possible I'm out of date on what exists; just point it out to me, and
    > >I'll be enlightened.) Or is your "can" a theoretical claim which
    > >hasn't yet been fulfilled in the real world?

    >
    > Here's some reprints of previous posts in the distant past to try to
    > explain it to people far less intelligent than you. Don't take the rhetoric
    > personally. If you catch on fast, then just skip to the last portion with
    > further proof.


    Let's start with the important bit -- the photo of the butterfly is quite nice.

    When you say "teleconverter", you're talking about something that goes
    in FRONT of the lens, right? Normally a "teleconverter" is a thing
    that goes between the lens and the camera body; something (a
    focal-length adjuster) that goes in front of the lens is an
    "auxiliary" lens. But I think I know what you mean, anyway.

    Being an SLR guy since 1969 (not, obviously, digital for most of that
    time), I don't know too much of the optics of auxiliary lenses (not
    that they can't be used; just that it hasn't been common). But I
    gather you're saying they can increase the light-gathering power of
    your lens? (Not obviously insane, since they go in front; a
    teleconverter that goes between lens and camera, in contrast, clearly
    CANNOT improve your light-gathering.) So by stacking suitable lenses
    in front, you get very long focal length and wide aperture?

    None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
    names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
    really laid out plainly.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 5, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Dyer-Bennet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:06:19 -0500, Schneider <>
    wrote:

    >>None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
    >>names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
    >>really laid out plainly.

    >
    >I try to never mention brand names. For starters, I don't want others to
    >know exactly what I use to get such phenomenal performance.


    Oh, c'mon. Tell us the brand of the camera you used to take that
    fuzzy, muddy, out-of-focus shot of the rare moth. Tonka? Mattel?
    TootsieToy? Cracker Jack?



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Apr 6, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Dyer-Bennet

    John Turco Guest

    Schneider wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > The only hint and important advice I give is that I have rarely found that
    > a teleconverter made by company A to fit on company A's camera, is rarely
    > as good as a teleconverter (or wide-angle adapter), from company D on
    > company A's camera. And conversely why company A's teleconverter works best
    > on company C's camera, or that company B's teleconverter doesn't work best
    > on any of them.. Why this holds to be true I don't know. You'd think that
    > company A having privileged info to the design of their own optics would
    > create the best match for accessory lenses for their own cameras. I've
    > never found that to be true.


    <edited>

    Perhaps, it's because so many "manufacturers" simply rebadge other
    companies' products?

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Apr 28, 2011
    #3
    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. John

    Broadband For Chuck(Message)

    John, Dec 18, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
  2. John

    To CHUCK No Reply Last 7Days

    John, Dec 27, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    786
  3. =?Utf-8?B?eHRyZW1lbWp5?=

    Chuck, I'm replying

    =?Utf-8?B?eHRyZW1lbWp5?=, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    428
    =?Utf-8?B?eHRyZW1lbWp5?=
    Jun 20, 2005
  4. Lasher

    OT: Chuck Norris Shirts

    Lasher, Feb 11, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,340
    MitchS
    Feb 13, 2006
  5. RichA

    Time to chuck the P&S's into the garbage

    RichA, Apr 3, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    599
    John Turco
    Apr 28, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page