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 |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Scott W wrote: John Navas wrote: 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. This is the kind of shot where you need a fairly good focus system and pre-focus simply will not work. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89149499/original The boat is moving fast enough that if you try and pre-focus on it the focus is likely to be off by the time you take the photo. Now I know you can get a photo like this with a non-DSLR since I have taken a lot of them, but it is far harder to do. Scott Not to mention that "auto" focus can be fooled by things such as branches, wires etc that are closer than your intended subject. JT |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:25:21 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message .. . Depends on the implementation. Zoom by wire can be faster, since it's not limited to a 1:1 relationship, it can have multiple speeds It can have mutiple speeds but not an infinite number of instantly variable speeds from very fast to extremely slow, all under the photographer's perfect control. And that's the difference. Two- or three-speed motorized zooms are extremely crude compared to what you can do by hand. Continuously variable speed is in fact quite practical, and the essence of a servo system is that it automatically optimizes acceleration and deceleration to the control setting by the operator. Such a system is anything but crude, which is part of why disk drives are so fast. Yes, with practice you may be able to deal with the shortcomings, just as with any other less-than-ideal tool. But you still don't get the perfect control that you do with a manual zoom. You can actually get better and faster control than manual zoom because manual zoom is limited to 1:1 linkage and human reaction time, and thus zooming speed can never be different from control speed, much less accurately braked. There's a big difference in mass on the control. For one thing, most if not all motorized zooms change focal length by *steps*, not really continuously. The best such systems are already near continuous, and continue to get more precise. With such a lens you can get a step that's "close enough," but that's still well short of the f.l. control you'd have with fully manual zoom. The near continuous systems are comparable in resolution to manual zoom in many cases -- precision is less important for zoom than for focus. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message .. . A sample of two does not a truth make, I must have over 25 digital cameras, at least 15 being compacts of several different makes with motorized zoom. You may say "a sample of 15 does not a truth make" either, but I submit it's enough to give the user a fair idea of how motorized zoom compares with manual zoom. Depends on whether they are best of breed or not. Are you claiming they are? and motorized zoom on the Canon Pro1 is better than on your Nikons. I don't have that model but I do have three other Canons with motorized zoom. There isn't that much difference between any of them, really. ... The Pro1 is different. What the others are is irrelevant. You can't rebut something about A by referring to B. Fly by wire can be much better than manual control, as any qualified commercial or military pilot would tell you. For military or commercial aircraft, yes. There are reasons for that that have absolutely no connection with the operation of zoom lenses. The reasons it's better for aircraft apply to zoom lenses as well, including faster and more precise response, and control damping. The "bump in the learning curve" is when a photographer learns how to use a tool effectively. What matters is the photographer, not the tool. *Both* matter. It's not an either-or question. Some tools are better than others. The difference in mattering between photographer and tool is huge. Good tools do not make good images, they just make good images easier. There's nothing inherently "inferior" about motorized zoom, which can actually be more precise in terms of focus than manual zoom No way, John. Imagine trying to turn an adjustment screw with a motorized screwdriver. Not a valid analogy -- not a servo system. I'm all for automation where it's of benefit, but there are some things it's just better to do manually. Servo systems can easily be better than manual control. -- it's just different, as any good photographer knows. Different and inferior, from the standpoint of speed and accuracy. Actually superior from the standpoint of speed and accuracy. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"John Navas" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:16:58 -0800, "William Graham" wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message . .. Your gut is not correct -- see my prior response on fast servo control. Well, not to worry. What makes you think I'm worried? Auto zooming certainly has its place in remote controlled TV systems and the like. (Moon landers, for example, and cameras mounted on the tops of towers and the like) Power (not auto) zoom also has its place in a multitude of compact cameras. ...I am simply stating the obvious: That the fewer items that you have to put in between the operator and the machine the faster and better will be the operation. Obvious or not, it's simply not true, as I've explained. Then we have to agree to disagree on this....Since the zooming is ultimately controlled by the photographer, how could putting some automatic mechanism between the photographers hand and the lens be any advantage? If the item is too big and heavy to be moved by the strength of the photographers hand, then there is a need for such a device. If the object is at a remote location, so the photographer can't be there, then there is a need for such a device. If returning the zoom position to some precise memorized location is necessary, then there is a reason for such a device.But if the lens is easily controlled, and at the same location as the photographer, and no precise return to a previously memorized location is necessary, then it can only be a disadvantage to interpose some mechanical device between the two. That having been said, then why do they do it? - To me, the reason is obvious. It is a Madison Avenue artifact. First, you convince the public that what you do is best for them, then they will buy whatever it is that you do. This is opposed to first finding out what they want, and then going to the trouble of building it. IOW, it is easier and cheaper to hypnotize your customers than it is to build something that is actually useful to them. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"John Navas" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:33:25 -0800, "William Graham" wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message . .. With all due respect, it's quite possible to have a zoom system with little or no overshoot, especially since zoom is less critical than focus. The experienced user anticipates the desired point when using the control. With distance (not just direction and/or speed) control, the experienced user can even signal a final point almost instantly, with speed of response limited only by motor power. But you have to define the right point to the machine......You can tell the camera that you want any given focal length in millimeters, but then you would have to know what that figure is, and if you don't know that, but are just zooming to get a given object to fill 2/3 of your frame, (for example) then how are you going to translate that into machine language? IOW, even if you know where you want it to be, you have to use "machine speak" in order to tell the camera where that place is. Otherwise, the machine will have to slew slow enough for you to be able to stop it at the right place......I think that, like your mouse, you should be able to adjust the speed in software somewhere to find a point where you are comfortable with it, and this point will vary according to the photographers ability. But the camera can never know in advance exactly how far you intend to go as it does with auto focusing, because the final point can't be defined in machine language. Only a crude system would have to depend on a slow slew rate. It's quite easy to design a fast active servo system with a simple and effective control input. One possible way is the same as manual zoom. Someone experienced with manual zoom moves the zoom control to the approximate desired point by experience, limited by the speed with which elements can be shifted by the manual zoom control. Turn that control into fly by wire and it can be moved into position faster, and sensed continuously in terms of distance and direction by the servo control, which can accelerate and decelerate the zoom motor on an optimum acceleration profile, aided by less mass and mechanics due to the lack of manual zoom connection. At the same time it can automatically compensate for beneficial nonlinearity (undesirable in a manual system) and for focus shift (present in even the best zoom optics). All of which misses the point of what he's saying. Yes, if you knew beforehand that you wanted a lens to zoom to precisely 127.5mm, or any other exact f.l., then yes, you could probably engineer an electronic zooming system that could do that faster than it could be done by hand. But you would have to know the desired f.l. *beforehand*. Human beings don't normally use a zoom lens that way. They really on eye-hand coordination to get *quickly* to the approximate composition, then slow down *quickly* to fine-tune it to the desired result. The brain is involved through the whole process and, with a full-manual zoom, quickly and efficiently controls the whole process. No electronic motorized razzle-dazzle is going to be able to do what the brain-eye-hand system does, and do it with the same speed and efficiency. Such fast active servo systems are now very well-understood (think disk drives, and the difference between slow obsolete steppers and current high-speed servos). Even more sophisticated systems could add control rate sensing, eye movement, object sensing, etc. Moving a mouse is analogous once you're comfortable with it, and are not moving the mouse pointer by watching its entire movement. (You can easily tell the difference between someone experienced with a mouse, and someone still feeling it out.) You rapidly move the mouse to the approximate desired point, and then fine tune from screen position once you get there, aided by multiple speeds and an acceleration profile. Because you're doing it *manually*! Your mouse example is actually a good one. You very quickly, automatically, intuitively, move the mouse to where you want it. You can do this with great speed and accuracy. Now suppose you had to move the mouse not via your own eye-hand coordination, but by using some intermediate motorized device to move the mouse. Do you really think you could ever move the mouse with the same speed and accuracy that way? Neil |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message . .. "John Navas" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:33:25 -0800, "William Graham" wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message ... With all due respect, it's quite possible to have a zoom system with little or no overshoot, especially since zoom is less critical than focus. The experienced user anticipates the desired point when using the control. With distance (not just direction and/or speed) control, the experienced user can even signal a final point almost instantly, with speed of response limited only by motor power. But you have to define the right point to the machine......You can tell the camera that you want any given focal length in millimeters, but then you would have to know what that figure is, and if you don't know that, but are just zooming to get a given object to fill 2/3 of your frame, (for example) then how are you going to translate that into machine language? IOW, even if you know where you want it to be, you have to use "machine speak" in order to tell the camera where that place is. Otherwise, the machine will have to slew slow enough for you to be able to stop it at the right place......I think that, like your mouse, you should be able to adjust the speed in software somewhere to find a point where you are comfortable with it, and this point will vary according to the photographers ability. But the camera can never know in advance exactly how far you intend to go as it does with auto focusing, because the final point can't be defined in machine language. Only a crude system would have to depend on a slow slew rate. It's quite easy to design a fast active servo system with a simple and effective control input. One possible way is the same as manual zoom. Someone experienced with manual zoom moves the zoom control to the approximate desired point by experience, limited by the speed with which elements can be shifted by the manual zoom control. Turn that control into fly by wire and it can be moved into position faster, and sensed continuously in terms of distance and direction by the servo control, which can accelerate and decelerate the zoom motor on an optimum acceleration profile, aided by less mass and mechanics due to the lack of manual zoom connection. At the same time it can automatically compensate for beneficial nonlinearity (undesirable in a manual system) and for focus shift (present in even the best zoom optics). All of which misses the point of what he's saying. Yes, if you knew beforehand that you wanted a lens to zoom to precisely 127.5mm, or any other exact f.l., then yes, you could probably engineer an electronic zooming system that could do that faster than it could be done by hand. But you would have to know the desired f.l. *beforehand*. Human beings don't normally use a zoom lens that way. They really on eye-hand coordination to get *quickly* to the approximate composition, then slow down *quickly* to fine-tune it to the desired result. The brain is involved through the whole process and, with a full-manual zoom, quickly and efficiently controls the whole process. No electronic motorized razzle-dazzle is going to be able to do what the brain-eye-hand system does, and do it with the same speed and efficiency. Such fast active servo systems are now very well-understood (think disk drives, and the difference between slow obsolete steppers and current high-speed servos). Even more sophisticated systems could add control rate sensing, eye movement, object sensing, etc. Moving a mouse is analogous once you're comfortable with it, and are not moving the mouse pointer by watching its entire movement. (You can easily tell the difference between someone experienced with a mouse, and someone still feeling it out.) You rapidly move the mouse to the approximate desired point, and then fine tune from screen position once you get there, aided by multiple speeds and an acceleration profile. Because you're doing it *manually*! Your mouse example is actually a good one. You very quickly, automatically, intuitively, move the mouse to where you want it. You can do this with great speed and accuracy. Now suppose you had to move the mouse not via your own eye-hand coordination, but by using some intermediate motorized device to move the mouse. Do you really think you could ever move the mouse with the same speed and accuracy that way? Neil Well, some powered systems are very good. I remember when power steering for automobiles first came into general use. They were good for parking, but generally didn't give you the same road feel as direct steering mechanisms.....Today they are a lot better. So much so that few people even realize that they are operating a car equipped with them. They feel just like direct drive at speed, and yet enable you to park without hardly any effort at all. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"William Graham" wrote in message . .. "Annika1980" wrote in message ... Calling a Crapasonic Lumix lens a "Leica" is kinda like calling a VW bug a Porsche. And they've been doing that for 30 yers now......They guy who used to live around the corner from me back in the 80's showed up with something he called a "Porsche 914" (If I remember correctly) It was nothing more than a VW with a sporty looking body hung on it. And the pice of junk I saw in a drugstore window on Market street in SF had "MacIntosh Amplifier" on it 20 years before that, and I knew that they had sold their name out to some El Cheapo company then, too. All of my life I have seen good brand names turn to crap when their owners died, and their kids sold out gramps' business to the tin merchants. This is what they mean when they say, "Let the buyer beware"......... Ain't that the truth. I'm old enough to remember when Fisher was a really high-quality brand in hi-fi equipment. Then somebody else bought the name and it began appearing on loads of cheap audio stuff and VCRs. Neil |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
John Navas wrote:
What exists now works just fine, if you learn how to use it effectively. You talk like someone who has completely missed the point. AFAICT no-one is disputing the capabilities of the kind of systems you're describing. But that's not the problem, the problem is the human interface. For tasks like zooming or focussing a lens by hand, you're never going to beat precision grip rotation or sliding with operation by small switches. It's ergonomics, not control systems, that matters in this case. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:52:27 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message .. . It is easily communicated to the camera. (Just because you can't think how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done.) Well, much of my zooming is done for compositional reasons, and I don't know how I could communicate that to the camera.... Servo system based on direction and distance. I zoom until the picture looks good, and sometimes go back and forth several times, until I finally make up my mind. Sometimes I continuously zoom the lens while watching a moving subject approach my location, and then take the picture when it, "looks good" for some abstract reason....Such as the subject looking in my direction, or another object in the background makes for a more interesting picture, so I zoom it out a little to catch that object too....I couldn't communicate these things to a machine very well. Sure you can -- you're doing it now, and what you're doing works just as well if not better with a good servo system. The essence of good servo control is that you tell the servo system what you want, and the servo system does it faster and more accurately than you could do it manually. It's just a matter of control, and how to get enough of it to feel comfortable with what I'm doing. Again, think of a mouse, and how rapidly and accurately you can move a good mouse, because of the benefits of acceleration and variable speed (pointer movement ratio to mouse movement). -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "William Graham" wrote in message . .. "Annika1980" wrote in message ... Calling a Crapasonic Lumix lens a "Leica" is kinda like calling a VW bug a Porsche. And they've been doing that for 30 yers now......They guy who used to live around the corner from me back in the 80's showed up with something he called a "Porsche 914" (If I remember correctly) It was nothing more than a VW with a sporty looking body hung on it. And the pice of junk I saw in a drugstore window on Market street in SF had "MacIntosh Amplifier" on it 20 years before that, and I knew that they had sold their name out to some El Cheapo company then, too. All of my life I have seen good brand names turn to crap when their owners died, and their kids sold out gramps' business to the tin merchants. This is what they mean when they say, "Let the buyer beware"......... Ain't that the truth. I'm old enough to remember when Fisher was a really high-quality brand in hi-fi equipment. Then somebody else bought the name and it began appearing on loads of cheap audio stuff and VCRs. Neil Yeah....Restaurants are the same way....When the cook dies/retires/leaves, the place is no longer what you remember it to be, and you will end up getting one more bad meal to add to your long (for me) list........ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Bill Tuthill | Digital Photography | 1067 | December 29th 07 02:46 AM |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Helmsman3 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 790 | December 26th 07 05:40 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
Film lens on DSLR? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | January 3rd 05 02:45 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |