If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:20:14 GMT, Steve wrote:
Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed, the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly by using physical dials and buttons That's why I would rather choose the P&S cameras that I have. Every button, option, and adjustment that I need is right under each finger. Only the occasionally used options are on menus, usually no more than 1 click away. The image quality is about the same as, and in some instances (DSLR glass dependent) can even be better from my P&S cameras. Shutter-lag is shorter on my P&S cameras too because I rarely depend on auto-anything. Real pros are like that. I might use the "instant AF override" button press to get the lens into the range I need rapidly, but then I focus manually. See, I know how to use my cameras, most do not. You have revealed that you do not. You need to learn how to do your research before wasting your money on cameras that won't do what you want them to do. If you think a DSLR is the only kind that will do what you need and want, you are sorely mistaken, and a REALLY bad shopper. Then on top of it, because of your stupidity and ignorance you advise all others to follow in your footsteps. How completely foolish. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
Steve wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:09:51 -0600, TrentBaxter wrote: [...] In case you missed them, here's just a few of the vast benefits of P&S cameras and the huge related drawbacks of ALL DSLRs (some sections further edited for clarity): [snipped a bunch of crap but I figured I'd comment on this one:] 7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees I've taken a lot of pictures of helicopters and prop planes with a DSLR and the blades in all sorts of various directios and not one shows a curved blade like that Nontheless that is a known issue with focal plane shutters when photographing propellers at high shutter speed. [snipped a whole bunch more crap] You can spout all the reasons you think P&S cameras are better but the fact remains that DSLRs and good lenses in general have much better image quality than any P&S. Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed, the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly by using physical dials and buttons instead of going through onscreen menus) is most important, use a DSLR. Where convenience is most important, use a P&S. That's why I have several of both. Know what they do, use what you need. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:09:51 -0600, TrentBaxter, the self-hating
anti-DSLR sock puppet troll wrote: 4. P&S cameras are silent. Then you are a DSLR, Biddy. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see: The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/review/product...Viewpoi nts=1 "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built in, or better still, a digital SLR." ... there is a down side. The lag time of a P&S versus a dSLR makes even the cheapest dSLR appealing. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:43:13 -0500, "Me Here" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message .. . For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see: The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/review/product...Viewpoi nts=1 "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built in, or better still, a digital SLR." ... there is a down side. The lag time of a P&S versus a dSLR makes even the cheapest dSLR appealing. That would only be true for some snapshooter that has to depend on auto-everything. REAL pros know how to use hyperfocal settings and manual focus, making the lag-time of P&S cameras even less than *all* DSLRs. But then ... you'll never know this, you're a troll that's never figured out how to use ANY camera professionally. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:35:37 -0600, frank_temmor wrote: On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:20:14 GMT, Steve wrote: Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed, the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly by using physical dials and buttons That's why I would rather choose the P&S cameras that I have. Every button, option, and adjustment that I need is right under each finger. Only the occasionally used options are on menus, usually no more than 1 click away. The image quality is about the same as, and in some instances (DSLR glass dependent) can even be better from my P&S cameras. Shutter-lag is shorter on my P&S cameras too because I rarely depend on auto-anything. Real pros are like that. I might use the "instant AF override" button press to get the lens into the range I need rapidly, but then I focus manually. See, I know how to use my cameras, most do not. You have revealed that you do not. You need to learn how to do your research before wasting your money on cameras that won't do what you want them to do. Why do you think I have both and use the one that's appropriate for the situation? If you think a DSLR is the only kind that will do what you need and want, you are sorely mistaken, and a REALLY bad shopper. Then on top of it, because of your stupidity and ignorance you advise all others to follow in your footsteps. How completely foolish. A DSLR is the only kind that will do what I want in certain situations. The fact that you don't realize that and think a P&S can do everything proves just foolish you really are and how little you really know about cameras. Steve |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
P&S's are cursed when it comes to lag time. They stink, and a wide
"hyperfocal" distance isn't something someone wants every time and is useless if you are talking about something that simply can't be captured with a dog-slow response time. Also, "add on" teleconverters are putrid when it comes to optical quality. I've never seen one yet that didn't horribly degrade the original lens's image. But then P&S lenses, especially "superzooms" at their longest length have so many optical aberrations and so many focus problems people using crappy teleconverters probably don't even notice the difference. "Al_Parker" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:43:13 -0500, "Me Here" wrote: "Eric Stevens" wrote in message . .. For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see: The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/review/product...Viewpoi nts=1 "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built in, or better still, a digital SLR." ... there is a down side. The lag time of a P&S versus a dSLR makes even the cheapest dSLR appealing. That would only be true for some snapshooter that has to depend on auto-everything. REAL pros know how to use hyperfocal settings and manual focus, making the lag-time of P&S cameras even less than *all* DSLRs. But then ... you'll never know this, you're a troll that's never figured out how to use ANY camera professionally. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:11:50 -0500, "RichA" wrote:
P&S's are cursed when it comes to lag time. They stink, and a wide "hyperfocal" distance isn't something someone wants every time and is useless if you are talking about something that simply can't be captured with a dog-slow response time. Also, "add on" teleconverters are putrid when it comes to optical quality. I've never seen one yet that didn't horribly degrade the original lens's image. But then P&S lenses, especially "superzooms" at their longest length have so many optical aberrations and so many focus problems people using crappy teleconverters probably don't even notice the difference. And thus, you quickly reveal your amateurish photography ability and lack of experiences with better P&S cameras and their related accessories so quickly and completely. How does it feel to have outted yourself as a totally inexperienced DSLR troll? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which the frame could still be seen. He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues, who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling. Toby "Roy G" wrote in message ... "TrentBaxter" wrote in message ... On 4 Nov 2008 04:30:03 -0600, "Toby" wrote: "bugbear" wrote in message news Eric Stevens wrote: ... there is a down side. In other news there is NO ultimate camera. Resolution, sharpness, convenience, ease of use, weight, cost, speed of response all vary, and in some cases conflict. And that is the basic truth of the matter. Each type of camera and lens and accessory offers some advantages and some disadvantages. Wise users research the pros and cons of each, and then make an informed choice according to their needs and desires. Toby Those even more wise, borne of lifetime of true real-world photography experience, SNIPPED all the other virtual-photographer DSLR-trolls) even more glaringly obvious to the world. I do not make claims for any particular type of equipment, and happen to agree with Toby. You make claims for only one type of equipment, and seem to state that P & S cameras are the ultimate in every respect. Worse, you very clearly insult the intelligence of anyone who does not agree with you. You never seem to post on any other topic, except to extoll the virtues of P & S or damn the shortcomings of SLRs. You keep changing your alias, and have replied to your own postings using another alias. AND you seem unwilling or unable to specify which make or models you use. It is long past the time for you to come clean, and start giving some real information, instead of just spouting far fetched theory and poisonous bile. Put up or shut up. Roy G |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
P&S Teleconverters
"Brandon Grant" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:11:50 -0500, "RichA" wrote: P&S's are cursed when it comes to lag time. They stink, and a wide "hyperfocal" distance isn't something someone wants every time and is useless if you are talking about something that simply can't be captured with a dog-slow response time. Also, "add on" teleconverters are putrid when it comes to optical quality. I've never seen one yet that didn't horribly degrade the original lens's image. But then P&S lenses, especially "superzooms" at their longest length have so many optical aberrations and so many focus problems people using crappy teleconverters probably don't even notice the difference. And thus, you quickly reveal your amateurish photography ability and lack of experiences with better P&S cameras and their related accessories so quickly and completely. How does it feel to have outted yourself as a totally inexperienced DSLR troll? Just more garbage spewing from this troll, Not a single shred of evidence to back up his assertions. Toby |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P&S Teleconverters | Eric Stevens | Digital Photography | 40 | December 20th 08 11:04 PM |
Teleconverters | Fred Lebow | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | September 1st 06 01:47 PM |
teleconverters | Fred Lebow | Digital ZLR Cameras | 0 | August 30th 06 07:04 PM |
Teleconverters | Paul J Gans | Digital SLR Cameras | 19 | June 12th 06 12:57 PM |
Teleconverters | Paul J Gans | Digital Photography | 3 | May 16th 06 03:39 PM |