Sharpest "Reasonably priced" Canon lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike, Nov 21, 2007.

  1. Mike

    Mike Guest

    Yes, I know that "sharpest" is a rather generic description, but bear
    with me....
    I have a Canon 20D with the 17 - 85mm zone. It is a very nice "walk
    around" lens and is fine for most casual use.. but... Sometimes I
    really want to take the high resolution (sharp) pictures that I'm sure
    the 20D is capable of. Even stopping down to f11 and, keeping the
    shutter speed up and using a tripod still does not product the sharpness
    and detail I'm looking for. So, I want to do a bit of a test....
    I want to get a lens that would at least match the capabilities of the
    20D's 8 MP sensor resolution, but I can't really justify the cost of the
    nice L lenses. I've seen comments about the 50mm lens being very sharp,
    and I figure that would be a reasonable test lens... So..
    What (single focal length) Canon lens is the sharpest while staying
    within a reasonable price point. For example, Canon offers 50mm 1.8,
    1.4 and even 1.2 (L) or 1.0 (L). Without looking them up, I suspect the
    1.2 and 1.0 L lenses will be a bit pricey. Would the 1.8 (or 1.4) lens
    be my best bet, or should I consider dropping down to the 35mm F2 or
    even 28mm f2.8?? Since this is primarily an 'experiment', I'm not real
    concerned about focal length; I can use about anything within the
    moderate wide to moderate tele range. If this experiment works out, I
    may then see about some other focal length lenses that provide the
    'sharpness' I'm looking for.
    Thanks

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Mike, Nov 21, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:23:55 -0500, Mike <> wrote:

    >Yes, I know that "sharpest" is a rather generic description, but bear
    >with me....
    >I have a Canon 20D with the 17 - 85mm zone. It is a very nice "walk
    >around" lens and is fine for most casual use.. but... Sometimes I
    >really want to take the high resolution (sharp) pictures that I'm sure
    >the 20D is capable of. Even stopping down to f11 and, keeping the
    >shutter speed up and using a tripod still does not product the sharpness
    >and detail I'm looking for. So, I want to do a bit of a test....
    >I want to get a lens that would at least match the capabilities of the
    >20D's 8 MP sensor resolution, but I can't really justify the cost of the
    >nice L lenses.


    Don't be so sure about L-glass meaning anything these days. Some recent tests
    last month prove that L-glass on even a tripod mounted Mk-II can't beat the lens
    and resolution in a hand-held $400 P&S superzoom camera. Seen the comparison
    photos with my own eyes. Dem's da fac's.
    TrevorAndersen, Nov 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike

    Scott W Guest

    Mike wrote:
    > Yes, I know that "sharpest" is a rather generic description, but bear
    > with me....
    > I have a Canon 20D with the 17 - 85mm zone. It is a very nice "walk
    > around" lens and is fine for most casual use.. but... Sometimes I
    > really want to take the high resolution (sharp) pictures that I'm sure
    > the 20D is capable of. Even stopping down to f11 and, keeping the
    > shutter speed up and using a tripod still does not product the sharpness
    > and detail I'm looking for. So, I want to do a bit of a test....
    > I want to get a lens that would at least match the capabilities of the
    > 20D's 8 MP sensor resolution, but I can't really justify the cost of the
    > nice L lenses. I've seen comments about the 50mm lens being very sharp,
    > and I figure that would be a reasonable test lens... So..
    > What (single focal length) Canon lens is the sharpest while staying
    > within a reasonable price point. For example, Canon offers 50mm 1.8,
    > 1.4 and even 1.2 (L) or 1.0 (L). Without looking them up, I suspect the
    > 1.2 and 1.0 L lenses will be a bit pricey. Would the 1.8 (or 1.4) lens
    > be my best bet, or should I consider dropping down to the 35mm F2 or
    > even 28mm f2.8?? Since this is primarily an 'experiment', I'm not real
    > concerned about focal length; I can use about anything within the
    > moderate wide to moderate tele range. If this experiment works out, I
    > may then see about some other focal length lenses that provide the
    > 'sharpness' I'm looking for.
    > Thanks
    >


    Stopping down to f/11 will not give you the sharpest image, if the lens
    is good, you start to get diffraction much above f/8.

    A great lens for sharpness but cheap is Canon's 50mm f/1.8, at f/8 it
    will produce more detail then the 20D can handle.

    Cost is about $70.

    Scott
    Scott W, Nov 21, 2007
    #3
  4. Mike wrote:
    > Yes, I know that "sharpest" is a rather generic description, but bear
    > with me....
    > I have a Canon 20D with the 17 - 85mm zone. It is a very nice "walk
    > around" lens and is fine for most casual use.. but... Sometimes I
    > really want to take the high resolution (sharp) pictures that I'm sure
    > the 20D is capable of. Even stopping down to f11 and, keeping the
    > shutter speed up and using a tripod still does not product the sharpness
    > and detail I'm looking for. So, I want to do a bit of a test....
    > I want to get a lens that would at least match the capabilities of the
    > 20D's 8 MP sensor resolution, but I can't really justify the cost of the
    > nice L lenses. I've seen comments about the 50mm lens being very sharp,
    > and I figure that would be a reasonable test lens... So..
    > What (single focal length) Canon lens is the sharpest while staying
    > within a reasonable price point.


    <snip>

    Take a look at

    "http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html"

    and the lens reviews at

    "http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/index.html" (under
    "Equipment Reviews" scroll down to "Lenses."

    Especially look at
    "http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_17-85_review_4.html"
    where he compares the sharpness of the lens you have against several
    other lenses, at different settings.

    So the short answer is that the 50mm primes will be sharper than the
    zoom you're using.

    The real gem in the EF-s line is the 10-22, which has L quality optics,
    but at $625 it's expensive.
    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 21, 2007
    #4
  5. Mike

    /dev/null Guest

    "TrevorAndersen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Don't be so sure about L-glass meaning anything these days. Some recent
    > tests
    > last month prove that L-glass on even a tripod mounted Mk-II can't beat
    > the lens
    > and resolution in a hand-held $400 P&S superzoom camera. Seen the
    > comparison
    > photos with my own eyes. Dem's da fac's.
    >

    Produce full sized comparisions with a proper resolution chart. Seat of the
    pants puffery doesn't count.
    /dev/null, Nov 21, 2007
    #5
  6. Mike

    Eatmorepies Guest


    > I want to get a lens that would at least match the capabilities of the
    > 20D's 8 MP sensor resolution, but I can't really justify the cost of the
    > nice L lenses. I've seen comments about the 50mm lens being very sharp,
    > and I figure that would be a reasonable test lens... So..
    > What (single focal length) Canon lens is the sharpest while staying within
    > a reasonable price point. For example, Canon offers 50mm 1.8, 1.4 and
    > even 1.2 (L) or 1.0 (L). Without looking them up, I suspect the 1.2 and
    > 1.0 L lenses will be a bit pricey. Would the 1.8 (or 1.4) lens be my best
    > bet, or should I consider dropping down to the 35mm F2 or even 28mm f2.8??
    > Since this is primarily an 'experiment', I'm not real concerned about
    > focal length; I can use about anything within the moderate wide to
    > moderate tele range. If this experiment works out, I may then see about
    > some other focal length lenses that provide the 'sharpness' I'm looking
    > for.
    > Thanks
    >


    The 70-200mm f4 L is reasonably priced. I can get one in the UK for £350.
    They are very sharp. Also - you can ignore the price because you can re-sell
    it for 90% (or more) of what you pay for it (so long as you keep it clean
    and retain the packaging).

    I have a 50mm f1.4 and it's not as sharp as the L lenses I have. I only use
    it if I want a physically small lens or for photography in cities at night
    because I want to use a large apeture. The lack of sharpness of this lens
    does't matter so much if you're producing grainy monochrome pictures.

    John
    Eatmorepies, Nov 21, 2007
    #6
  7. On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:21:07 -0500, "/dev/null" <nntp.server.net> wrote:

    >
    >"TrevorAndersen" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> Don't be so sure about L-glass meaning anything these days. Some recent
    >> tests
    >> last month prove that L-glass on even a tripod mounted Mk-II can't beat
    >> the lens
    >> and resolution in a hand-held $400 P&S superzoom camera. Seen the
    >> comparison
    >> photos with my own eyes. Dem's da fac's.
    >>

    >Produce full sized comparisions with a proper resolution chart. Seat of the
    >pants puffery doesn't count.
    >
    >


    Yeah, ain't that the kicker? They were full-res images of the moon. An easily
    available, reproducible, easily shared by all, high-resolution, high-contrast,
    test target. Even fractal in nature, because you can always use crater sizes on
    it as small as you want to go to test resolution limits. Photos of the moon are
    great for comparing cameras in the world. Everyone is posting an image of the
    moon from their camera at some time or another. They were 100% pixel crops. No
    seat of the pants puffery there. As I said, "Dem's da fac's." Can't you read?

    The even bigger kicker? The images coming from the Mk-II with L-glass, locked on
    tripod, mirror locked out of the way to prevent any shake at all, were done by
    someone who prides their self on their astro-photography (for some reason). He
    was trying to use his equipment as best as he knew how. One of the DSLR maniacs
    who is always trying to justify why he spent so much, $13,000 in this instance.
    He couldn't even blame atmospheric "seeing" conditions on the differences. The
    DSLR+L-glass taken with the moon high in the sky, the P&S guy taking his image
    of the moon near the horizon through denser and more turbulent atmosphere. The
    $400 P&S camera guy was pointing his hand-held camera at the moon shortly after
    purchase just to see how it would do just for the hell of it, not even trying to
    get the best shot he could. The $400 P&S camera still won.

    Dem's da fac's, Mam. Nuttin' but da fac's.

    Deal with it.
    TrevorAndersen, Nov 21, 2007
    #7
  8. On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:57:10 GMT, TrevorAndersen <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:21:07 -0500, "/dev/null" <nntp.server.net> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"TrevorAndersen" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>
    >>> Don't be so sure about L-glass meaning anything these days. Some recent
    >>> tests
    >>> last month prove that L-glass on even a tripod mounted Mk-II can't beat
    >>> the lens
    >>> and resolution in a hand-held $400 P&S superzoom camera. Seen the
    >>> comparison
    >>> photos with my own eyes. Dem's da fac's.
    >>>

    >>Produce full sized comparisions with a proper resolution chart. Seat of the
    >>pants puffery doesn't count.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Yeah, ain't that the kicker? They were full-res images of the moon. An easily
    >available, reproducible, easily shared by all, high-resolution, high-contrast,
    >test target. Even fractal in nature, because you can always use crater sizes on
    >it as small as you want to go to test resolution limits. Photos of the moon are
    >great for comparing cameras in the world. Everyone is posting an image of the
    >moon from their camera at some time or another. They were 100% pixel crops. No
    >seat of the pants puffery there. As I said, "Dem's da fac's." Can't you read?
    >
    >The even bigger kicker? The images coming from the Mk-II with L-glass, locked on
    >tripod, mirror locked out of the way to prevent any shake at all, were done by
    >someone who prides their self on their astro-photography (for some reason). He
    >was trying to use his equipment as best as he knew how. One of the DSLR maniacs
    >who is always trying to justify why he spent so much, $13,000 in this instance.
    >He couldn't even blame atmospheric "seeing" conditions on the differences. The
    >DSLR+L-glass taken with the moon high in the sky, the P&S guy taking his image
    >of the moon near the horizon through denser and more turbulent atmosphere. The
    >$400 P&S camera guy was pointing his hand-held camera at the moon shortly after
    >purchase just to see how it would do just for the hell of it, not even trying to
    >get the best shot he could. The $400 P&S camera still won.
    >
    >Dem's da fac's, Mam. Nuttin' but da fac's.
    >
    >Deal with it.


    Minor correction in "dem fac's" ... now I remember why the P&S moon image was
    more orange. It wasn't due to being lower to the horizon, that was never stated
    by the photographer (but could be true). He was taking the image of the moon
    through all the smoke and haze of the huge fires in California USA last month,
    even more atmospheric turbulence than average on a bad "seeing" night. Like
    trying to shoot through heat-waves, only ones fill with smoke too. And it
    _still_ beat the Mk-II + L-glass for resolution on a clear night of seeing. This
    is why I remembered being certain that there was more atmospheric turbulence.
    One more minor kicker, the L-glass was a prime lens, not even a zoom. The P&S
    camera was a super-zoom. A Panasonic FZ18 if I recall now.

    Again, deal with it.
    TrevorAndersen, Nov 21, 2007
    #8
  9. Mike

    Chris W Guest

    TrevorAndersen wrote:

    >
    > Yeah, ain't that the kicker? They were full-res images of the moon. An easily
    > available, reproducible, easily shared by all, high-resolution, high-contrast,
    > test target. Even fractal in nature, because you can always use crater sizes on
    > it as small as you want to go to test resolution limits. Photos of the moon are
    > great for comparing cameras in the world. Everyone is posting an image of the
    > moon from their camera at some time or another. They were 100% pixel crops. No
    > seat of the pants puffery there. As I said, "Dem's da fac's." Can't you read?


    I'm not sure the moon is a good universal test subject for comparison.
    The distance from you to the moon depends on how high above the horizon
    the moon is. While that probably isn't significant, the amount of
    atmosphere between you and the moon and the relative pollution level
    where you are could significantly effect the sharpness of the image.



    --
    Chris W
    KE5GIX

    "Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
    learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

    Ham Radio Repeater Database.
    http://hrrdb.com
    Chris W, Nov 21, 2007
    #9
  10. Mike

    Ali Guest

    If you want to do lens tests, you could always hire a lens from someone like
    Calmut. I would also go for a 50mm personally as it's a fantastic focal
    length to work with on a 1.6 cropped sensor (of course, depends on subject).

    I generally use 'L' primes now-a-days, but I previously used a Canon 17-85
    (still have it in fact). I never found that the 17-85 was unsharp though.
    Just out of interest, are you shooting in RAW? If so, in order to preserve
    the maximum amount of image information, RAW data is intentionally
    unsharpened, so you will find that post production sharpening will make a
    lot of difference in the overall look of the image in terms of sharpness (if
    done properly).




    "Mike" <> wrote in message
    news:47442599$0$26065$...
    > Yes, I know that "sharpest" is a rather generic description, but bear with
    > me....
    > I have a Canon 20D with the 17 - 85mm zone. It is a very nice "walk
    > around" lens and is fine for most casual use.. but... Sometimes I really
    > want to take the high resolution (sharp) pictures that I'm sure the 20D is
    > capable of. Even stopping down to f11 and, keeping the shutter speed up
    > and using a tripod still does not product the sharpness and detail I'm
    > looking for. So, I want to do a bit of a test....
    > I want to get a lens that would at least match the capabilities of the
    > 20D's 8 MP sensor resolution, but I can't really justify the cost of the
    > nice L lenses. I've seen comments about the 50mm lens being very sharp,
    > and I figure that would be a reasonable test lens... So..
    > What (single focal length) Canon lens is the sharpest while staying within
    > a reasonable price point. For example, Canon offers 50mm 1.8, 1.4 and
    > even 1.2 (L) or 1.0 (L). Without looking them up, I suspect the 1.2 and
    > 1.0 L lenses will be a bit pricey. Would the 1.8 (or 1.4) lens be my best
    > bet, or should I consider dropping down to the 35mm F2 or even 28mm f2.8??
    > Since this is primarily an 'experiment', I'm not real concerned about
    > focal length; I can use about anything within the moderate wide to
    > moderate tele range. If this experiment works out, I may then see about
    > some other focal length lenses that provide the 'sharpness' I'm looking
    > for.
    > Thanks
    >
    > --
    > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    >
    Ali, Nov 21, 2007
    #10
  11. Chris W wrote:
    []
    > I'm not sure the moon is a good universal test subject for comparison.
    > The distance from you to the moon depends on how high above the
    > horizon the moon is. While that probably isn't significant, the
    > amount of atmosphere between you and the moon and the relative
    > pollution level where you are could significantly effect the
    > sharpness of the image.


    You only needed to look at the images for yourself to see which had the
    higher image quality. The larger sensor produced the better quality
    image, although the differences were subtle, as would be expected for a
    subject in bright sunlight.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 21, 2007
    #11
  12. On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:12:01 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

    >Chris W wrote:
    >[]
    >> I'm not sure the moon is a good universal test subject for comparison.
    >> The distance from you to the moon depends on how high above the
    >> horizon the moon is. While that probably isn't significant, the
    >> amount of atmosphere between you and the moon and the relative
    >> pollution level where you are could significantly effect the
    >> sharpness of the image.

    >
    >You only needed to look at the images for yourself to see which had the
    >higher image quality. The larger sensor produced the better quality
    >image, although the differences were subtle, as would be expected for a
    >subject in bright sunlight.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >David
    >


    I guess paying 32X's more for "subtle" sure is worth it. $13,000/$400=32.5 Yes,
    you could buy 32 cameras that had about twice the resolution of the Mk-II for
    the same price as the Mk-II, with prime L-glass no less. You'd have enough left
    over for $200 worth of accessories for those P&S cameras too. Even if they were
    close in comparison, and they were not, when a $400 camera comes close to the
    best DSLR and best L-glass available there's something drastically wrong with
    that DSLR and L-glass, and even more wrong with the mentality of someone that
    would buy it. Plus I don't call twice the resolution shown in the P&S image as
    exactly subtle. That's like going from a 5MPX resolution to a 20MPX resolution
    (it's a function of area, remember? not linear). That's how drastic the
    difference was. Where on earth (or the moon) do you get an absurd evaluation
    that "the larger sensor produced the better quality image" when it only produced
    half the resolution, I have no idea. Are all people who buy DSLRs this blind?
    You must be. You keep proving it.

    Let me guess, you're another one of those DSLR pushers that just talks out of
    your ass and you never even saw those comparison photos. It's the only possible
    explanation.
    TrevorAndersen, Nov 21, 2007
    #12
  13. Mike

    Chris W Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Chris W wrote:
    > []
    >> I'm not sure the moon is a good universal test subject for comparison.
    >> The distance from you to the moon depends on how high above the
    >> horizon the moon is. While that probably isn't significant, the
    >> amount of atmosphere between you and the moon and the relative
    >> pollution level where you are could significantly effect the
    >> sharpness of the image.

    >
    > You only needed to look at the images for yourself to see which had the
    > higher image quality. The larger sensor produced the better quality
    > image, although the differences were subtle, as would be expected for a
    > subject in bright sunlight.


    I guess I am missing something be cause I can't see how is what you said
    is relevant to the point I presented. I also don't know what 2 images
    you are talking about... I didn't see any links to photos in this thread.

    To be more clear my point is this. If someone in East LA takes a photo
    of the moon while it is just over the horizon in the western sky with
    camera X, and someone else on top of a mountain in Montana takes a photo
    of the moon while it is directly over head with camera Y. A comparison
    of the 2 images would be of little usefulness in determining the
    relative quality of the cameras/lenses that took the photos.


    --
    Chris W
    KE5GIX

    "Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
    learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

    Ham Radio Repeater Database.
    http://hrrdb.com
    Chris W, Nov 21, 2007
    #13
  14. Mike

    Ali Guest

    Can you post a link so we can also see the test results with our eyes?


    "TrevorAndersen" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Don't be so sure about L-glass meaning anything these days. Some recent
    > tests
    > last month prove that L-glass on even a tripod mounted Mk-II can't beat
    > the lens
    > and resolution in a hand-held $400 P&S superzoom camera. Seen the
    > comparison
    > photos with my own eyes. Dem's da fac's.
    Ali, Nov 21, 2007
    #14
  15. Mike wrote:

    > Yes, I know that "sharpest" is a rather generic description, but bear
    > with me....
    > I have a Canon 20D with the 17 - 85mm zone. It is a very nice "walk
    > around" lens and is fine for most casual use.. but... Sometimes I
    > really want to take the high resolution (sharp) pictures that I'm sure
    > the 20D is capable of.


    If you really want a sharp lens for your 20D you'll consider the 17-35/2.8
    Nikkor. I use one and a 28-70/2.8 Nikkor on my Mk III and it is sweet. The
    improvement in optical quality makes up for not having auto focus.






    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Nov 21, 2007
    #15
  16. Mike

    Chuck Olson Guest

    "TrevorAndersen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:12:01 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > >Chris W wrote:
    > >[]
    > >> I'm not sure the moon is a good universal test subject for comparison.
    > >> The distance from you to the moon depends on how high above the
    > >> horizon the moon is. While that probably isn't significant, the
    > >> amount of atmosphere between you and the moon and the relative
    > >> pollution level where you are could significantly effect the
    > >> sharpness of the image.

    > >
    > >You only needed to look at the images for yourself to see which had the
    > >higher image quality. The larger sensor produced the better quality
    > >image, although the differences were subtle, as would be expected for a
    > >subject in bright sunlight.
    > >
    > >Cheers,
    > >David
    > >

    >
    > I guess paying 32X's more for "subtle" sure is worth it. $13,000/$400=32.5

    Yes,
    > you could buy 32 cameras that had about twice the resolution of the Mk-II

    for
    > the same price as the Mk-II, with prime L-glass no less. You'd have enough

    left
    > over for $200 worth of accessories for those P&S cameras too. Even if they

    were
    > close in comparison, and they were not, when a $400 camera comes close to

    the
    > best DSLR and best L-glass available there's something drastically wrong

    with
    > that DSLR and L-glass, and even more wrong with the mentality of someone

    that
    > would buy it. Plus I don't call twice the resolution shown in the P&S

    image as
    > exactly subtle. That's like going from a 5MPX resolution to a 20MPX

    resolution
    > (it's a function of area, remember? not linear). That's how drastic the
    > difference was. Where on earth (or the moon) do you get an absurd

    evaluation
    > that "the larger sensor produced the better quality image" when it only

    produced
    > half the resolution, I have no idea. Are all people who buy DSLRs this

    blind?
    > You must be. You keep proving it.
    >
    > Let me guess, you're another one of those DSLR pushers that just talks out

    of
    > your ass and you never even saw those comparison photos. It's the only

    possible
    > explanation.
    >

    Jeez, take it easy, guy - - There are more aspects to the difference
    between the Mk-II and the $400 P&S than resolution - - ISO, noise, multiple
    shots, TTL viewing, interchangeable lenses - - you're paying the higher
    price for versatility.
    Chuck Olson, Nov 21, 2007
    #16
  17. On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:52:37 -0800, "Chuck Olson"
    <> wrote:

    >Jeez, take it easy, guy - - There are more aspects to the difference
    >between the Mk-II and the $400 P&S than resolution - - ISO, noise, multiple
    >shots, TTL viewing, interchangeable lenses - - you're paying the higher
    >price for versatility.


    Sure, find the same "versatility" in 18x worth of zoom in prime-lenses of
    L-glass. :) Then lug it all around. Got a freight container handy? You get more
    versatility for $400, at longer focal-lengths with more aperture to play with
    than is even availble in L-glass, meaning (drum roll) you don't need those high
    ISOs for most of the range of that lens. Keep trying to justify that DSLR, it
    just gets more humorous the more you try.


    They just can't stand it, can they.
    TrevorAndersen, Nov 21, 2007
    #17
  18. Chris W wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:

    []
    >> You only needed to look at the images for yourself to see which had
    >> the higher image quality. The larger sensor produced the better
    >> quality image, although the differences were subtle, as would be
    >> expected for a subject in bright sunlight.

    >
    > I guess I am missing something be cause I can't see how is what you
    > said is relevant to the point I presented. I also don't know what 2
    > images you are talking about... I didn't see any links to photos in
    > this thread.


    Links to the images were posted earlier. I no longer have a copy of the
    message. I thought you might have been referring to that earlier
    comparison.

    > To be more clear my point is this. If someone in East LA takes a
    > photo of the moon while it is just over the horizon in the western
    > sky with camera X, and someone else on top of a mountain in Montana
    > takes a photo of the moon while it is directly over head with camera
    > Y. A comparison of the 2 images would be of little usefulness in
    > determining the relative quality of the cameras/lenses that took the
    > photos.


    Agreed. Check the taking conditions claimed for each image when the links
    are posted. I have both compact and DSLR cameras and use them both as the
    situation demands, so I have no axe to grind either way, and do remain
    interested in fair and objective comparisons.

    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 21, 2007
    #18
  19. Mike

    Ali Guest

    Please can you give examples?

    1) What is the $400 P&S that competes with a MK-II? Do you have
    comparisons?

    2) What do you mean by longer focal lengths? Do you have comparisons?

    3) What do you mean by more aperture? Do you have comparisons?

    4) What do you mean about ISO? Do you have any comparisons?

    To be honest, I personally think that you are standing on a sugar pedestal,
    waiting for the rain to come and wash it away.


    "TrevorAndersen" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Sure, find the same "versatility" in 18x worth of zoom in prime-lenses of
    > L-glass. :) Then lug it all around. Got a freight container handy? You
    > get more
    > versatility for $400, at longer focal-lengths with more aperture to play
    > with
    > than is even availble in L-glass, meaning (drum roll) you don't need those
    > high
    > ISOs for most of the range of that lens. Keep trying to justify that DSLR,
    > it
    > just gets more humorous the more you try.
    Ali, Nov 21, 2007
    #19
  20. Mike

    Chris W Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:

    > I have both compact and DSLR cameras and use them both as the
    > situation demands, so I have no axe to grind either way, and do remain
    > interested in fair and objective comparisons.


    I think this whole DSLR vs P&S is pointless. It's like arguing over
    what's the best vehicle, a Toyota Prius or a Ford F350 one ton diesel.
    Obviously it depends on what you want to do with it. Just for the
    nitpickers, I don't mean to imply that the comparison between the two
    types of cameras is at all similar to the comparison between the two
    vehicles, other than to state that such comparisons are pointless.

    --
    Chris W
    KE5GIX

    "Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
    learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

    Ham Radio Repeater Database.
    http://hrrdb.com
    Chris W, Nov 21, 2007
    #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. M
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    963
    BasketCase
    Jun 9, 2005
  2. jojo
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    526
  3. MichiganMan

    Best reasonably priced flash for the 300D?

    MichiganMan, Jan 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    263
    MichiganMan
    Jan 31, 2005
  4. B.M. Wright

    Reasonably priced SD card compactflash adapter?

    B.M. Wright, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    249
    B.M. Wright
    Oct 2, 2005
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    369
    RBrickston
    Aug 28, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page