ZOOMING IN ON THE 40D !

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Oct 1, 2007.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Went up on the mountain today to enjoy the moderate temperatures and
    the clear, blue skies. Took this shot with the 40D and the 17-40L.
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476326

    Then, just for shits and giggles, I started stacking teleconverters on
    the 400 f/5.6L.
    Here is the zoomed-in view of the highlighted portion of the first
    pic.
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476328/original
    (That's an original size file from the 40D so you'll have to scroll
    around in the pic.)

    That's 400mm * 2x * 1.4x = 1120mm.
    Figure in the 40D's 1.6x crop factor and you've got an Effective Focal
    Length of 1792mm (film equivalent).

    Now try doing THAT with your crappy Point and Shoot!
    Annika1980, Oct 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:42:33 -0700, Annika1980 <> wrote:

    >Went up on the mountain today to enjoy the moderate temperatures and
    >the clear, blue skies. Took this shot with the 40D and the 17-40L.
    >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476326
    >
    >Then, just for shits and giggles, I started stacking teleconverters on
    >the 400 f/5.6L.
    >Here is the zoomed-in view of the highlighted portion of the first
    >pic.
    >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476328/original
    >(That's an original size file from the 40D so you'll have to scroll
    >around in the pic.)
    >
    >That's 400mm * 2x * 1.4x = 1120mm.
    >Figure in the 40D's 1.6x crop factor and you've got an Effective Focal
    >Length of 1792mm (film equivalent).
    >
    >Now try doing THAT with your crappy Point and Shoot!


    Already been done. 432mm x 2.0 x 2.0 = 1728mm

    Big deal.

    All optical zoom.

    Plus it all, camera and converters, weighs less than just ONE of your lenses
    and can fit in 1 large pocket or 2 average pockets. Dare I mention for how much
    less it all cost too? No, you'd have a stroke.

    Boy, are you ever insecure about your purchase.

    Keep trying to justify it. I'm sure you'll figure out why you bought that POS
    some day.

    When you finally figure out how to use a camera and what really matters in
    photography you'll start looking at P&S cameras too. Then again, you're not too
    bright. I suspect you'll keep making the same mistakes the rest of your life. In
    fact I'm sure of it, you've been at it for how long now and have never learned
    one damn thing.
    AnnikaInsecurityDetector, Oct 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Sep 30, 9:55 pm, AnnikaInsecurityDetector <>
    wrote:
    >
    > Boy, are you ever insecure about your purchase.
    >
    > Keep trying to justify it. I'm sure you'll figure out why you bought that POS
    > some day.


    LOL! I got it for free! WHO RULES?
    Annika1980, Oct 1, 2007
    #3
  4. Re:troll alert

    and thus the green eyed monster rears its ugly head :)

    --
    "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
    Don Hirschberg
    Atheist Chaplain, Oct 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    D-Mac Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sep 30, 9:55 pm, AnnikaInsecurityDetector <>
    > wrote:
    >>
    >> Boy, are you ever insecure about your purchase.
    >>
    >> Keep trying to justify it. I'm sure you'll figure out why you bought that
    >> POS
    >> some day.

    >
    > LOL! I got it for free! WHO RULES?


    Well I do actually...

    My P&S - "the perfectly pleasant Panasonic" can actually do better than
    that. No magic involved. Just stack a couple of 2X elements in front of the
    fixed Leica lens and I don't lose any aperture. It remains F/2.8 or F/3.7
    right out to 1680mm Focal length (35mm equivalent)

    So Bret... Scoff all you like, I can fit my 1680mm F/3.7 lens in my shirt
    pocket. The clarity of the images is not too shabby either. At least as good
    as your noise riddled example. Piss & Skite...

    Who Rules in this pissing competition?
    D-MAC does!!!!

    Doug
    D-Mac, Oct 1, 2007
    #5
  6. On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:00:33 -0700, Annika1980 <> wrote:

    >On Sep 30, 9:55 pm, AnnikaInsecurityDetector <>
    >wrote:
    >>
    >> Boy, are you ever insecure about your purchase.
    >>
    >> Keep trying to justify it. I'm sure you'll figure out why you bought that POS
    >> some day.

    >
    >LOL! I got it for free! WHO RULES?


    You got it for free and yet you are _still_ this insecure on whether it's worth
    having or not?

    Wow.

    Yeah, okay, you rule alright. Consider yourself the bona fide Usenet King of the
    paranoid and insecure.

    To be perfectly honest you should sell it to someone less experienced. Someone
    who has no self-worth nor photography skill and is just dying to try to impress
    everyone with their new DSLR. So they can try to show everyone how much more
    superior they must be now because nothing else has ever worked before. You know,
    someone just like you. With the money you could then get 10 or more of the best
    P&S cameras available that can do all that it can do and hundreds of things that
    it will never do.

    But we all know that you're way too "smart" to figure that out.

    You are, after all, the one who is smart enough to be "Ruler".



    Oh nurse? Can you check in on this one for the next couple of days? It appears
    to be going into a self-doubt, decision-justification, melt-down--with the same
    magnitude as The China-Syndrome.
    AnnikaInsecurityDetector, Oct 1, 2007
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Went up on the mountain today to enjoy the moderate temperatures and
    > the clear, blue skies. Took this shot with the 40D and the 17-40L.
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476326
    >
    > Then, just for shits and giggles, I started stacking teleconverters on
    > the 400 f/5.6L.
    > Here is the zoomed-in view of the highlighted portion of the first
    > pic.
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476328/original
    > (That's an original size file from the 40D so you'll have to scroll
    > around in the pic.)
    >
    > That's 400mm * 2x * 1.4x = 1120mm.
    > Figure in the 40D's 1.6x crop factor and you've got an Effective Focal
    > Length of 1792mm (film equivalent).
    >
    > Now try doing THAT with your crappy Point and Shoot!
    >


    My A630 don't quite zoom that far ;-)

    I like the painterly effect. A lot of the softness comes from the air
    currents that is evident on the roofline of the house. What causes the noise
    at ISO 100 though?

    When's the leaves expected to change down there? I'm planing a trip down to
    the mountains (SMNP) for some shots.
    John
    JohnR66, Oct 1, 2007
    #7
  8. Re: troll alert

    On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:27:07 GMT, "Atheist Chaplain" <> wrote:

    >and thus the green eyed monster rears its ugly head :)


    Thanks for warning us about you.

    <plonk>
    Troll Detector, Oct 1, 2007
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    D-Mac wrote:

    > My P&S - "the perfectly pleasant Panasonic" can actually do better than
    > that. No magic involved. Just stack a couple of 2X elements in front of the
    > fixed Leica lens and I don't lose any aperture. It remains F/2.8 or F/3.7
    > right out to 1680mm Focal length (35mm equivalent)


    You mean +2 diopter closeup lenses?
    Those ain't teleconverters.
    Paul Furman, Oct 1, 2007
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    CliveBaxter Guest

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:56:50 -0700, Paul Furman <> wrote:

    >D-Mac wrote:
    >
    >> My P&S - "the perfectly pleasant Panasonic" can actually do better than
    >> that. No magic involved. Just stack a couple of 2X elements in front of the
    >> fixed Leica lens and I don't lose any aperture. It remains F/2.8 or F/3.7
    >> right out to 1680mm Focal length (35mm equivalent)

    >
    >You mean +2 diopter closeup lenses?
    >Those ain't teleconverters.


    Do you always assume everyone makes the same mistakes that you make?

    How anyone can read "2X" (tele-converter) as "+2" (close-up diopter) is beyond
    me. The clues are in the content if you had bothered to read it. Two +2 diopter
    close-up filters do not increase the camera lens' focal-length by 4.
    CliveBaxter, Oct 1, 2007
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Guest

    On Sep 30, 9:42 pm, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > Went up on the mountain today to enjoy the moderate temperatures and
    > the clear, blue skies. Took this shot with the 40D and the 17-40L.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476326
    >
    > Then, just for shits and giggles, I started stacking teleconverters on
    > the 400 f/5.6L.
    > Here is the zoomed-in view of the highlighted portion of the first
    > pic.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476328/original
    > (That's an original size file from the 40D so you'll have to scroll
    > around in the pic.)
    >
    > That's 400mm * 2x * 1.4x = 1120mm.
    > Figure in the 40D's 1.6x crop factor and you've got an Effective Focal
    > Length of 1792mm (film equivalent).
    >
    > Now try doing THAT with your crappy Point and Shoot!



    Bret, don't waste your time with them. If they truly feel a P&S is
    superior to a DSLR, then they need to go to photography school. All I
    see is a bunch of sour grapes and green eyed monsters. Ignore them.
    Helen
    1111
    , Oct 1, 2007
    #11
  12. Re: troll alert

    "Troll Detector" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:27:07 GMT, "Atheist Chaplain" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>and thus the green eyed monster rears its ugly head :)

    >
    > Thanks for warning us about you.
    >
    > <plonk>
    >


    wow plonked by one of D-Mac's sockpuppets
    that's gotta be a hilarious first LOL

    --
    "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
    Don Hirschberg
    Atheist Chaplain, Oct 1, 2007
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Guest

    Quickie digital photography facts for those who refuse to accept:

    On Sep 30, 9:42 pm, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > Went up on the mountain today to enjoy the moderate temperatures and
    > the clear, blue skies. Took this shot with the 40D and the 17-40L.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476326
    >
    > Then, just for shits and giggles, I started stacking teleconverters on
    > the 400 f/5.6L.
    > Here is the zoomed-in view of the highlighted portion of the first
    > pic.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476328/original
    > (That's an original size file from the 40D so you'll have to scroll
    > around in the pic.)
    >
    > That's 400mm * 2x * 1.4x = 1120mm.
    > Figure in the 40D's 1.6x crop factor and you've got an Effective Focal
    > Length of 1792mm (film equivalent).
    >
    > Now try doing THAT with your crappy Point and Shoot!




    1. Noise levels are much lower in DSLRs due to the much larger pixels
    of a DSLR
    sensor. This means that in low light situations, the DSLR will
    produce FAR
    superior results. Also...Flash pictures will suffer much less from
    red-eye,
    because the distance between the front lens element and the flash is
    much
    greater on a DSLR. This is especially advantageous if you add a shoe
    mounted
    flash...which will virtually eliminate red-eye.

    2. Shutter-lag (or the delay between the time you press the button,
    and picture
    actually takes) is much reduced with DSLRs, meaning you won't miss
    those
    split-second shots.

    3. Action photos are far better/easier because DSLRs can do what is
    called
    "focus-tracking." This means the focus can update and predict the
    motion of a
    moving object, like a runner, moving car, flying bird, etc. Most
    point-and-shoots can't do this effectively.

    4. Options! DSLR users have the option of other lenses, many of
    which have
    special purposes...like macro for close-ups...tele for sports or
    wildlife...or
    super wide angle. Remote shutter releases are also available, along
    with
    countless other things...like off-camera flash systems, and on and on.

    5. Wide angle deserves its own "point" since most point-and-shoots
    don't offer
    much in terms of wide angle. This means that for landscapes, or for
    interior
    shots where you can only back up so far...the point-and-shooter is
    often wishing
    for a wider-angle lens. DSLRs accept these, where it's quite an
    optical
    compromise to force a P&S to do this.

    6. Battery life. Current DSLRs boast huge battery life compared to
    most P&S
    cameras.

    7. Reliability and robustness.... DSLR are simply built stronger and
    last
    longer...and are far less prone to breakage.

    7. Zoom speed and control. DSLRs use physical motion (the turning of
    the zoom
    ring) to zoom, where with P&S, you are stuck relying on the slow,
    sluggish, and
    single speed of motorized zoom control. There is simply no comparison
    in this
    regard...with a HUGE advantage to the DSLR again. There's nothing
    more annoying
    than trying to quickly zoom with a P&S motor-driven zoom. DSLR lens
    zooming is
    SOOO much easier, faster, and more controlled.

    8. Lenspurshases for a DSLR will be usable on future bodies, should
    the owner
    decide to upgrade. Point-and-shoots are absolutely worthless for re-
    sale after that sort of time goes by.

    9. Even if you don't use RAW, the quality of the image files on a
    DSLR are FAR
    superior to P&S due to the greater light-gathering abilities of the
    large sensor
    surface of DSLRs.

    10. Manual functions and control. You will always have an easier
    time setting
    manual controls on a DSLR... As people learn and grow in photography,
    they
    become acquainted with how, why and when to use manual control. In
    fact, there
    are many situations where this is the ONLY way to get good results.
    With a
    DSLR, this will always be available to you, where with many point-and-
    shoots,
    manual control is either disabled competely, or it's difficult to
    access.

    11. Resale value. Should you decide to upgrade your camera, you'll
    get a much
    better return on your DSLR body as a percentage of original cost than
    you will
    for the point-and-shoot.

    12. LCD for framing on point and shoots. While some enjoy this others
    like to use a viewfinder. Most point and shoot cameras have view
    finders but they are generally so small that they are almost useless.
    Some models don't have viewfinders at all.
    Manual Controls Limited - many point and shoot cameras do have the
    ability to play with a full array of manual settings and controls (or
    at least make it difficult to do so). They often come with 'aperture
    priority' and 'shutter priority' modes which are great - but quite
    often the manual controls are hidden in menu systems and are not as
    accessible as on a DSLR (if they are there at all).
    Less Adaptable - while they are highly portable point and shoot
    cameras are generally not very adaptable. What you buy when you first
    get them is what you are stuck with using for years. Some do have lens
    adapters to give you wider angles or longer zooms but generally most
    people don't go for these accessories.
    , Oct 1, 2007
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    CliveBaxter wrote:
    > Paul wrote:
    >>D-Mac wrote:
    >>
    >>>My P&S - "the perfectly pleasant Panasonic" can actually do better than
    >>>that. No magic involved. Just stack a couple of 2X elements in front of the
    >>>fixed Leica lens and I don't lose any aperture. It remains F/2.8 or F/3.7
    >>>right out to 1680mm Focal length (35mm equivalent)

    >>
    >>You mean +2 diopter closeup lenses?
    >>Those ain't teleconverters.

    >
    > Do you always assume everyone makes the same mistakes that you make?
    >
    > How anyone can read "2X" (tele-converter) as "+2" (close-up diopter) is beyond
    > me. The clues are in the content if you had bothered to read it. Two +2 diopter
    > close-up filters do not increase the camera lens' focal-length by 4.


    Because it's a nutty proposition. I never heard of anyone seriously
    using teleconverters on a P&S. I could stack 20 2x teleconverters and
    have 2 million mm but it would just be one big blur.

    Rhetorical question:
    Have you got examples of this setup?

    Wideangle screw-ons I've heard of but I've not heard of useable results
    from teleconverters.

    Oh wait, I stand corrected:
    <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/305125-REG/Canon_YH19X67IRS12_YH19x67IRS12_19x_1_2_Lens.html>
    Only $ 7,244.95
    Paul Furman, Oct 1, 2007
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    D-Mac Guest

    "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    news:TlZLi.2991$...
    > D-Mac wrote:
    >
    >> My P&S - "the perfectly pleasant Panasonic" can actually do better than
    >> that. No magic involved. Just stack a couple of 2X elements in front of
    >> the fixed Leica lens and I don't lose any aperture. It remains F/2.8 or
    >> F/3.7 right out to 1680mm Focal length (35mm equivalent)

    >
    > You mean +2 diopter closeup lenses?
    > Those ain't teleconverters.


    Of course they aren't. Those $2 bargain bin "filters" will give me "Canon
    killer" macro shots which I'll post when I get around to it. No, the items
    I'm referring to are genuine 2x teleconverter elements.

    Not OEM stuff to be sure but none the less some of the finest optical
    quality to come out of Cambodia. At least the equal to anything you can get
    from stacking behind the lens stuff the way Bret claims to have done.

    As I calculate it, Bret has a maximum aperture of F/9. His camera, with that
    much weight on it has lost it's auto focus ability and probably had to be
    rested on a pillow due to the unbalance of the outfit.

    Now the curious part about Bret's image is not that he managed to take it in
    the first place but the amount of noise in it. I haven't see that kind of
    shadow noise since I was given some D70 images shot at ISO 400 and saved at
    half size when the local newspaper Photographer asked me to enlarge some
    posters.

    I'm not calling anyone anything here, just raising the point that an ISO 100
    Image from a 40D is looking pretty rough in the noise area. I don't get that
    much noise from 10D images using a 2x converter with my Sigma 120 -300 F/2.8
    which in 35mm equivalent is 960mm *AND* it still retains auto focus.

    In fact... I just unpacked the Sigma (with 2X) and put it on my soon to be
    gone 20D. I took a couple of shots of Ryadia at anchor. It's 1:45 PM on a
    very bright sunny day here and guess what? No more noise than shooting with
    a 70 - 200 F/2.8.

    Bret has been accused of forging EXIF data recently and I posted information
    on how easily it is to actually do that... I can't replicate his horribly
    noisy picture using the longest stuff I have at hand on a camera known to be
    nosier in shadows than his yet ...his pic from an evolutionary version of
    the same camera, looks like it came from an ISO 3200 shot but the EXIF data
    says ISO 100.

    It just doesn't add up Newton.

    Doug
    D-Mac, Oct 1, 2007
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    D-Mac Guest

    Re: troll alert

    I just realized Chaplain... You don't have any idea of how to identify
    posts, do you? So here's a quick and dirty lesson on verifying who is doing
    what so you don't become the object of derision you try to make me out to
    be.

    This is the header from "troll detector"
    -----------------
    X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Lines: 8
    X-Complaints-To:
    ------------------

    This is the header from me:
    ------------------
    X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
    X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    Message-ID: <yXYLi.3915$>
    Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:28:46 GMT
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 121.208.35.100
    X-Complaints-To:
    ------------------
    I use the same news reader and news server as you do (when I'm home).

    Here's how to see this information:
    Right click the message listing
    choose "properties at the foot of the menu.
    Click on the "details" tab at the top of the pane and you'll see the header
    information. Expand it with "message source" and you have the entire message
    along with it's identity.

    So before you go calling anyone a sock puppet of mine, just make sure you
    have a handle on what you are doing and not flinging accusations around
    wildly in the hope some shit will rub off because the only person it's
    landing on is you.

    Got that? Right...
    Doug

    "Atheist Chaplain" <> wrote in message
    news:GRZLi.3933$...
    > "Troll Detector" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:27:07 GMT, "Atheist Chaplain" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>and thus the green eyed monster rears its ugly head :)

    >>
    >> Thanks for warning us about you.
    >>
    >> <plonk>
    >>

    >
    > wow plonked by one of D-Mac's sockpuppets
    > that's gotta be a hilarious first LOL
    >
    > --
    > "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
    > Don Hirschberg
    >
    D-Mac, Oct 1, 2007
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    D-Mac Guest

    "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    news:un_Li.1086$...
    > CliveBaxter wrote:
    >> Paul wrote:
    >>>D-Mac wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>My P&S - "the perfectly pleasant Panasonic" can actually do better than
    >>>>that. No magic involved. Just stack a couple of 2X elements in front of
    >>>>the fixed Leica lens and I don't lose any aperture. It remains F/2.8 or
    >>>>F/3.7 right out to 1680mm Focal length (35mm equivalent)
    >>>
    >>>You mean +2 diopter closeup lenses?
    >>>Those ain't teleconverters.

    >>
    >> Do you always assume everyone makes the same mistakes that you make?
    >>
    >> How anyone can read "2X" (tele-converter) as "+2" (close-up diopter) is
    >> beyond
    >> me. The clues are in the content if you had bothered to read it. Two +2
    >> diopter
    >> close-up filters do not increase the camera lens' focal-length by 4.

    >
    > Because it's a nutty proposition. I never heard of anyone seriously using
    > teleconverters on a P&S. I could stack 20 2x teleconverters and have 2
    > million mm but it would just be one big blur.
    >
    > Rhetorical question:
    > Have you got examples of this setup?
    >
    > Wideangle screw-ons I've heard of but I've not heard of useable results
    > from teleconverters.
    >
    > Oh wait, I stand corrected:
    > <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/305125-REG/Canon_YH19X67IRS12_YH19x67IRS12_19x_1_2_Lens.html>
    > Only $ 7,244.95


    There you go again Paul...
    I gotta tell you mate... Just because you can't do it or haven't heard of it
    or didn't see it on TV, doesn't mean diddly squat. What it means is that you
    don't know as much as me... That's all. I imagine one day you'll ask someone
    somewhere, "who did you do that" or, "where did you get that"?

    Doug
    D-Mac, Oct 1, 2007
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    D-Mac Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sep 30, 9:42 pm, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >> Went up on the mountain today to enjoy the moderate temperatures and
    >> the clear, blue skies. Took this shot with the 40D and the
    >> 17-40L.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476326
    >>
    >> Then, just for shits and giggles, I started stacking teleconverters on
    >> the 400 f/5.6L.
    >> Here is the zoomed-in view of the highlighted portion of the first
    >> pic.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86476328/original
    >> (That's an original size file from the 40D so you'll have to scroll
    >> around in the pic.)
    >>
    >> That's 400mm * 2x * 1.4x = 1120mm.
    >> Figure in the 40D's 1.6x crop factor and you've got an Effective Focal
    >> Length of 1792mm (film equivalent).
    >>
    >> Now try doing THAT with your crappy Point and Shoot!

    >
    >
    > Bret, don't waste your time with them. If they truly feel a P&S is
    > superior to a DSLR, then they need to go to photography school. All I
    > see is a bunch of sour grapes and green eyed monsters. Ignore them.
    > Helen
    > 1111
    >

    Yeah... Stop it Bret. You're distressing the lady. Get on back to the sugar
    and water routine. Stumble bees or sitting ducks or something. Leave the
    real photography to those of us with cameras actually able to do it, mate...

    Doug
    D-Mac, Oct 1, 2007
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Charles Guest

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:06:49 -0700, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >CliveBaxter wrote:
    >> Paul wrote:
    >>>D-Mac wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>My P&S - "the perfectly pleasant Panasonic" can actually do better than
    >>>>that. No magic involved. Just stack a couple of 2X elements in front of the
    >>>>fixed Leica lens and I don't lose any aperture. It remains F/2.8 or F/3.7
    >>>>right out to 1680mm Focal length (35mm equivalent)
    >>>
    >>>You mean +2 diopter closeup lenses?
    >>>Those ain't teleconverters.

    >>
    >> Do you always assume everyone makes the same mistakes that you make?
    >>
    >> How anyone can read "2X" (tele-converter) as "+2" (close-up diopter) is beyond
    >> me. The clues are in the content if you had bothered to read it. Two +2 diopter
    >> close-up filters do not increase the camera lens' focal-length by 4.

    >
    >Because it's a nutty proposition. I never heard of anyone seriously
    >using teleconverters on a P&S. I could stack 20 2x teleconverters and
    >have 2 million mm but it would just be one big blur.
    >
    >Rhetorical question:
    >Have you got examples of this setup?
    >
    >Wideangle screw-ons I've heard of but I've not heard of useable results
    >from teleconverters.
    >
    >Oh wait, I stand corrected:
    ><http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/305125-REG/Canon_YH19X67IRS12_YH19x67IRS12_19x_1_2_Lens.html>
    >Only $ 7,244.95



    For good or bad, here's a picture shot with stacked teleconverters.

    http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/root01

    Using Nikon 990, FL 23.4 (35 mm equivalent about 115)

    I added a Nikon TC-E2 (2 X) and an Olympus B-300 (1.7 X)

    Photo labeled "rocks" is what I did with Photoshop, DSCN 3508 is
    original.
    Charles, Oct 1, 2007
    #19
  20. Re: Quickie digital photography facts for those who refuse to accept:

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:31:26 -0700, wrote:

    >
    >1. Noise levels are much lower in DSLRs due to the much larger pixels
    >of a DSLR
    >sensor.


    This is only partly true. Small sensors from today's cameras are quieter than
    the noise levels of larger sensors in older DSLR cameras. You can't make blanket
    statements like this (just because you are an uneducated ass that only knows how
    to parrot what you've heard others say).

    >This means that in low light situations, the DSLR will
    >produce FAR
    >superior results. Also...Flash pictures will suffer much less from
    >red-eye,
    >because the distance between the front lens element and the flash is
    >much
    >greater on a DSLR. This is especially advantageous if you add a shoe
    >mounted
    >flash...which will virtually eliminate red-eye.


    I use an external flash with all my P&S cameras. I can remove the flash from the
    camera as far as I want to reduce red-eye.

    Are you always this stupid?

    >
    >2. Shutter-lag (or the delay between the time you press the button,
    >and picture
    >actually takes) is much reduced with DSLRs, meaning you won't miss
    >those
    >split-second shots.


    Shutter lag in my P&S camera is 0.05 second. What's it in yours? How long does
    it take for that ancient and noisy slapping mirror to get out of the way?

    Did you add in how much time it takes you to change lenses with that shutter-lag
    calculation of yours? I thought not.

    >
    >3. Action photos are far better/easier because DSLRs can do what is
    >called
    >"focus-tracking." This means the focus can update and predict the
    >motion of a
    >moving object, like a runner, moving car, flying bird, etc. Most
    >point-and-shoots can't do this effectively.


    Some P&S cameras now have focus tracking. A CHDK camera can run a script that
    includes focus tracking.

    Isn't it funny that you want your DSLR to be a POINT & SHOOT camera with all
    those advanced POINT & SHOOT features. Do you even know what focusing, shutter
    speed, aperture, and ISO are for these days?

    >
    >4. Options! DSLR users have the option of other lenses, many of
    >which have
    >special purposes...like macro for close-ups...tele for sports or
    >wildlife...or
    >super wide angle. Remote shutter releases are also available, along
    >with
    >countless other things...like off-camera flash systems, and on and on.


    I think we've been through this before. The very same focal length ranges can be
    duplicated on any P&S camera. I guess you are this stupid, you can't even
    remember what you learned last month.

    Does your DSLR automatically shoot photos with motion detection built in? Mine
    does now. Does yours? Why not? You have the superior camera after all.

    >
    >5. Wide angle deserves its own "point" since most point-and-shoots
    >don't offer
    >much in terms of wide angle. This means that for landscapes, or for
    >interior
    >shots where you can only back up so far...the point-and-shooter is
    >often wishing
    >for a wider-angle lens. DSLRs accept these, where it's quite an
    >optica


    HOLY CRAP, the bitch is repeating the exact same lies and misinformation that
    she repeated last month and was proven wrong on every one of them.

    I guess the dSLR crowd is really getting insecure now that they know many P&S
    cameras are better than theirs.

    Let someone else ream her a new ass-hole this time. This is way to boring and
    tedious to reply to this fucked-up idiot troll.

    On the upside, I get such a huge laugh over how many idiots are going to read
    her crap and believe it, and waste their money like she did.

    That alone is worth it.
    DSLR TROLL ALERT, Oct 1, 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. Jeff Ingram
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    489
    Jeff Ingram
    May 23, 2004
  2. Jay Catter

    Firefox using mouse wheel for zooming

    Jay Catter, Oct 12, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    447
    Jay Catter
    Oct 12, 2004
  3. Markus Dehmann
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,378
    Xanophile
    Feb 19, 2005
  4. Andy J

    Megapixel & enlarging/croping/zooming.

    Andy J, Nov 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    527
    Mark Herring
    Nov 3, 2003
  5. Fedman Kassad

    Zooming and Focusing

    Fedman Kassad, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    515
    Fedman Kassad
    Jan 18, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page