P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Nov 25, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    me Guest

    Once again too bad Rich makes generalizations from everything he

    The Nikon 990/4500 series + converters was a awell thought out and
    designed system. TC, WA and Fisheye.
    me, Nov 25, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    me Guest

    Even worse RichA BS. All photos are taken at 1/200s or less shutter
    speed. With camera only 35mm equiv fl of 485-500+ let alone add
    theTC. Just one 1/160s with the FZ-18 is shown for comparison with
    the conclusion the FZ-18 is superior to the FZ-35.

    Looks more like it's the inability to handhold long exposures at lomg
    focal lengths might be the real issue here.

    Another example of why we should killfile richA.
    me, Nov 25, 2009
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Forget the blurring from motion, look at the fuzziness from spherical
    aberration and the gross chromatic aberration! You can't just slap a
    "lens on a lens" and expect it to work well.
    Rich, Nov 25, 2009
  5. Are you aware that all the zoom lenses for DSLRs are just slapping lenses
    on other lens arrays to achieve those longer focal lengths? The only
    difference is that you buy them that way already attached together in a
    single lens barrel. In P&S cameras you just happen to have the front
    elements that comprise the telescopic part removable when needed, or if you
    don't want to buy that portion of a longer focal-length lens. While some
    might consider "shopping around" for the right conversion lenses to match
    the existing optics on your camera a major pain in the ass, I actually
    enjoy the hunt in trying to find the best teleconverter or wide-angle
    adapter from Company-A that works best with P&S camera from Company-B. Many
    cross-company matches working far better than A's converter matched to A's
    camera. In doing so I also found fish-eye adapters for under $100 that beat
    the pants off of any dedicated $2500 Nikkor fisheye lenses for any D/SLR.
    But you wouldn't know anything about this, because you've never owned ANY
    camera, P&S or otherwise.

    Like this quick example:

    [Note to moron trolls: Do not misconstrue the pixel-sharp details due to
    over-sharpening. That's due to Lanczos-8 downsampling retaining as much
    detail as possible from the original image along with JPG compression
    artifacts for web posting. Pixel-peeping reveals no halos, just JPG
    compression artifacts that you will ignorantly try to see as

    But you're right, you can't slap "a lens on a lens" and expect good
    results. You get even better results if you slap "a lens on a lens on a
    lens". To borrow a well known example posted by someone else long ago:

    "Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
    f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
    high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
    photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
    of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
    directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
    JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
    lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
    empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
    2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
    any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
    whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
    sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
    decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
    more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
    aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm

    Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
    EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
    open for as long as you live.

    If not, you get to shut up now.
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 25, 2009
  6. Rich

    Bhogi Guest

    So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
    your camera?
    Bhogi, Nov 25, 2009
  7. An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.

    2197mm EFL / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL

    1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm EFL

    215mm EFL / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical diameter.

    Nearly all teleconverters for all P&S cameras have more physical diameter
    than 2.4 inches. My favorite one to ensure no aperture loss has an
    entrance-pupil of 80mm (3.15 inches).

    Got that?

    Now go stick your tongue in a light-socket with it plugged in and turned on
    to find out how electricity works.
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 25, 2009
  8. Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
    equations. It was so much easier to type.

    An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.

    2197mm EFL / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL

    1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm true focal length

    215mm true focal length / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical
    diameter of the entrance pupil.

    Nearly all teleconverters for all P&S cameras have more physical diameter
    than 2.4 inches. My favorite one to ensure no aperture loss has an
    entrance-pupil of 80mm (3.15 inches).

    Got that?

    Now go stick your tongue in a light-socket with it plugged in and turned on
    to find out how electricity works.
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 25, 2009
  9. Rich

    Bhogi Guest

    Don't worry you're still wrong.

    Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
    your mistake.
    What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
    With respect to things that matter in photography (light sensitivity,
    DOF, softening due to diffraction) when you compare EFLs of P&S to
    DSLR you should also calculate "effective aperture ratio", which in
    your case is about f/12.
    Tried some night shots with your super duper fast 61.5mm telescope

    Why compare with DSLRs, compare with 4x5 large format, then you'll
    kick some serious ass with 12000mm EFL @ f/3.5!
    Think about it.
    Bhogi, Nov 25, 2009
  10. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Someone like you.
    Ray Fischer, Nov 25, 2009
  11. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You're trying to educate someone who is only interested in being an
    asshole troll.

    Ray Fischer, Nov 25, 2009
  12. Rich

    Guest Guest

    Not true, he only makes generalizations from everything that
    does not fit his preconcived opinioins.
    Guest, Nov 25, 2009
  13. And there you are, wrong again. I've been a professional wildlife
    photographer all my life. Many who shoot wildlife professionally today are
    learning to use only high-quality P&S cameras due to their flexibility,
    portability, ruggedness, and especially for the extra-wide apertures at the
    longest focal-lengths needed to properly capture wildlife. No longer
    missing shots for having to swap-out lenses or get dust all over the sensor
    too. You not knowing this proves you to be nothing but a beginner troll. As
    proved by the quality of your beginner's snapshots. Thanks for providing
    the link to those so everyone can see what a rudimentary beginner
    snapshooter that you truly are.
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 26, 2009
  14. Rich

    -hh Guest

    Try reading what was written above: I never said that the person from
    RPD had to be me. AFAIC, I could be any one of dozens of the honest
    posters who you've gone out of your way to insult.
    Sorry, but that's still just words while being hidden and protected by
    the computer screen. If you're going to want to try to insult me,
    you'll have to do it to my face.

    Name of bar? :)
    BFD. Some of us have lived in West Philly :)

    And where, pray tell, is that?
    So where is "here"? Where do we meet? & when?
    FYI - many people aren't as risk-adverse as you obviously are.

    Not at all: we all know that you'll never voluntarily give up your
    IRL name / location - despite all of your attempted bravado, it is all
    mere lies coming from a cowardly loser who knows that he is just

    Gosh, one would have expected that due to all of your **alleged**
    experience and expertise, that you wouldn't have been able to be so
    surprised! :)

    Who, What, Where, When....time to put up. Its my nickel, so you have
    nothing to lose...that is, if you're not a total fake.

    -hh, Nov 27, 2009
  15. Where: Hwy 75, Badger Creek Staion, ID

    Turn north on the small trail just opposite the ranger's station. Have a
    good 4-wheeler.

    When: This coming spring, anytime after March, when I'll be at my home
    there. That'll give you plenty of time to dig through your basement-life
    troll's photographer-couch to dig up the change and arrange to get there.

    I'll put out a lamp on the porch and clean one of my smaller guns for your
    warm greeting.
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Nov 27, 2009
  16. Rich

    -hh Guest

    Sorry, don't want to wait that long.
    Try again.

    -hh, Nov 27, 2009
  17. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Don't argue with the troll. It exists only to be an asshole and to
    bait you into responding
    Ray Fischer, Nov 27, 2009
  18. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Go away, asshole troll.
    Ray Fischer, Nov 27, 2009
  19. Rich

    -hh Guest

    Which merely makes the hours at which he posts even the more revealing
    as to just how much of a "lonely boy" he is.

    -hh, Nov 28, 2009
  20. Just give the police the slime's posting --- it's quite clearly
    an announcement of a planned murder and/or planning to run amok.

    You'll probably see it then as a defendant.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 29, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.