Will phase focusing go the way of the dinosaur?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 6, 2010.

  1.  
    Wolfgang Weasleburg, Jul 4, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    Role-playing trolls correcting other role-playing trolls?

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 4, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. There's "experts" for you!

    The rather large and rather expensive wide angle adapter for my rather
    large P&S worked very well. Since the P&S had an APS-C 1.5 crop
    sensor, and a zoom lens of similar characteristics to the general zoom
    on my DSLR, I tried it out on my DSLR. It worked just as well on the
    DSLR as on the P&S. I happily used it on the DSLR plus general zoom
    until I got a wide angle zoom lens which went a lot wider and was a
    lot smaller.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 6, 2010
  4. RichA

    John Turco Guest


    That's backwards, in my estimation. I think small-sensor models
    are jacks of all trades, and masters of some. Conversely, DSLR
    cameras may be better suited to specialized tasks.

    For example, my own Pentax K100D ("entry level" DSLR) would be
    perfect, if mounted on a copy stand. Its resolution is only 6
    megapixels; but, in terms of speed and coverage area, it would
    clearly beat the hell, out of any flatbed scanner.
     
    John Turco, Jul 20, 2010
  5. RichA

    John Turco Guest


    Sorry, Steve; I remain unconvinced of super-zoom cameras' "inherent"
    inferiority.
     
    John Turco, Jul 20, 2010
  6. That's backwards, in my estimation. I think small-sensor models
    I would not expect everyone to share the same view, as different people
    will have different aims and expectations. Considering that the price is
    now similar, for what I do the DSLR as a general-purpose camera is the
    better choice for me. I use the compact camera where I need something
    light to carry or where being able to poke its lens through wire netting
    may get a better photo. Your DSLR would also likely take portraits with
    less distracting backgrounds, and at a lower light level.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 20, 2010
  7. RichA

    John Turco Guest


    Well, my three Kodak "super zoom" digicams all take superb portraits.
    They're capable of blurring backgrounds, considerably; this effect is
    most pronounced, at telephoto ranges.
     
    John Turco, Aug 16, 2010
  8. []
    Yes, I found the same with my Panasonic FZ5, but with the DSLR you can get
    the same effect without having to use telephoto (talking typical
    conditions). Even more so if you have a wide-aperture lens (f/1.4 or
    f/1.8).

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 16, 2010
  9. Soft image? :)
    So what happens when you use a full frame (D)SLR with, oh, say,
    400mm and f/2.8? :)

    Once you see that even an old (less than 10 MPix) crop DSLR can
    blur the tips of the eyelashes while the bases of them are tack
    sharp with a cheap 50mm lens on a full face portrait ...


    Of course, *if* you control the environment[1], your super zoom
    will usually do (assuming they can trigger a remote flash and
    can do manual settings). The eyelash trick may not be possible,
    but is probably not needed. The less you control the environment,
    the more you need better gear to compensate.

    Wannabe-photographer P&S trolls will disagree, but will be ignored.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] you have a well-planned studio of large enough size to have
    a good spatial separation between subject and background,
    know your flash setup to control the light (and have enough
    of it), have patient enough victims, et cetera.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 16, 2010
  10. It means you won't even be able to get one whole bird in focus on the limb
    of a tree, just one wing, or its beak. Haven't you seen the blurry dSLR
    crapshots always suffering from too shallow DOF? They've been posted to
    these groups every time someone shows an image from their DSLR.

    It also means that you'll have to haul around an extra 10.2 POUNDS of gear
    and try to find a place to store something that's 6.3" x 14.5" in size and
    weighs that much. It also means you'll be limited to just that focal-length
    because you can't get that much aperture in ANY zoom lens for any DSLR.
    (But it IS readily available on many superzoom cameras.) If you have to
    switch lenses it also means you're going to miss shots and probably get
    crud or condensation on your mirror and shutter which you have to clean off
    again first so that all your images afterward won't be ruined. It also
    means you have to haul along an extremely hefty 10+ lb. and expensive
    tripod to stabilize 10.2 POUNDS of mass in order to get any kind of image
    out of that lens because just the mirror and shutter slap alone is going to
    reduce the resolution of that lens to less than that of any bubble-pack
    toy-store camera. It also means that trying to do so is going to set back
    your bank-balance about $10,000.

    That's what would happen if you used a 400mm f/2.8 lens on a DSLR.

    You'd know all of this if you weren't just another pretend-photographer
    role-playing DSLR-TROLL who has never used any camera in your life.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 17, 2010
  11. It means you won't even be able to get one whole bird in focus on the limb
    of a tree, just one wing, or its beak. Haven't you seen the blurry dSLR
    crapshots always suffering from too shallow DOF? They've been posted to
    these groups every time someone shows an image from their DSLR.

    It also means that you'll have to haul around an extra 10.2 POUNDS of gear
    and try to find a place to store something that's 6.3" x 14.5" in size and
    weighs that much. It also means you'll be limited to just that focal-length
    because you can't get that much aperture in ANY zoom lens for any DSLR.
    (But it IS readily available on many superzoom cameras.) If you have to
    switch lenses it also means you're going to miss shots and probably get
    crud or condensation on your mirror and sensor which you have to clean off
    again first so that all your images afterward won't be ruined. It also
    means you have to haul along an extremely hefty 10+ lb. and expensive
    tripod to stabilize 10.2 POUNDS of mass in order to get any kind of image
    out of that lens because just the mirror and shutter slap alone is going to
    reduce the resolution of that lens to less than that of any bubble-pack
    toy-store camera. It also means that trying to do so is going to set back
    your bank-balance about $10,000.

    That's what would happen if you used a 400mm f/2.8 lens on a DSLR.

    You'd know all of this if you weren't just another pretend-photographer
    role-playing DSLR-TROLL who has never used any camera in your life.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 17, 2010
  12. RichA

    John Turco Guest


    The aforementioned Kodak cameras (DX6490, P850 and Z980) all boast
    manual modes, however. I haven't tried it, but, I suppose I could
    set any of them, to its maximum f-stop (f/2.8, on all three).

    Furthermore, my Pentax K100D (6MP DSLR) just can't match the "bokeh"
    of the Kodak trio. This may partially be due to the fact I'm using
    a cheap "kit" zoom lens, on it. (28mm F3.5-80mm F5.6, bundled with
    my Pentax "ZX-60" 35mm film SLR.)
     
    John Turco, Aug 30, 2010
  13. RichA

    John Turco Guest


    Please, Kaiser Wolfgang, don't be such a "Weiss Guy" -- okay?
     
    John Turco, Aug 30, 2010
  14. The aforementioned Kodak cameras (DX6490, P850 and Z980) all boast
    But with the DSLR, were its lens working properly, you should not need to
    be as far away from your subject to get a similar bokeh (i.e. out-of-focus
    background). You should be able to compare with the cameras you have,
    working at the same 35mm equivalent, and same f/number.

    You will find that lenses have moved on rather from film SLR lenses -
    designs today do seem to be better quality, wider-range and sometimes even
    cheaper! Like me, though, you will use the tools you have which best suit
    the job in hand.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 30, 2010
  15. Would painting my skin black help? No? Then I'll stay a
    white guy. Thanks for playing.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 31, 2010
  16. Du koentest ja auch ein Schwarzer Negger sein:-0
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitris, Aug 31, 2010
  17. RichA

    Peter Guest


    Υποψιάζομαι ότι η καÏδιά του είναι μαÏÏο
     
    Peter, Aug 31, 2010
  18. ðïõ Ýìáèåò åëëçíéêÜ;
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitris, Sep 1, 2010
  19. Schwarzenegger? Isn't he Gouvernor of Terminator and plays
    in the film California, or some such?

    -Wolfgang

    PS: If you use characters which are not 7 bit ASCII, how about
    setting a proper encoding? Your Outlook Express doesn't.
    It't broken.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 6, 2010
  20. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Even on close-ups, my Kodak super-zoom cameras excel. In fact, they seem to
    be fine performers, at practically >all< ranges.
    Also, from a purely aesthetic standpoint, I dislike my 28mm F3.5-80mm F5.6
    lens. It was designed for a film SLR and hence, simply looks oversized and
    ungainly, on the K100D. (Its black-&-silver finish doesn't complement my
    all-black DSLR, particularly well, either.)
     
    John Turco, Sep 6, 2010
    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.