How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro

SMS wrote:
On 08/07/10 10:55 AM, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:50:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:
How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I
took the FZ35 because I thought it would be ideal for that
situation. That's an "offensive put-down"?

I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John.


John Navas's problem is, and always has been, that his modest needs
are completely satisfied by mediocre equipment.

Nothing wrong with that actually, he's no different than most users
of digital camera equipment.

He simply cannot understand why some people need, or at least
aspire to, something better. He gets irrationally angry when they
point this out, then claims that his mediocre equipment is
"excellent".

Unfortunately his attitude extends to many other areas outside of
digital camera equipment as well.


--- It would be one thing if anything
he wrote was grounded in reality and backed up by facts, but it
rarely isn't. ---

Hm?

Instead he feels compelled to reply to every post
that points out the facts, even when he has absolutely no knowledge
of the subject being discussed. The most amusing thing is when he
posts references that completely contradict what he's saying.

He has been doing it for years. No doubt he will be doing it many
years hence. Arguing with him is pointless because his values are
on an entirely different scale, one that peaks at "mediocre".

Indeed, that's why a kill-file is the best solution. He thrives on
the attention he gets with his shtick.

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
[]
Well, my FZ35 is significantly more compact than my D40-family cameras
(with usual kit lens), and those I regard as "small body" Nikons. But
I'll agree some others (Coolpix 8800, DiMAGE 7Hi, etc.) would be
stretching the term "compact" too far. I suppose "superzoom" is the best
term for that type of camera since it isn't likely to be confused with
anything else.

"Compact" I think is the best used for more or less pocketable cameras
(Optio 750Z, Coolpix 5900, Powershot S80, etc.) while "ultracompact"
should be reserved for those cameras that are really shirt-pocket size
(Optio S4i, Coolpix S510 and thereabouts).

Superzoom and compact are terms I would quite happily use, while retaining
the generic term P&S to cover both. Ultra-compact seems clumsy (to me) -
what about pocket camera?

Cheers,
David

On 08/07/10 11:08 AM, Frank ess wrote:


SMS wrote:
On 08/07/10 10:55 AM, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:50:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:
How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I
took the FZ35 because I thought it would be ideal for that
situation. That's an "offensive put-down"?

I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John.


John Navas's problem is, and always has been, that his modest needs
are completely satisfied by mediocre equipment.

Nothing wrong with that actually, he's no different than most users
of digital camera equipment.

He simply cannot understand why some people need, or at least
aspire to, something better. He gets irrationally angry when they
point this out, then claims that his mediocre equipment is
"excellent".

Unfortunately his attitude extends to many other areas outside of
digital camera equipment as well.


--- It would be one thing if anything
he wrote was grounded in reality and backed up by facts, but it
rarely isn't. ---

Hm?

Oops. Well you know what was intended to be written!

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:31:43 -0400, in
, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote in message

What term would you suggest for such cameras - they certainly aren't
"compact".

Well, my FZ35 is significantly more compact than my D40-family cameras (with
usual kit lens), and those I regard as "small body" Nikons. But I'll agree
some others (Coolpix 8800, DiMAGE 7Hi, etc.) would be stretching the term
"compact" too far. I suppose "superzoom" is the best term for that type of
camera since it isn't likely to be confused with anything else.

"Compact" I think is the best used for more or less pocketable cameras
(Optio 750Z, Coolpix 5900, Powershot S80, etc.) while "ultracompact" should
be reserved for those cameras that are really shirt-pocket size (Optio S4i,
Coolpix S510 and thereabouts).

You need to broaden your horizons -- the FZ28 is easily pocketable in
the jackets I use for outdoor shooting.

My shooting waistcoat has two big pockets each one of which can easily
take a medium sized DSLR fitted with a 500mm reflex lens.

--
Chris Malcolm
Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.

In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

Offensive put-downs from dSLR fans threatened by them. Shame on you.
Are you really that insecure?

How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I took the FZ35
because I thought it would be ideal for that situation. That's an "offensive
put-down"?

anything that contradicts him is a put-down. haven't you noticed?

I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John.

very much so.

On 2010-07-08 12:55:07 -0700, Chris Malcolm said:

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:31:43 -0400, in
, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote in message

What term would you suggest for such cameras - they certainly aren't
"compact".

Well, my FZ35 is significantly more compact than my D40-family cameras (with
usual kit lens), and those I regard as "small body" Nikons. But I'll agree
some others (Coolpix 8800, DiMAGE 7Hi, etc.) would be stretching the term
"compact" too far. I suppose "superzoom" is the best term for that type of
camera since it isn't likely to be confused with anything else.

"Compact" I think is the best used for more or less pocketable cameras
(Optio 750Z, Coolpix 5900, Powershot S80, etc.) while "ultracompact" should
be reserved for those cameras that are really shirt-pocket size (Optio S4i,
Coolpix S510 and thereabouts).

You need to broaden your horizons -- the FZ28 is easily pocketable in
the jackets I use for outdoor shooting.

My shooting waistcoat has two big pockets each one of which can easily
take a medium sized DSLR fitted with a 500mm reflex lens.

A pocketable 500mm !! ???

Model? Specs? Weight? Inquiring minds need to know.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Bruce
wrote:

John Navas's problem is, and always has been, that his modest needs
are completely satisfied by mediocre equipment.

to an extent that's true, but the fundamental problem is that he thinks
whatever he picks is perfect and everything else is flawed, whether or
not the user has different needs.

he also insists his camera violates the laws of physics to justify his
choice (small sensors are better than big sensors). whenever anyone
points out any shortcoming (which all products have), he says the
person is insecure for making pejorative remarks. of course, *he* can
be rude and condescending, such as telling people they don't know how
to use zoom properly.

He simply cannot understand why some people need, or at least aspire
to, something better. He gets irrationally angry when they point this
out, then claims that his mediocre equipment is "excellent".

true. as he says, different strokes for different folks.

He has been doing it for years. No doubt he will be doing it many
years hence. Arguing with him is pointless because his values are on
an entirely different scale, one that peaks at "mediocre".

yep.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Superzoom and compact are terms I would quite happily use, while retaining
the generic term P&S to cover both. ...

We wouldn't want to miss an opportunity for pejorative bashing, now
would we. You must be terribly insecure and threatened.

so why do you keep bashing people? language evolves. p&s doesn't mean
what you want it to mean. deal with it.

"John Navas" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:31:31 -0400, in
, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"John Navas" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 23:43:18 -0400, in
, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"John Navas" wrote in message
m...

You're obviously unfamiliar with the FZ28. The zoom control is a
single
two-speed rotary switch around the shutter button. No zoom
pushbuttons
whatsoever. Will you now be big enough to admit your mistake?

Yes, of course. I've been talking about pushbuttons and thinking of that
arrangement only, since most of my compact cameras use buttons for
zooming.
When you mentioned "multi-speed rotary control" I thought you meant
something like Minolta's briefly marketed motorized "zooms" (actually
varifocals) for their SLRs, which had a zoom control around the lens
that
looked like a manual control, but wasn't.

My FZ35 has the same two-speed rotary control around the shutter release
as
your FZ28. I had frankly forgotten about that, not having used the
camera
for some time.

Unfortunately, as Watergate conspirator H.R. Haldeman famously said,
"You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube." It's too late to claim
you really do know your camera when you've made such a basic mistake
about how it works. Since you don't even know your own camera terribly
well, much less mine, it's not terribly surprising you have trouble with
the non-"pushbutton" power zoom.

I haven't claimed any particular expertise with the FZ35 at all. Since
apparently your FZ28 is your primary camera, I have not the slightest
doubt
that you are far more familiar with it than I am with my FZ35, which I
don't
use much.

What you have done is make negative judgments without sufficient
experience to support them, in other words, guesses.

I don't think so. I have used a lot of compact cameras with motorized zooms,
and a lot of SLRs with manual zooms. As I have said, I can understand the
*necessity* of using motorized zooms in small cameras, so there would be
little point in wishing they had manual zooms instead. But I think 99.9% of
people using both types of camera would agree that manual zooms are faster,
easier and more precise than motorized ones.


I am sort of a collector and have a lot of digital cameras,
including several superzooms, two of them Panasonics (the other one is an
FZ15).

Fair enough.

I would agree that the rotary switch around the shutter release is a
somewhat better solution than pushbuttons, though it has its drawbacks
too.
You use the rotary switch with your index finger, and then have to move it
back to the shutter button to take the shot. With pushbuttons you use your
thumb and don't have to move your finger from the shutter release. Also
I'd
agree that a two-speed zoom is some advantage over single speed, but still
not close to the ease, quickness and accuracy of a manual zoom ring.

Again, you lack the experience and expertise to say that with any
authority -- you're guessing -- and that reflects your personal working
style, not the working style of others like me.

Except it's not. You've admitted to zero experience with the FZ28,
and

Yes. Zero experience with the FZ28 and not really a lot with the FZ35
either. But it is still practically the same as the FZ28. If you think
it's
not, tell me what you think the important differences are.

I've not used the FZ35 enough to have a meaningful opinion.

Yet you insist there are significant differences between the two.

I think that very likely, given the significant differences in many
prior models and on published information, but I do not know that for a
fact, but regardless, you lack experience with the FZ35 as well.

Well, I don't "lack experience" with it entirely, I have used it, though
admittedly not a great deal. I think I have used it enough to make the sort
of judgements I have made.


Varifocal also makes more sophisticated optics possible, enabling
sharp

Not "more sophisticated," just more compact. Not having to be parfocal
allows a much simpler design. There have been small 35mm cameras with
four-element zoom lenses, an amazing simplification.

That's a red herring. As you ought to know, Panasonic superzooms
actually have complex, sophisticated lens designs.

Of course. But they still are not parfocal or anywhere near it. My FZ35
focuses very, very close at its shortest focal length. At other focal
lengths it does not focus closely at all,

That has nothing to do with varifocal versus parfocal, which only refers

It has *everything* to do with varifocal vs. true zoom. With a true zoom
lens, near focus distance does not change with changes in focal length.

to whether focus changes with zooming or not. An advantage of power
zoom and focus is that the camera can emulate parfocal operation of a
varifocal lens, since the onboard processor knows how to adjust the
focus with focal length.

But it DOES NOT "emulate parfocal operation," and cannot. That is the whole
point. How close you can focus depends on the focal length used.


and since those other focal
lengths are generally better suited to close-up work than the extreme
wide-angle end, I have to use close-up lenses on it to do that sort of
thing. An advantage of the FZ35 over most other superzooms currently on
the
market is that it has 46mm filter threads to accept such accessories,
while
its competitors (that I've seen) do not. That is nice but still not as
handy
as having a really close-focusing standard lens, such as Nikon's 18-55mm
kit
lens.

With all due respect, that's another reflection of your personal working
style, not some sort of universal truth, if not a difference between the
FZ28 and FZ35 (which I'm too busy to check at the moment). I personally
find the close focusing of the FZ28 sufficiently useful at both ends of
the zoom range to not feel the need for close-up filters. "Different
strokes for differ net folks."

I have a 15x zoom lens for my DX Nikons -- compares well with the
tiny-format superzooms, considering the format difference, and I'd put
it up
against any of them for definition and low distortion.

Sorry, but not even close.

OK then, what is *your* experience with *my* lens?

I don't need experience

Ah. YOU "don't need experience" to have an opinion, but anyone else does.
Right?

-- your lens is disqualified by its specs.
My experience is with the best roughly comparable lens I know of, Canon
Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens.

My Tamron Di II VC LD Aspherical has a significantly wider zoom ratio,
18-270mm.


No, as a matter of fact, you have not. I've asked the question several
times
and you have always declined to answer it.

I've repeatedly answered you. You just don't like the answers.

Your only answer has been "I've already answered that."

Not so. See my other posts.

I'm hardly "blaming" your equipment, John.

OK, then you're making disparaging characterizations about a camera with
which you have no actual experience.

I am not disparaging your camera at all. I have repeatedly expressed
admiration for the Panasonic superzooms, and as I've said I own two of
them
myself.

You're actually making disparaging and false characterizations.
Like your comments on "pushbutton" zoom.

It's just not as fast, easy or precise as a manual zoom, John. Not your
fault, not Panasonic's fault, it's just a limitation of that type of lens.


I like the FZ35 myself as I've
mentioned a number of times, and surely would like your FZ28 too since
the
FZ35 appears to be a slightly improved version of the same camera. As I
have
said, there's little apparent difference between them. You keep
insisting
that there must be some important difference, though what that might be
you
evidently cannot say.

Correct. Unlike you, I won't rely on guesswork and 2nd-hand
information. I can speak to the differences between the FZ28 and
several prior models based on a great deal of actual experience, but not
the FZ35.

While I have never handled an FZ28 I have read extensive reviews of both
cameras, and it is clear that they are essentally the same camera but with
various improvements in the FZ35, which is pretty much as you would
expect.
The lens is the same, as is the general body and controls layout.
Here is a side-by-side comparison of both cameras:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pa...mc_fz35-review

That's no substitute for real first-hand experience,
as you should know if you have much experience in photography.

You can still see the comparisons side by side and judge for yourself. You
don't necessarily need "first-hand experience" to evaluate every little
detail difference between the two models.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

Offensive put-downs from dSLR fans threatened by them. Shame on you.
Are you really that insecure?

How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I took the
FZ35
because I thought it would be ideal for that situation. That's an
"offensive
put-down"?

anything that contradicts him is a put-down. haven't you noticed?

Apparently that's true. That, and it makes me "insecure." :-/


I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John.

very much so.