DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On 2007-11-17 19:47:47 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:

"Prime lens" means the camera lens as opposed to some other lens or
optical device used with it, such as a close-up lens, tele converter,
etc. When used with such a device, the camera lens itself is the prime
lens -- whether it's fixed focal length or zoom makes no difference.

There are variable focal length prime lenses made by Schneider, Zeiss
and others which are catalogued just that way: "variable primes."
http://schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/ki...le_prime_e.pdf
http://www.cinequip.com/Category_det...ategory=Lenses
http://rentacam.ru/eng/index.php?area=article&id_art=58
http://www.oscars.org/scitech/1998/winners.html (scroll down)

Nikon, for example, has NEVER used "prime" to mean fixed focal length
in any of its lens literature. Neither have most other camera and lens
manufacturers.

this site
http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/niko...bylens01.ht m
....which

....which is one I consult often, uses 'prime' to mean 'fixed FL' as do
many thousands of folks today...terminology changes with usage and I
for one know what someone means if the say 'prime lens'
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

John Navas wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:10:28 +0000, Tony Polson wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

It seems you are right and my information was incorrect.

Apology accepted.

No apology either warranted or given.


Thanks anyway.

"Wilba" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
John Navas wrote:

Moreover tests of these lenses confirm that they do measure up to
Leica standards; e.g., "everything you'd expect from Leica glass"
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4597/lens-test-panasonic-leica-d-summilux-25mm-f14-af.html

That's "everything you'd expect from Leica glass" by Julia Silber, who
in the first paragraph uses "prime" when she means fixed focal length.
I think she's the only columnist in Pop Photo who does employ that
popular but ignorant misusage. (Herbert Keppler certainly never does.)
Someone that careless with language is not to be taken very seriously.

So you're saying that the entire site should not be taken seriously?
Their dictionary definition of "Prime lens" is "A lens with a fixed
focal length" (http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Primelens).

That isn't "their dictionary definitiuon." AFAIK, Photonotes.org has
nothing to do with Pop Photo.

Yeah, sorry. I went looking, got distracted, and thought I got there from
a link on popphoto.

What's the right definition?

"Prime lens" means the camera lens as opposed to some other lens or
optical device used with it, such as a close-up lens, tele converter,
etc. When used with such a device, the camera lens itself is the prime
lens -- whether it's fixed focal length or zoom makes no difference.

There are variable focal length prime lenses made by Schneider, Zeiss and
others which are catalogued just that way: "variable primes."
http://schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/ki...le_prime_e.pdf
http://www.cinequip.com/Category_det...ategory=Lenses
http://rentacam.ru/eng/index.php?area=article&id_art=58
http://www.oscars.org/scitech/1998/winners.html (scroll down)

Nikon, for example, has NEVER used "prime" to mean fixed focal length
in any of its lens literature. Neither have most other camera and lens
manufacturers.

OK, so it's one of those terms that is irredeemably contaminated, like the
way people say laptop when they mean notebook, or massive when they mean
large. When I searched for "prime lens", none of the first three or four
definitions I found mentioned the definition you use, they all referred
first to fixed focal length.

Unfortunate but true, I know. Your phrase "irredeemably contaminated" is
probably about right.

Neil

arnold ziffendorfer wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:59:25 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
wrote:



arnold ziffendorfer wrote:



snip



That's a parfocal zoom-lens. A zoom-lens need not be parfocal to be called a
zoom-lens. There are many telescope and microscope zoom-lens oculars that are
anything but parfocal. Though called parfocal zoom-lenses none are truly
parfocal. This is why they have to depend on auto-focusing mechanisms after each
new zoom setting and always allow for some "slop" at the infinity stop. It's
easier to correct for minor difference in focusing than it is to compensate in
glass configurations and the more complex internal lens shifting methods that
would be required.



This is an important consideration with moving media.

A cinematographer should plan his shot by focusing on the longest focal
length to be used and take advantage of the larger depth of field to
compensate for any error when going, (or leaving), a wide shot.

One of the oldest tricks in the book...

JT


Exactly. This is why I see no huge compelling argument to the "my camera focuses
faster than your camera" childishness. I only use the auto-focus on my camera to
quickly find either a nice average to put the subject(s) within the DOF needed
or when I use a hyperfocal setting so nothing is missed. The same as I've done
for the last 40 years in all my cameras, manual or otherwise. Once that is done
I lock it into manual focus so it stays there. Occasionally using the manual
adjustment to touch up on what the camera ADVISED for a starting point. No
different than the advice you get from the exposure readings. How often that is
wrong too. Auto-focus may get me there quicker in most situations but is by no
means the answer to worthwhile photography. I do just as well without it if I
need to. I'll turn it off completely depending on the shooting scenario.
Particularly with macro-photography where it is more of a huge hindrance than
any kind of a help.

If the "fast auto-focus" admirers only realized how often they reveal their own
lack of talent and skills at photography. Snap-shooters that have been
brainwashed into thinking that they can buy a camera that will magically bestow
them with talent. They need to read Jack & the Beanstalk for hints on how to
find some magic beans while they're at it.



Call me old fashioned but at the same time I will take advantage of
current technology.

Back in the old days when my main work tool was an Arri S or BL,
autofocus was never heard of and you planned your "attack" and used your
gut instincts for on-the-fly shooting. When you're working with a small
16MM 1:35 format, there's no room for error and certainly no forgiveness
for mishaps while shooting.

It's sorta like modern cars. The old one's (pre 1968) will get you to
your destination and in the rare event of a failure, you have a chance
to make roadside repairs. Modern tin, er, plastic that fails will leave
you where you're at and when it comes time to pay the piper, it won't be
cheap.

I love my FZ10 but know well its limitations. The 12X zoom is acceptable
for most of my routine work but as I mentioned previously in another
post, if I want to get serious, I'll step backwards to my ancient M2.

JT

(Who drives a well maintained '83 Civic FE that provides mpg that rivals
that of hybrids)

Neil Harrington wrote:

Easier than entering all that stuff into a killfile, which obviously will
only grow and grow (and I assume he never bothers re-using his old ones
anyway), henceforth I'll just assume any unknown poster supporting that jerk
is the jerk himself, and ignore it. Likewise I'll just assume any other
idiotic post is from the same jerk, regardless of the subject or name used.
It's easy enough to pick him out from his headers, but why waste the time.

Sometimes I get to the point of kill-filing not only anyone that
supports him, but anyone that even replies to him, because he feeds on
the attention they provide.

A newsgroup reader that could filter on text in the body of the message
would work best, since he uses the same key words no matter how often he
changes the "from" address in the header.

John Navas wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
John Navas wrote:
Scott W wrote

This argument just does not hold water. I shoot for a number of years
with a point and shoot, when I started using a DSLR my photos got
better. I still shoot with a P&S from time to time, and I still am
getting better photos when I use a DSLR.

That's you. A DSLR better suits the way you work, all well and good,
but that doesn't make it a universal truth -- my FZ8 has huge advantages
over DSLR in handling, size, weight, zoom range, and lens speed, that
make it possible for me to get shots I wouldn't get with an SLR.

That's patent nonsense.

Actually simple fact.

Insisting that you're right, regardless of the facts, just makes you
look irrational and fanatical.

An SLR can go from 5mm to 600mm, as fast as f1.2, macro to 1:1 or
even greater magnification, with many times the zoom speed and
focusing speed of your P&S.

Which lens (brand and model)?

I can put a Sigma 4.5mm lens on the camera of a Canon 600MM lens on.
Or a Canon 50mm f1.2. Or a 20-200mm zoom.

1st hint: Such a lens doesn't exist, not even remotely.

We weren't discussing lenses. Can't you read?

2nd hint: There's no time to change lenses when shooting fast action.

You don't need to change lenses on and SLR when shooting fast action.
Further, 5FPS is common in SLRs and some even do 10 shots per second.
But you can't shoot with a 500mm f4 lens no matter what while using
your P&S.

Your FZ8 cannot do all of that. Its advantage is only in size and
portability.

In fact no 35 mm SLR lens even comes close to the Leica super-zoom lens

Idiot.

--
Ray Fischer

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:35:47 GMT, arnold ziffendorfer
wrote in
:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:42:40 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin wrote:

A zoom lens is one which allows the focal length to
be changed and remains in focus when the focal length is
adjusted.

That's a parfocal zoom-lens. A zoom-lens need not be parfocal to be called a
zoom-lens.

A "true" zoom is parfocal. If focus varies with focal length,
then it's a varifocal lens, not a "true" zoom lens.
See http://www.tokina-usa.com/glossary.html
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_lens

There are many telescope and microscope zoom-lens oculars that are
anything but parfocal. Though called parfocal zoom-lenses none are truly
parfocal. This is why they have to depend on auto-focusing mechanisms after each
new zoom setting and always allow for some "slop" at the infinity stop. It's
easier to correct for minor difference in focusing than it is to compensate in
glass configurations and the more complex internal lens shifting methods that
would be required.

Many so-called "zoom" lenses, particularly in the case of fixed lens
cameras, are actually varifocal lenses, which gives lens designers more
flexibility in optical design trade-offs (focal length range, maximum
aperture, size, weight, cost) than true parfocal zoom, and which is
practical because of auto-focus, and because the camera processor can
automatically adjust the lens to keep it in focus while changing focal
length ("zooming") making operation essentially the same as a true
parfocal zoom.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:44:26 GMT, arnold ziffendorfer
wrote in
:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:59:25 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
wrote:

This is an important consideration with moving media.

A cinematographer should plan his shot by focusing on the longest focal
length to be used and take advantage of the larger depth of field to
compensate for any error when going, (or leaving), a wide shot.

One of the oldest tricks in the book...

Exactly. This is why I see no huge compelling argument to the "my camera focuses
faster than your camera" childishness. I only use the auto-focus on my camera to
quickly find either a nice average to put the subject(s) within the DOF needed
or when I use a hyperfocal setting so nothing is missed. The same as I've done
for the last 40 years in all my cameras, manual or otherwise. Once that is done
I lock it into manual focus so it stays there. Occasionally using the manual
adjustment to touch up on what the camera ADVISED for a starting point. No
different than the advice you get from the exposure readings. How often that is
wrong too. Auto-focus may get me there quicker in most situations but is by no
means the answer to worthwhile photography. I do just as well without it if I
need to. I'll turn it off completely depending on the shooting scenario.
Particularly with macro-photography where it is more of a huge hindrance than
any kind of a help.

Well said. Good photographers did just fine without auto-focus for
decades. Auto-focus is mainly a convenience, especially for not-so-good
photographers, and can be wrong, which is why many good photographers
don't depend on it. I'll often use manual focus, and check it from time
to time with (auto) focus confirmation, much as I'll often use manual
exposure, and check it with (auto) metering and live histogram.

If the "fast auto-focus" admirers only realized how often they reveal their own
lack of talent and skills at photography. Snap-shooters that have been
brainwashed into thinking that they can buy a camera that will magically bestow
them with talent. They need to read Jack & the Beanstalk for hints on how to
find some magic beans while they're at it.

Also well said.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:05:03 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

arnold ziffendorfer wrote:

If the "fast auto-focus" admirers only realized how often they reveal their own
lack of talent and skills at photography. Snap-shooters that have been
brainwashed into thinking that they can buy a camera that will magically bestow
them with talent. They need to read Jack & the Beanstalk for hints on how to
find some magic beans while they're at it.

Well now manual focus can work, but it normally does not work well on a
P&S camera. On a P&S you pretty much are stuck with auto-focus, so it
really better work pretty good.

Auto-focus actually does works well on most compact cameras, and any
speed issue is easily overcome with pre-focusing.

The reason manual focus is often omitted from compact cameras is that
most of the target market can't or won't use it. Those that want it can
of course choose a compact camera that has it.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:06:58 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
wrote in
:

arnold ziffendorfer wrote:

Exactly. This is why I see no huge compelling argument to the "my camera focuses
faster than your camera" childishness. I only use the auto-focus on my camera to
quickly find either a nice average to put the subject(s) within the DOF needed
or when I use a hyperfocal setting so nothing is missed. The same as I've done
for the last 40 years in all my cameras, manual or otherwise. Once that is done
I lock it into manual focus so it stays there. Occasionally using the manual
adjustment to touch up on what the camera ADVISED for a starting point. No
different than the advice you get from the exposure readings. How often that is
wrong too. Auto-focus may get me there quicker in most situations but is by no
means the answer to worthwhile photography. I do just as well without it if I
need to. I'll turn it off completely depending on the shooting scenario.
Particularly with macro-photography where it is more of a huge hindrance than
any kind of a help.

If the "fast auto-focus" admirers only realized how often they reveal their own
lack of talent and skills at photography. Snap-shooters that have been
brainwashed into thinking that they can buy a camera that will magically bestow
them with talent. They need to read Jack & the Beanstalk for hints on how to
find some magic beans while they're at it.

Call me old fashioned but at the same time I will take advantage of
current technology.

Back in the old days when my main work tool was an Arri S or BL,
autofocus was never heard of and you planned your "attack" and used your
gut instincts for on-the-fly shooting. ...

I shot action sports for years with manual focus, and I'm still often
doing that even with fast and accurate auto-focus. One of the big
reasons is that even the best auto-focus will all too often fail to
focus on the object I care about, an important issue that tends to be
overlooked by those bragging about auto-focus speed.

I love my FZ10 but know well its limitations. The 12X zoom is acceptable
for most of my routine work but as I mentioned previously in another
post, if I want to get serious, I'll step backwards to my ancient M2.

The FZ10 is now pretty long in the tooth. Try a current FZ-series
camera, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)