Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ASAAR, Dec 23, 2008.

  1. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:16:54 -0000, Alan Smithee wrote:

    > Just an observation, but why would anyone buy a 5D II over a D700? The only
    > reason I can see is the Canon lens choice. If Canon didn't have monopoly
    > over lens choice, they would be really screwed at the moment.


    This is mitigated by the fact that an advantage of the 5D II's
    higher resolution is more often needed for landscapes, and Canon's
    "lens monopoly" advantage doesn't extend down to the 14-24mm Nikkor.
    But some in the Canon clan are probably buying the 14-24mm Nikkor so
    that it can be used on the 5D II with a lens adapter, despite the
    clumsiness that would result from this combination, which might
    eventually lead some to upgrade the 5D II when a D700x is released.

    For sports and wildlife photography, Canon's lens monopoly is
    primarily with some of its long lenses, and for this type of
    shooting Canon has more suitable DSLRs than either of the 5Ds,
    including DX and FX bodies, which strengthens your point.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 23, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:02:47 -0600, CatchUp wrote:

    >> For sports and wildlife photography, Canon's lens monopoly is
    >> primarily with some of its long lenses, and for this type of
    >> shooting Canon has more suitable DSLRs than either of the 5Ds,
    >> including DX and FX bodies, which strengthens your point.

    > . . .
    >
    > This lame DSLR-mantra nonsense from resident-trolls is getting old.


    Excellent! Your nice holiday gift is much appreciated. :)
     
    ASAAR, Dec 23, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ASAAR

    ransley Guest

    On Dec 23, 11:02 am, CatchUp <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:40:52 -0500, ASAAR <> wrote:
    > >On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:16:54 -0000, Alan Smithee wrote:

    >
    > >> Just an observation, but why would anyone buy a 5D II over a D700?  The only
    > >> reason I can see is the Canon lens choice.  If Canon didn't have monopoly
    > >> over lens choice, they would be really screwed at the moment.

    >
    > >  This is mitigated by the fact that an advantage of the 5D II's
    > >higher resolution is more often needed for landscapes, and Canon's
    > >"lens monopoly" advantage doesn't extend down to the 14-24mm Nikkor.
    > >But some in the Canon clan are probably buying the 14-24mm Nikkor so
    > >that it can be used on the 5D II with a lens adapter, despite the
    > >clumsiness that would result from this combination, which might
    > >eventually lead some to upgrade the 5D II when a D700x is released.

    >
    > >  For sports and wildlife photography, Canon's lens monopoly is
    > >primarily with some of its long lenses, and for this type of
    > >shooting Canon has more suitable DSLRs than either of the 5Ds,
    > >including DX and FX bodies, which strengthens your point.

    >
    > Long zoom P&S cameras which have larger aperture at the longer focal-lengths
    > than any DSLR glass in existence will always be the better choice for wildlife
    > photography. You don't need high ISO's with the apertures that are available for
    > long focal-lengths on P&S cameras.
    >
    > This lame DSLR-mantra nonsense from resident-trolls is getting old.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Ive got P&S sony H7 with tele extender, The only wildlife I get a good
    photo of is whats asleep its so slow, slow in lens, iso and response.
    You really need to get out and use them instead of making things up to
    please yourself.
     
    ransley, Dec 23, 2008
    #3
  4. ASAAR

    Pete D Guest


    >
    >>> Long zoom P&S cameras which have larger aperture at the longer
    >>> focal-lengths
    >>> than any DSLR glass in existence will always be the better choice for
    >>> wildlife
    >>> photography. You don't need high ISO's with the apertures that are
    >>> available for
    >>> long focal-lengths on P&S cameras.

    >
    >>Ive got P&S sony H7 with tele extender, The only wildlife I get a good
    >>photo of is whats asleep its so slow, slow in lens, iso and response.

    >
    >>You really need to get out and use them instead of making things up to
    >>please yourself.

    >
    > You really need to broaden your experienced instead of trying to apply
    > it to all other people and cameras. My Panasonic FZ20 and FZ8 both take
    > excellent wildlife photos, even without the Tele Converter. Examples:
    > * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>
    > * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>
    > Not even a telephoto lens:
    > * <http://i40.tinypic.com/2h84ltj.jpg>
    >


    John,

    Your continued total satisfaction with mediocrity astounds me as does your
    continued showing of less than average work at small sizes to back up your
    point of view.

    I can understand the P&S troll, he does what he does simply to troll and
    have a good time, you on the other hand I thought were a fairly intelligence
    being, I see that is not the case and I was wrong as it is obvious you
    really don't have a clue at all.

    Merry Christmas.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Dec 23, 2008
    #4
  5. ASAAR

    Pete D Guest

    "Davon H" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:11:22 -0800 (PST), ransley <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>On Dec 23, 11:02 am, CatchUp <> wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:40:52 -0500, ASAAR <> wrote:
    >>> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:16:54 -0000, Alan Smithee wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >> Just an observation, but why would anyone buy a 5D II over a D700?
    >>> >> The only
    >>> >> reason I can see is the Canon lens choice. If Canon didn't have
    >>> >> monopoly
    >>> >> over lens choice, they would be really screwed at the moment.
    >>>
    >>> > This is mitigated by the fact that an advantage of the 5D II's
    >>> >higher resolution is more often needed for landscapes, and Canon's
    >>> >"lens monopoly" advantage doesn't extend down to the 14-24mm Nikkor.
    >>> >But some in the Canon clan are probably buying the 14-24mm Nikkor so
    >>> >that it can be used on the 5D II with a lens adapter, despite the
    >>> >clumsiness that would result from this combination, which might
    >>> >eventually lead some to upgrade the 5D II when a D700x is released.
    >>>
    >>> > For sports and wildlife photography, Canon's lens monopoly is
    >>> >primarily with some of its long lenses, and for this type of
    >>> >shooting Canon has more suitable DSLRs than either of the 5Ds,
    >>> >including DX and FX bodies, which strengthens your point.
    >>>
    >>> Long zoom P&S cameras which have larger aperture at the longer
    >>> focal-lengths
    >>> than any DSLR glass in existence will always be the better choice for
    >>> wildlife
    >>> photography. You don't need high ISO's with the apertures that are
    >>> available for
    >>> long focal-lengths on P&S cameras.
    >>>
    >>> This lame DSLR-mantra nonsense from resident-trolls is getting old.-
    >>> Hide quoted text -
    >>>
    >>> - Show quoted text -

    >>
    >>Ive got P&S sony H7 with tele extender, The only wildlife I get a good
    >>photo of is whats asleep its so slow, slow in lens, iso and response.
    >>You really need to get out and use them instead of making things up to
    >>please yourself.

    >
    > I've been using P&S cameras for professional wildlife photography for the
    > last
    > 6.5 years. If you can't capture fast moving subjects with them then that
    > speaks
    > tomes about your total lack of talent, and says absolutely nothing about
    > P&S
    > cameras.
    >
    > You need to get out more and learn how to use a camera instead of missing
    > all
    > those easy to get shots.
    >


    Sounds awesome, how about some links to all these images? We would love to
    see them especially from a pro such as yourself.

    Thanks

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Dec 24, 2008
    #5
  6. ASAAR

    Pete D Guest

    "Pete D" <> wrote in message
    news:49514cfe$0$15720$...
    >
    >
    >>
    >>>> Long zoom P&S cameras which have larger aperture at the longer
    >>>> focal-lengths
    >>>> than any DSLR glass in existence will always be the better choice for
    >>>> wildlife
    >>>> photography. You don't need high ISO's with the apertures that are
    >>>> available for
    >>>> long focal-lengths on P&S cameras.

    >>
    >>>Ive got P&S sony H7 with tele extender, The only wildlife I get a good
    >>>photo of is whats asleep its so slow, slow in lens, iso and response.

    >>
    >>>You really need to get out and use them instead of making things up to
    >>>please yourself.

    >>
    >> You really need to broaden your experienced instead of trying to apply
    >> it to all other people and cameras. My Panasonic FZ20 and FZ8 both take
    >> excellent wildlife photos, even without the Tele Converter. Examples:
    >> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>
    >> * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>
    >> Not even a telephoto lens:
    >> * <http://i40.tinypic.com/2h84ltj.jpg>
    >>

    >
    > John,
    >
    > Your continued total satisfaction with mediocrity astounds me as does your
    > continued showing of less than average work at small sizes to back up your
    > point of view.
    >
    > I can understand the P&S troll, he does what he does simply to troll and
    > have a good time, you on the other hand I thought were a fairly
    > intelligence being, I see that is not the case and I was wrong as it is
    > obvious you really don't have a clue at all.
    >
    > Merry Christmas.
    >
    > Pete


    Sorry about that, I have now deleted him and so will never respond to his
    silly posts again.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Dec 24, 2008
    #6
  7. ASAAR

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Pete D wrote:
    > "Davon H" <> wrote in message
    >> I've been using P&S cameras for professional wildlife photography for the
    >> last 6.5 years. If you can't capture fast moving subjects with them then that
    >> speaks tomes about your total lack of talent, and says absolutely nothing about
    >> P&S cameras.
    >>
    >> You need to get out more and learn how to use a camera instead of missing
    >> all those easy to get shots.
    >>

    >
    > Sounds awesome, how about some links to all these images? We would love to
    > see them especially from a pro such as yourself.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Pete


    But Pete, 'Davon H' is of course 'Keoeeit'. He's already posted his
    work at Steve's:

    http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685
    http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96597
    http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=100233


    Why, I'd almost keep that last one...

    (On second thoughts, nah, and I would learn about sharpening before
    embarrassing myself again.)
     
    Mark Thomas, Dec 24, 2008
    #7
  8. ASAAR

    Pete D Guest

    "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
    news:gis0pl$lia$...
    > Pete D wrote:
    >> "Davon H" <> wrote in message
    >>> I've been using P&S cameras for professional wildlife photography for
    >>> the last 6.5 years. If you can't capture fast moving subjects with them
    >>> then that speaks tomes about your total lack of talent, and says
    >>> absolutely nothing about P&S cameras.
    >>>
    >>> You need to get out more and learn how to use a camera instead of
    >>> missing all those easy to get shots.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Sounds awesome, how about some links to all these images? We would love
    >> to see them especially from a pro such as yourself.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>
    >> Pete

    >
    > But Pete, 'Davon H' is of course 'Keoeeit'. He's already posted his work
    > at Steve's:
    >
    > http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685
    > http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96597
    > http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=100233
    >
    >
    > Why, I'd almost keep that last one...
    >
    > (On second thoughts, nah, and I would learn about sharpening before
    > embarrassing myself again.)


    This is 6.5 years of shooting with P&S's "professionally"? No wonder his
    lifes work is now to try and justify all those wasted years if that is all
    he can show for all his "enormous" expertise.

    How extrordinarily small he must feel.

    Merry Christmas.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Dec 24, 2008
    #8
  9. ASAAR

    John Sheehy Guest

    John Navas <> wrote in
    news::

    > You really need to broaden your experienced instead of trying to apply
    > it to all other people and cameras. My Panasonic FZ20 and FZ8 both take
    > excellent wildlife photos, even without the Tele Converter. Examples:


    Hovering Gulls and perched herons are not exactly descriptive of the full
    range of wildlife photography. Try following a busy kinglet or warbler
    with your FZ50.
     
    John Sheehy, Dec 25, 2008
    #9
  10. ASAAR

    Mark Thomas Guest

    OT - a Xmas buffet for the troll, and how NOT to sharpen Re: Whybuy 5D II Over D700?

    Firstly, if TrevorR/Keoeeit didn't have to go to all that effort of
    changing his name every few minutes, maybe he would spot the posts that
    are pointed directly at his complete incompetence *earlier*. Do try to
    keep up, Keoeeit. This was dealt with some time ago.

    But just for him, some sharpening lessons appear below.

    TrevorR (aka Keoeeit/anti-dslr-troll) wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:46:51 +1000, Mark Thomas
    >> But Pete, 'Davon H' is of course 'Keoeeit'. He's already posted his
    >> work at Steve's:
    >>
    >> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685
    >> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96597
    >> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=100233
    >>

    >
    > It is interesting that you try to find photos from threads where camera and
    > photography prowess are not being discussed.

    I know Keoeeit believes every thought he has is instantly correct and
    the absolute pinnacle of perfect inference, but...
    It took barely 20 seconds to identify him as Dave
    Ingols/Keoeeit/X-Man/Baumabier/Casiobear, and his posting history and
    psychological issues are now well known. As he constantly tells us he
    is a professional in high demand (the ROFL is implicit - as soon as
    someone pompously assures you of their 'professionalism', you know what
    a pretentious dickhead they are). But inexplicably there is no evidence
    of any such 'professionalism', nor talent. His efforts to hide/withdraw
    his work, as he knows it exposes him for what he is, have not been
    entirely successful. Those images, which he has admitted are his are
    now his legacy. That well-deserved reputation and legacy is an archived
    history of awful images accompanied by uneducated, inexperienced,
    repeated drivel.

    Keoeeit barely elicits a reply from anything he posts now, he is
    *instantly* recognised everywhere, and about the only useful things he
    has achieved are:
    - discussions about how to killfile those who behave similarly
    - much more publicity about the reasons why small-sensor cameras are not
    the best choice where image quality is the prime concern.

    > Nor are any claims ever made that
    > those should be considered as decent photography.

    I don't claim any of mine are 'special' either, and yet when my faults
    are pointed out I will happily try to reshoot or improve. I love
    learning! When *any* of my work is reposted or referred to, I'm happy
    to engage in discussion and to post full-resolution images for
    comparison. And if the image is bad, or poorly processed, I might post
    it to ask for tips or hints, or even to have a good laugh. But if it
    was as bad as those above, I simply wouldn't post it. There's a delete
    function on the camera, as well as the PC - does Keoeeit know that?

    Unlike him, I want my images to survive the journey to a large print.
    Unlike him, I believe image quality is usually more important than
    portability.
    Unlike him, I recognise when one camera is useful and why larger formats
    exist.

    The mark of the Keoeeit's of our planet is that they believe their work
    is perfect and beyond criticis, and when the inevitable criticism comes,
    of images like those above, they can't take it and explode into a rage.
    That's why people like him are *not* successful professionals, and why
    they rarely have the guts to post their work. Photographers with talent
    do not have that problem.

    > Quick snapshots posted "for
    > the hell of it" in discussions about animals and animal behavior, to ask a
    > question about the animal in them, not posted to show off any photography skill
    > whatsoever.

    If there was ever any doubt that these were his images, it no longer
    remains. And if there are better ones, why would he not post them?

    Oh yes, we aren't worthy, and everyone must be denied the evidence of
    your talent... because we annoy him.
    Yes. Sure. That's why.
    Keoeeit, do you seriously not realise how lame and obvious that is? Did
    you not notice that even when you tried that crap on as a kid, the other
    kids immediately spotted you for a pretender? Ever wonder why you live
    alone now?

    > You're nothing but an ignorant and blatantly obvious troll.

    And yet, I keep the same single identity, am brave enough to post my
    work and discuss my failings and successes, don't have to resort to
    childish attempts to *pretend* I have many 'friends' to support me, and
    don't repost the same drivel over and over. The results do seem to be
    in, on who is the troll - and I'll accept the majority verdict.

    >> Swine only get the swill from the recycle bin. Gorge yourself heartily for the
    >> sacrifice. :)

    Here's my repeat:
    Oh yes, we aren't worthy, and everyone must be denied the evidence of
    your talent... because we annoy you.
    Yes. Sure. That's why.
    Do you have any concept of how lame and obvious that is? Did you not
    notice that even when you tried that crap on as a kid, the other kids
    immediately spotted you for a pretender? Ever wonder why you live alone
    now?

    The funny thing is, you state those images were just 'swill', and then
    immediately start defending one of them...

    > I see no sharpening
    > artifacts in that last photo. Any light and dark edges that you see defined by
    > single-pixels are due to the angle of the light and the light-sources on the
    > textures and surfaces themselves. Optics/sensor pairing so sharp that all
    > details are resolved right down to one-pixel level

    What utter tripe, and what a damning exposure of your quality standards.
    OK, here's the image again:
    http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=100233
    The sharpening technique (and to a lesser extent, the jpeg compression
    level) is very clearly inappropriate and amateurish. Here is a zoomed
    up version, to show clearly the issues and to educate the uninformed:
    http://geocities.com/chrlzs/sharpening_lesson.jpg
    Firstly, the sharpening haloes and excessive ringing are *blatantly*
    obvious. You can see the halo extending over not even two pixels, but 3
    or 4. 'One pixel level'? 'Angle of light'? Moronic protestations.

    At the areas marked A, note two things - the sharpening has only
    happened at relatively high-contrast edges, leaving some areas as mush,
    when clearly there should be detail. This is a common problem with
    small sensors, esp. from Panasonic - the NR often squashes fine
    low-contrast foliage detail as it believes it is noise. Those areas
    that did get the sharpening are overdone (ringing, dark and light
    haloes), and the radius of sharpening is excessive, so the effect
    extends too far.

    At B, note the specular highlights have been made into little donuts and
    odd squares, again, a trademark sign of oversharpening and too wide a
    radius.

    Finally at C, note the hilarious square-edged-half-a-duck... (O: Yes,
    Keoeeit, that shows the accuracy of your camera's rendition, with
    'details resolved right down to one-pixel level'.. Of course this is
    simply a jpeg artefact, from poor compression level choice..

    Why not just save all that effort, and yell "I don't know what I am
    doing!!"? Keoeeit, now's your chance to prove you are a man. Post a
    larger version of that image without sharpening, and I will show you
    exactly how it could be done properly. Feel free to cover it with
    copyright messages.

    While we wait (O:, here's an example of a much larger stitched image
    *taken on a p&s*, that simply shows what good sharpening should look
    like (1.4Mb):
    http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano2_small.jpg
    (This site will not be up for long as I'm about to re-organise, but I
    will repost it if asked)
    Note - *true* 'one-pixel' detail (like Keoeeit's, it is a reduced image
    - you do not get one-pixel accuracy from full-res, esp on a p&s). No
    mushed foliage. Sharp, yet no harsh haloes. No jpeg artefacts or
    'half-ducks'. (Also note that because it is not a dslr image, there is
    a fair bit of noise present..)

    > ..precision that you will never obtain in any dSLR optics
    > and cameras.

    Thank your chosen deity *that* Keoeeit's sort of precision is not
    achieved by *any* dslr. (A good p&s wouldn't be that awful, either, in
    the hands of someone competent).

    > Keep trying to fool yourself and others into thinking that you know what you are
    > talking about. Your continual displays of ignorance and lack of observational
    > skills are all quite amusing, highly transparent, explicitly revealing your one
    > and only career as a basement-living troll.

    So *do* address those issues above, Mr Magoo...

    > The ignorant and blind leading the ignorant and blind.

    Half right.

    > You've managed to not only embarrass yourself, again, but also all those that
    > replied to you in agreement.

    Alone *again*, Keoeeit? I'm sorry that having no supporters angers you
    so - but the reasons are outlined above.
     
    Mark Thomas, Dec 28, 2008
    #10
  11. pierce frank <> wrote in
    news::

    > 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal
    > lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and
    > 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality telextenders, which do
    > not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit.
    > [...]
    > A full f/3.5
    > aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm
    > equivalent). Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the
    > manner in which their teleconverters work.


    Could you elaborate on what allows a P&S camera to be free of the
    relative aperture loss of digital SLRs as you increase focal length with
    a teleconverter?

    Within the limits of my understanding the f-number of a lens is
    unrelated to detector technology. It simply describes how far the light
    incident on the open aperture is spread at the focal plane.

    - Shankar
     
    Shankar Bhattacharyya, Jan 1, 2009
    #11
  12. ASAAR

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Shankar Bhattacharyya wrote:
    > pierce frank <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal
    >> lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and
    >> 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality telextenders, which do
    >> not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit.
    >> [...]
    >> A full f/3.5
    >> aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm
    >> equivalent). Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the
    >> manner in which their teleconverters work.

    >
    > Could you elaborate on what allows a P&S camera to be free of the
    > relative aperture loss of digital SLRs as you increase focal length with
    > a teleconverter?
    >
    > Within the limits of my understanding the f-number of a lens is
    > unrelated to detector technology. It simply describes how far the light
    > incident on the open aperture is spread at the focal plane.
    >
    > - Shankar
    >


    Please don't encourage the troll, Shankar (as I'm now doing!) - just
    kill any messages over about 290 lines and he will mostly vanish. His
    list has been debunked *many* times.

    But to clarify, fyi - on p&s cameras a *front-mounted* converter is
    used, and (with some provisos) they do not have the inevitable aperture
    loss of a between-camera-and-lens type of converter. It depends on the
    design of the lens and converter, but they usually keep the lens at
    close to its original aperture. There is always a loss of *quality*,
    of course - these super-zoom lenses are generally already struggling for
    resolution and have strong losses to flare, CA and other distortions
    that are then (often horribly) amplified when you add on a few more
    pieces of glass.

    The troll is always unwilling to name his cameras, lenses and
    converters, as he knows that:
    - his claim of 1248mm will be shown to involve ganging up two 1.7x
    teleconverters in front of a 432mm superzoom! Even one is a bad idea.
    I would *love* to see a shot of that setup for a good laugh.
    - it could lead to FULL-RES examples from exactly those setups being
    posted. And the truth of the 'quality' will then be revealed, rather
    than his grandiose claims without examples, or examples that are all of
    600 pixels wide - my phone can do those...
     
    Mark Thomas, Jan 1, 2009
    #12
  13. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Shankar Bhattacharyya <> wrote:
    > pierce frank <> wrote in
    > news::


    >> 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal
    >> lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and
    >> 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality telextenders, which do
    >> not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit.
    >> [...]
    >> A full f/3.5
    >> aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm
    >> equivalent). Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the
    >> manner in which their teleconverters work.


    > Could you elaborate on what allows a P&S camera to be free of the
    > relative aperture loss of digital SLRs as you increase focal length with
    > a teleconverter?


    The converter on the front end rather than the back.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 1, 2009
    #13
  14. Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in
    news:gjibhu$648$:

    > Shankar Bhattacharyya wrote:
    >> pierce frank <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> A full f/3.5
    >>> aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm
    >>> equivalent). Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the
    >>> manner in which their teleconverters work.

    >>
    >> Could you elaborate on what allows a P&S camera to be free of the
    >> relative aperture loss of digital SLRs as you increase focal
    >> length with a teleconverter?
    >>
    >> Within the limits of my understanding the f-number of a lens is
    >> unrelated to detector technology. It simply describes how far the
    >> light incident on the open aperture is spread at the focal plane.

    >
    > Please don't encourage the troll, Shankar (as I'm now doing!) -
    > just kill any messages over about 290 lines and he will mostly
    > vanish. His list has been debunked *many* times.


    Actually, I was not trying to feed a troll or a single-agenda poster.
    I was really trying to understand where that came from. Once in a
    while one learns something from an unlikely source.

    > But to clarify, fyi - on p&s cameras a *front-mounted* converter is
    > used, and (with some provisos) they do not have the inevitable
    > aperture loss of a between-camera-and-lens type of converter. It
    > depends on the design of the lens and converter, but they usually
    > keep the lens at close to its original aperture.


    Thank you. That makes sense, of course. A front-mounted converter can
    be noticeably wider than the front element of the fixed-mount lens
    and, designed well, become the front lens group of a now modified lens
    with a larger front element. I should have thought of that. That was
    before coffee this morning.

    - Shankar
     
    Shankar Bhattacharyya, Jan 1, 2009
    #14
  15. ASAAR

    Paul Furman Guest

    Mark Thomas wrote:
    > Shankar Bhattacharyya wrote:
    >> pierce frank <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>> 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal
    >>> lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and
    >>> 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality telextenders, which do
    >>> not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit.
    >>> [...]
    >>> A full f/3.5
    >>> aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm
    >>> equivalent). Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the
    >>> manner in which their teleconverters work.

    >>
    >> Could you elaborate on what allows a P&S camera to be free of the
    >> relative aperture loss of digital SLRs as you increase focal length
    >> with a teleconverter?
    >>
    >> Within the limits of my understanding the f-number of a lens is
    >> unrelated to detector technology. It simply describes how far the
    >> light incident on the open aperture is spread at the focal plane.
    >>
    >> - Shankar
    >>

    >
    > Please don't encourage the troll, Shankar (as I'm now doing!) - just
    > kill any messages over about 290 lines and he will mostly vanish. His
    > list has been debunked *many* times.
    >
    > But to clarify, fyi - on p&s cameras a *front-mounted* converter is
    > used, and (with some provisos) they do not have the inevitable aperture
    > loss of a between-camera-and-lens type of converter. It depends on the
    > design of the lens and converter, but they usually keep the lens at
    > close to its original aperture. There is always a loss of *quality*,
    > of course - these super-zoom lenses are generally already struggling for
    > resolution and have strong losses to flare, CA and other distortions
    > that are then (often horribly) amplified when you add on a few more
    > pieces of glass.
    >
    > The troll is always unwilling to name his cameras, lenses and
    > converters, as he knows that:
    > - his claim of 1248mm will be shown to involve ganging up two 1.7x
    > teleconverters in front of a 432mm superzoom! Even one is a bad idea. I
    > would *love* to see a shot of that setup for a good laugh.


    Here you go:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3066022657/
    This is the converter he mentioned (only one though) on almost the same
    camera model he has mentioned. There is a link to the source page, I
    cropped and arranged the relevant images to make it easier to see.


    > - it could lead to FULL-RES examples from exactly those setups being
    > posted. And the truth of the 'quality' will then be revealed, rather
    > than his grandiose claims without examples, or examples that are all of
    > 600 pixels wide - my phone can do those...
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 2, 2009
    #15
  16. ASAAR

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > Mark Thomas wrote:
    >> The troll is always unwilling to name his cameras, lenses and
    >> converters, as he knows that:
    >> - his claim of 1248mm will be shown to involve ganging up two 1.7x
    >> teleconverters in front of a 432mm superzoom! Even one is a bad idea.
    >> I would *love* to see a shot of that setup for a good laugh.

    >
    > Here you go:
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3066022657/
    > This is the converter he mentioned (only one though) on almost the same
    > camera model he has mentioned. There is a link to the source page, I
    > cropped and arranged the relevant images to make it easier to see.


    Thanks, Paul. At the original size:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3066022657/sizes/o/
    you can immediately see what you are in for, at the bottom, just with
    *one* converter. The troll says a mushy photo is better than no
    photo... but in that case, I would beg to differ. I would rather have
    not seen that.

    Then there is the physical issue of finding a set of two converters that
    can somehow be mated on the front of the p&s lens. I can just imagine
    what that would look and feel like, and I would rather not imagine the
    results.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jan 2, 2009
    #16
  17. ASAAR

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > Mark Thomas wrote:
    >> Shankar Bhattacharyya wrote:
    >>> pierce frank <> wrote in
    >>> news::
    >>>> 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal
    >>>> lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and
    >>>> 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality telextenders, which do
    >>>> not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit.
    >>>> [...]
    >>>> A full f/3.5
    >>>> aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm
    >>>> equivalent). Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the
    >>>> manner in which their teleconverters work.
    >>>
    >>> Could you elaborate on what allows a P&S camera to be free of the
    >>> relative aperture loss of digital SLRs as you increase focal length
    >>> with a teleconverter?
    >>>
    >>> Within the limits of my understanding the f-number of a lens is
    >>> unrelated to detector technology. It simply describes how far the
    >>> light incident on the open aperture is spread at the focal plane.
    >>>
    >>> - Shankar
    >>>

    >>
    >> Please don't encourage the troll, Shankar (as I'm now doing!) - just
    >> kill any messages over about 290 lines and he will mostly vanish. His
    >> list has been debunked *many* times.
    >>
    >> But to clarify, fyi - on p&s cameras a *front-mounted* converter is
    >> used, and (with some provisos) they do not have the inevitable
    >> aperture loss of a between-camera-and-lens type of converter. It
    >> depends on the design of the lens and converter, but they usually keep
    >> the lens at close to its original aperture. There is always a loss
    >> of *quality*, of course - these super-zoom lenses are generally
    >> already struggling for resolution and have strong losses to flare, CA
    >> and other distortions that are then (often horribly) amplified when
    >> you add on a few more pieces of glass.
    >>
    >> The troll is always unwilling to name his cameras, lenses and
    >> converters, as he knows that:
    >> - his claim of 1248mm will be shown to involve ganging up two 1.7x
    >> teleconverters in front of a 432mm superzoom! Even one is a bad idea.
    >> I would *love* to see a shot of that setup for a good laugh.

    >
    > Here you go:
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3066022657/


    original size:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3066022657/sizes/o/

    > This is the converter he mentioned (only one though) on almost the same
    > camera model he has mentioned. There is a link to the source page, I
    > cropped and arranged the relevant images to make it easier to see.
    >
    >
    >> - it could lead to FULL-RES examples from exactly those setups being
    >> posted. And the truth of the 'quality' will then be revealed, rather
    >> than his grandiose claims without examples, or examples that are all
    >> of 600 pixels wide - my phone can do those...
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 2, 2009
    #17
    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. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,084
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
  2. Paul Furman

    Re: Nikon Announces Another Must Have Camera, The D700!!

    Paul Furman, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    986
    Alotta Fagina
    Jul 3, 2008
  3. Cynicor

    OFFICIAL: Nikon D700 and SB-900

    Cynicor, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    602
    Jufí
    Jul 1, 2008
  4. John McWilliams

    Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?

    John McWilliams, Dec 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    965
    John McWilliams
    Dec 31, 2008
  5. RichA

    Why do we need cameras like the D700 or D3s?

    RichA, Feb 18, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    756
    Eric Stevens
    Feb 19, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page