Superzoom P&S's may have long "effective" focal lengths, but....

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 11, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
    focal length can. These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
    it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. On top of that, the
    images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
    chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. All of which reduces
    detail.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35767510

    Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
    mirror lens. About a 500mm "equivalent."

    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original
     
    RichA, Jul 11, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
    >focal length can. These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
    >it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. On top of that, the
    >images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
    >chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. All of which reduces
    >detail.
    >
    >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35767510
    >
    >Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
    >mirror lens. About a 500mm "equivalent."
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original


    And here's where a 20x superzoom lens' resolution and CA performance EASILY
    beats an easy to design and build 3X DSLR lens.

    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml

    Your point?

    Oh that's right. You NEVER have one.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jul 11, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    SMS Guest

    On 10/07/10 6:39 PM, RichA wrote:
    > They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
    > focal length can.


    Duh.
     
    SMS, Jul 11, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 10, 9:43 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <>
    wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
    > >focal length can.  These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
    > >it, and it was one of the better superzooms made.  On top of that, the
    > >images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
    > >chromatic aberration and lack of contrast.  All of which reduces
    > >detail.

    >
    > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35767510

    >
    > >Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
    > >mirror lens.  About a 500mm "equivalent."

    >
    > >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original

    >
    > And here's where a 20x superzoom lens' resolution and CA performance EASILY
    > beats an easy to design and build 3X DSLR lens.
    >
    > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res...
    >
    > Your point?
    >
    > Oh that's right. You NEVER have one.


    November 2008
    Yes, that original Canon 18-55mm was dog. Not equaled in crumminess
    until the Sony 18-70mm showed up. But they are hardly representative
    of good quality kit lenses.
     
    RichA, Jul 11, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    ransley Guest

    On Jul 10, 8:39 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    > They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
    > focal length can.  These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
    > it, and it was one of the better superzooms made.  On top of that, the
    > images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
    > chromatic aberration and lack of contrast.  All of which reduces
    > detail.
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35767510
    >
    > Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
    > mirror lens.  About a 500mm "equivalent."
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original


    You finally are learning. I thought everyone knew this in 05
     
    ransley, Jul 11, 2010
    #5
  6. On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:09:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Jul 10, 9:43 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <>
    >wrote:
    >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
    >> >focal length can.  These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
    >> >it, and it was one of the better superzooms made.  On top of that, the
    >> >images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
    >> >chromatic aberration and lack of contrast.  All of which reduces
    >> >detail.

    >>
    >> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35767510

    >>
    >> >Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
    >> >mirror lens.  About a 500mm "equivalent."

    >>
    >> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original

    >>
    >> And here's where a 20x superzoom lens' resolution and CA performance EASILY
    >> beats an easy to design and build 3X DSLR lens.
    >>
    >> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res...
    >>
    >> Your point?
    >>
    >> Oh that's right. You NEVER have one.

    >
    >November 2008
    >Yes, that original Canon 18-55mm was dog. Not equaled in crumminess
    >until the Sony 18-70mm showed up. But they are hardly representative
    >of good quality kit lenses.


    But you forgot to compare the resolution of that fixed-focal-length
    one-aperture-setting-only mirror lens with all focal-lengths from 35 to
    420mm and apertures from f/2.8 to f/11 in the superzoom camera. How many
    mirror lenses would you have to haul around for that much focal-length
    reach and aperture range in all of them? How much would they cost? How
    large and sturdy of a camera bag to try to haul it all? Is that the largest
    aperture you can get at 500mm? F/5.6 isn't even enough aperture to allow
    shutter speeds fast enough freeze the image of someone walking during
    sunset let alone any other more demanding wildlife photography. Oh, and if
    you notice, the gull's image is downsized. The moon images were shot at
    1/250 second, the gull at 1/3200 second. Even with all the technique
    advantages given to the mirror lens' image there's more pixel level details
    in the cropped-only 1:1 superzoom's moon images than in the gull image,
    even in its downsized version, where pixel-level details should have
    markedly increased, not reduced. Didn't you notice that?

    Could you find any two more totally disparate lens and shooting conditions
    to compare to try to prove something and yet totally fail even more at
    doing so? I don't think it possible.

    At least you got one of your fellow pretend-photographer trolls to out
    himself again by agreeing with you. He never even realized he was agreeing
    to your having provided perfect proof that you are 100% wrong and a fool.
    All that you managed to accomplish is make complete fools of both of you.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jul 11, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <>
    wrote:
    >
    >One very interesting thing
    >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
    >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.



    That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon. Had it been
    made by Nikon, it would have had more blades. The blade edges would
    also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.
     
    Bruce, Jul 11, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:41:49 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
    <> wrote:

    >We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    >drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce <>
    >saying something like:
    >
    >>That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon. Had it been
    >>made by Nikon, it would have had more blades. The blade edges would
    >>also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

    >
    >I'd have said it was Chinese.
    >Seagull.



    Ah, yes, a Minolta copy. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jul 11, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 10, 11:23 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <>
    wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:09:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Jul 10, 9:43 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <>
    > >wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >> >They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
    > >> >focal length can.  These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
    > >> >it, and it was one of the better superzooms made.  On top of that, the
    > >> >images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
    > >> >chromatic aberration and lack of contrast.  All of which reduces
    > >> >detail.

    >
    > >> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35767510

    >
    > >> >Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
    > >> >mirror lens.  About a 500mm "equivalent."

    >
    > >> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original

    >
    > >> And here's where a 20x superzoom lens' resolution and CA performance EASILY
    > >> beats an easy to design and build 3X DSLR lens.

    >
    > >>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res....

    >
    > >> Your point?

    >
    > >> Oh that's right. You NEVER have one.

    >
    > >November 2008
    > >Yes, that original Canon 18-55mm was dog.  Not equaled in crumminess
    > >until the Sony 18-70mm showed up.  But they are hardly representative
    > >of good quality kit lenses.

    >
    > But you forgot to compare the resolution of that fixed-focal-length
    > one-aperture-setting-only mirror lens with all focal-lengths from 35 to
    > 420mm and apertures from f/2.8 to f/11 in the superzoom camera. How many
    > mirror lenses would you have to haul around for that much focal-length
    > reach and aperture range in all of them?


    I don't believe in cramming such wide focal length ranges into one
    lens, they end up sucking horribly because of that. 5:1 is the
    maximum I've seen and the lens still being able to produce decent
    images, especially at either end of the range.
     
    RichA, Jul 12, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 11, 4:27 am, Allen <> wrote:
    > ransley wrote:
    > > On Jul 10, 8:39 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    > >> They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
    > >> focal length can.  These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
    > >> it, and it was one of the better superzooms made.  On top of that, the
    > >> images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
    > >> chromatic aberration and lack of contrast.  All of which reduces
    > >> detail.

    >
    > >>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35767510

    >
    > >> Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
    > >> mirror lens.  About a 500mm "equivalent."

    >
    > >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original

    >
    > > You finally are learning. I thought everyone knew this in 05

    >
    > Nice picture. Do you know what kind if gull? One very interesting thing
    > that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
    > I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.
    > Allen


    It also appears to have a nictitating (sp?) membrane over it's eye.
     
    RichA, Jul 12, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 11, 11:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >One very interesting thing
    > >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
    > >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

    >
    > That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon.  Had it been
    > made by Nikon, it would have had more blades.  The blade edges would
    > also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.


    Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
    used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.
     
    RichA, Jul 12, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >On Jul 11, 11:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <>
    >> wrote:
    >> >One very interesting thing
    >> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
    >> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

    >>
    >> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon.  Had it been
    >> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades.  The blade edges would
    >> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

    >
    >Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
    >used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.



    I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
    but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
    beauty. Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
    and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!

    Zero depth of field up close, as you said.

    You need to avoid out of focus highlights, as with any mirror lens.
     
    Bruce, Jul 12, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >wrote:
    >>On Jul 11, 11:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>> >One very interesting thing
    >>> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
    >>> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.
    >>>
    >>> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon.  Had it been
    >>> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades.  The blade edges would
    >>> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

    >>
    >>Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
    >>used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.

    >
    >
    >I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
    >but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
    >beauty. Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
    >and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!
    >
    >Zero depth of field up close, as you said.


    Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate.

    YOUR LOSS!

    LOL!



    >
    >You need to avoid out of focus highlights, as with any mirror lens.
     
    LOL!, Jul 12, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
    >focal length can.


    So what?

    Yes, you're an elitist snob who thinks that only your cameras are
    acceptable.

    Got it. Again.

    Thanks for sharing.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jul 15, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Jul 12, 10:52 am, LOL! <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > >wrote:
    > >>On Jul 11, 11:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <>
    > >>> wrote:
    > >>> >One very interesting thing
    > >>> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
    > >>> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

    >
    > >>> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon.  Had it been
    > >>> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades.  The blade edges would
    > >>> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

    >
    > >>Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens.  One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
    > >>used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.

    >
    > >I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
    > >but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
    > >beauty.  Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
    > >and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!

    >
    > >Zero depth of field up close, as you said.

    >
    > Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate.
    >


    No need for a crappy sensor, use a smaller aperture and higher ISO.

    DanP
     
    DanP, Jul 15, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:23:37 -0700 (PDT), DanP <> wrote:

    >On Jul 12, 10:52 am, LOL! <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> >wrote:
    >> >>On Jul 11, 11:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <>
    >> >>> wrote:
    >> >>> >One very interesting thing
    >> >>> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
    >> >>> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

    >>
    >> >>> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon.  Had it been
    >> >>> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades.  The blade edges would
    >> >>> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

    >>
    >> >>Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens.  One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
    >> >>used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.

    >>
    >> >I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
    >> >but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
    >> >beauty.  Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
    >> >and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!

    >>
    >> >Zero depth of field up close, as you said.

    >>
    >> Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate.
    >>

    >
    >No need for a crappy sensor, use a smaller aperture and higher ISO.
    >
    >DanP


    Yes, then you can turn that larger sensor into a worse than crappy sensor
    by ruining your images with diffraction and noise. What a novel idea!

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 15, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Jul 15, 11:19 am, LOL! <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:23:37 -0700 (PDT), DanP <> wrote:
    > >On Jul 12, 10:52 am, LOL! <> wrote:
    > >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > >> >wrote:
    > >> >>On Jul 11, 11:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <>
    > >> >>> wrote:
    > >> >>> >One very interesting thing
    > >> >>> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
    > >> >>> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

    >
    > >> >>> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon.  Had it been
    > >> >>> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades.  The blade edges would
    > >> >>> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

    >
    > >> >>Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens.  One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
    > >> >>used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.

    >
    > >> >I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
    > >> >but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
    > >> >beauty.  Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
    > >> >and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!

    >
    > >> >Zero depth of field up close, as you said.

    >
    > >> Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate.

    >
    > >No need for a crappy sensor, use a smaller aperture and higher ISO.

    >
    > >DanP

    >
    > Yes, then you can turn that larger sensor into a worse than crappy sensor
    > by ruining your images with diffraction and noise. What a novel idea!
    >
    > LOL!


    You keep mentioning difraction without providing any numbers.

    Diffraction starts kicking in at f/8 on my SLR and I dare use ISO 1600
    on it.
    On my P&S diffraction starts at f/4 with a maximum ISO of 400.

    My P&S is gathering dust now.

    A Nikon D700 to lose half of its resolution to difraction has to go to
    f/32.
    A Canon G11 loses half of its resolution to difraction at f/7.4
    http://www.aguntherphotography.com/tutorial/diffraction-limits-of-resolution.html


    DanP
     
    DanP, Jul 15, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 04:51:12 -0700 (PDT), DanP <>
    wrote:

    >On Jul 15, 11:19 am, LOL! <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:23:37 -0700 (PDT), DanP <> wrote:
    >> >On Jul 12, 10:52 am, LOL! <> wrote:
    >> >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:43:53 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> >On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:21:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> >> >wrote:
    >> >> >>On Jul 11, 11:08 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:27:04 -0500, Allen <>
    >> >> >>> wrote:
    >> >> >>> >One very interesting thing
    >> >> >>> >that appears in the picture: the bird has a hexagonal iris--something
    >> >> >>> >I've never noticed in any other kind of bird.

    >>
    >> >> >>> That's because this bird's eye lens was made by Canon.  Had it been
    >> >> >>> made by Nikon, it would have had more blades.  The blade edges would
    >> >> >>> also have been curved to help improve the appearance of the bokeh.

    >>
    >> >> >>Tamron 350mm f5.6 mirror lens.  One of the sharpest lenses I've ever
    >> >> >>used but with a razor-thin focus plane up close.

    >>
    >> >> >I don't know how you got to that Tamron lens from my previous post,
    >> >> >but I have that particular lens right next to me on my desk and it's a
    >> >> >beauty.  Great sharpness, amazingly good contrast for a mirror lens
    >> >> >and it focuses down to 1.1 metres or 44 inches!

    >>
    >> >> >Zero depth of field up close, as you said.

    >>
    >> >> Tsk tsk. Just the thing that a smaller sensor would ameliorate.

    >>
    >> >No need for a crappy sensor, use a smaller aperture and higher ISO.

    >>
    >> >DanP

    >>
    >> Yes, then you can turn that larger sensor into a worse than crappy sensor
    >> by ruining your images with diffraction and noise. What a novel idea!
    >>
    >> LOL!

    >
    >You keep mentioning difraction without providing any numbers.
    >
    >Diffraction starts kicking in at f/8 on my SLR and I dare use ISO 1600
    >on it.
    >On my P&S diffraction starts at f/4 with a maximum ISO of 400.


    What a shame. You need to learn how to buy better cameras. So just because
    you only know how to buy shitty cameras, then this applies to all cameras
    that you've never used nor know anything about. I get it now.

    LOL!

    (Have you ever figured out what an f-stop is yet? Did Puppygang Weasleburg
    ever get you to comprehend what it is and how they work? LOL!!!!!)
     
    LOL!, Jul 15, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4c3ec2d3$0$1604
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >>>They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
    >>>focal length can.

    >>
    >> So what?
    >>
    >> Yes, you're an elitist snob who thinks that only your cameras are
    >> acceptable.
    >>
    >> Got it. Again.
    >>
    >> Thanks for sharing.

    >
    >Shouldn't you be out marching somewhere, carry a red hammer and sickle
    >flag?


    Shouldn't you be wearing your hood and carrying a swastika?

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jul 17, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4c3ec2d3$0$1604
    >$:
    >
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >>>They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
    >>>focal length can.

    >>
    >> So what?
    >>
    >> Yes, you're an elitist snob who thinks that only your cameras are
    >> acceptable.

    >
    >You are a fool. I paid $499 for my last G1,


    But that's not what you paid for your last camera, is it?

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jul 17, 2010
    #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. Jim Garner

    Apertures and focal lengths

    Jim Garner, Oct 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    382
  2. R2D2

    DIGITAL vs FILM PORTRAITURE (Focal Lengths)

    R2D2, Feb 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    548
    Chris Brown
    Feb 4, 2004
  3. Chris Long

    digital SLRS and focal lengths

    Chris Long, Jan 27, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    420
    Randy Berbaum
    Jan 28, 2006
  4. DeanB

    Confusion about DX focal lengths

    DeanB, Feb 25, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    638
  5. Robert Coe

    Re: What is this weird hatred of different focal lengths?

    Robert Coe, Sep 8, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    504
    Trevor
    Sep 17, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page