Resdy to buy

On 06/09/2010 22:55, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:08:23 +0200,
wrote:

On 06/09/2010 12:07, LOL! wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:09:39 +0200,
wrote:

On 06/09/2010 07:41, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:08:54 +0200,
wrote:

On 05/09/2010 01:57, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

Expect to pay about $6500 more (I did the math) in DSLR glass if you want
to obtain just as good image quality with the same zoom range in a DSLR as
already exists in a $300-$350 superzoom.

Show us the math... because I'm far from that and I definitely have
better image quality than I ever had with my superzoom.



Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
about if I do it....

Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x, that extra expense of ~$600 for
the 18-200mm gives you 28mm-320mm, we're still missing the 320mm-560mm range.
We're in for $675+$600=$1275 (camera + upgrade lens) so far. Is it still worth
the expense for lenses that may not beat the detail recorded by the $340 P&S?
How much more for the 320mm-560mm reach of similar or better quality?

We'll need a 200mm-350mm. Hmm... best I can come up with in a search is the
200-400, with an average price of $5,250.

You are talking about the Nikon 200-400 f/4... but given the kind of CA
one can find in the P&S lenses, standard kit lenses are good enough...
see for instance:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/q1...5_CIMG0507.JPG


So, we have the kit 18-55 to which we add the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3
which is a bit above $1000 à Amazon (and is 800mm equivalent on a Canon
body, for those suffering from Freudian zoom envy). Or the kit 18-55,
the Canon 55-250 IS for $230, and a Sigma 120-400 for $900 (or even the
more expensive Canon 100-400 L at $1600). But the 55-250 has very little
use in nature, it's better replaced by a 100mm macro lens ($500).

So:

Canon Rebel XSi+Lens $587
Canon 55-250 IS $230
Sigma 120-400 $900

Total............... $1717

So now we're at $6,525 to possibly match or slightly beat the performance of a
$340 P&S camera. Let's not forget that we might miss some very very important
shots with having to change lenses in time.

And with the P&S we will miss some very important shots because it will
have been slow to start, or not able to AF in time, or has ran out of
batteries (because these little critters are power-hungry). And if you
keep you long zoom on, you don't miss anything because the urgent
pictures are always of far away objects.

Proving you've never used even ONE of them. Everything you just typed is
pure bull****.


We've also added 115.5 oz. for the 200-400mm one, that's an extra 7.22 lbs. Add
in another 19.8 oz. for the 18-200mm one, that's an extra 1.24 lbs. Add in the
weight of the camera, 18.5 oz. (1.16 lbs.) and we're hauling 9.62 lbs. around,
for many miles a day (when you're a pro).

Yes, indeed, the weight& the bulk... but there are plenty of things to
take photos of where you don't have to walk for hours with your gear:
sports events, cities... And the pros doing nature photography do not go
around shooting at random. They want a given picture of a given species,
and it may take a lot more gear than a camera and its (note singular
here) lens.

Do the math again. You forgot to price for equivalent aperture as well, you
stupid troll-****.

Right, let's talk about the apertures. You should have done your
homework (in some cases, it's as simple as reading these off the camera
pictures in the test):

Canon SX20 IS 2.8-5.7
Casio EX-FH25 2.8-4.5
Fujifilm S2500HD 3.1-5.6
Fujifilm HS10 2.8-5.6
Kodak Z981 2.8-5.0
Nikon P100 2.8-5.0
Panasonic DMC-FZ35 2.8-4.4
Pentax X90 2.8-5.0
Samsung HZ25W 2.8-5.0

Many of these lens aren't faster than the zoom lens I take in account
for the DSLR. And none goes to f/4 or below at full bore, so that's at
best one aperture notch for them, while DSLRs have at least two more ISO
usable ISO notches for the same noise level.

We could also, to be completely even, try to find a P&S with equivalent
high-ISO noise levels as a DSLR but then poof! no P&S... I could also
add a $100 50mm f/1.8 lens to my bag and insist that your superzoom
should be at least as open (and sharp...) at its "standard" focal length.

But I found a really curious thing while searching the specs of the Fuji
2500HD. On its official page (at
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/s/finepix_s2500hd/specifications/index.html)
it is said:

Lens: Fujinon 18x optical zoom lens, F3.1 (Wide) - F5.6 (Telephoto)
Apertu Wide: F3.1 / F6.4, Telephoto: F5.6 / F11.0 with ND filter

Than means: when that camera says f/11, it is really something else:
(f/5.6? f/8?) with a grey filter to reduce the light. So trying to get
f/11 isn't going to give any more DOF. Could that be diffraction limited
optics? If this happens in that camera, does it happen under the cover
in the others with equivalent specs (focal length and photosite size)?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and don't forget, you have to have image-stabilization throughout that
whole zoom range as well. And don't forget to add in the 10lb. $259 tripod
you'll REQUIRE to use that DSLR with those 10lb hunks of glass for those
longer focal-lengths. That's 20 lbs. a person has to lug around. You trolls
always like to leave out the important details.

Di you homweork and you'll find that the three lenses in my table are
stabilized, including the Sigma 120-400 (which is usable hand-held).

He who LOLs last, LOLs best

Yes, and NONE of those lenses you picked out will give better performance
than any kit lens. The article at
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
proves that the inexpensive superzoom camera has 2-3 times more resolution
and less CA than that XSi and kit lens. You must equal or BETTER the image
quality throughout the whole range of the superzoom camera to justify that
cost. You've failed to do that. Now grab out that checkbook and be
prepared to write a check for $6,500 if you want to equal or (possibly,
barely) better the superzoom camera.

LOL!!!!!!!!

I'll grab my check book for a SX10IS... but wait... no longer made. Too
bad. So where is the site that compares the SX20 to the Rebel or its
successor?

--
Bertrand

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
On 06/09/2010 22:55, Superzooms Still Win wrote:


Yes, and NONE of those lenses you picked out will give better performance
than any kit lens. The article at
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
proves that the inexpensive superzoom camera has 2-3 times more
resolution
and less CA than that XSi and kit lens. You must equal or BETTER the
image
quality throughout the whole range of the superzoom camera to justify
that
cost. You've failed to do that. Now grab out that checkbook and be
prepared to write a check for $6,500 if you want to equal or (possibly,
barely) better the superzoom camera.

LOL!!!!!!!!

I'll grab my check book for a SX10IS... but wait... no longer made. Too
bad. So where is the site that compares the SX20 to the Rebel or its
successor?



You are not worthy enough to receive that information.

Besides, I have serious reservations about the integrity of the reviews of
that website. I can only comment on what I know, based upon my own
experiences. In his review of the Nikon 18-200mm, no mention is made of the
softness of the lens, nor that it's not a real 200, except when focused at
infinity.


--
Peter

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:19:15 +0200, Numbnuts
wrote:


I'll grab my check book for a SX10IS... but wait... no longer made. Too
bad. So where is the site that compares the SX20 to the Rebel or its
successor?

Not necessary. This was already stated. The SX20 and SX1 (CMOS) both use
the same lens. Apparently you're as adept at reading as you are at choosing
cameras.

Isn't it time for you to go troll someone that won't so easily show you to
be the know-nothing fool TROLL that you are?

I suspect most of you pathetically useless trolls are also masochists. You
can't get enough of being proved to be complete idiots and fools on a
worldwide stage. You thrive on the humiliation.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:54:32 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:
: I suspect most of you pathetically useless trolls are also masochists.
: You can't get enough of being proved to be complete idiots and fools
: on a worldwide stage. You thrive on the humiliation.

Alas, you are quite correct. If we weren't masochists, we wouldn't read one
word of the crap you write.

Bob

On 08/09/2010 02:31, Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:54:32 -0500, Superzooms Still
wrote:
: I suspect most of you pathetically useless trolls are also masochists.
: You can't get enough of being proved to be complete idiots and fools
: on a worldwide stage. You thrive on the humiliation.

Alas, you are quite correct. If we weren't masochists, we wouldn't read one
word of the crap you write.

Bob

If you take it as information, yes. But if you take it as humor/fiction,
it's quite enjoyable. The one with the tripod raccoon almost cost me two
PCs due to coffee/tea spraying (mine and my daughter's).

--
Bertrand

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:08:28 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 08/09/2010 02:31, Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:54:32 -0500, Superzooms Still
wrote:
: I suspect most of you pathetically useless trolls are also masochists.
: You can't get enough of being proved to be complete idiots and fools
: on a worldwide stage. You thrive on the humiliation.

Alas, you are quite correct. If we weren't masochists, we wouldn't read one
word of the crap you write.

Bob

If you take it as information, yes. But if you take it as humor/fiction,
it's quite enjoyable. The one with the tripod raccoon almost cost me two
PCs due to coffee/tea spraying (mine and my daughter's).

I knew I shouldn't have shared that story with useless piles of **** like
you. To begin with, an injured wild animal, coming to me of its own free
will for some help with food. Then on top of that, another animal that was
enjoying the daily (nightly) handout went out of its way to also help that
injured animal. For me to have seen that remarkable display of one species
helping another was something extremely special in the animal kingdom. I
realized while typing it that there's a good chance that that remarkable
and cherishable experience, one that nobody else will probably ever witness
during their whole lives, would be totally lost on wastes of flesh like
you. Yes, you all deserve to perish. I'm certain of that now. You have zero
value, zero worth. Zero reason for existing.

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
On 08/09/2010 02:31, Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:54:32 -0500, Superzooms Still

wrote:
: I suspect most of you pathetically useless trolls are also masochists.
: You can't get enough of being proved to be complete idiots and fools
: on a worldwide stage. You thrive on the humiliation.

Alas, you are quite correct. If we weren't masochists, we wouldn't read
one
word of the crap you write.

Bob

If you take it as information, yes. But if you take it as humor/fiction,
it's quite enjoyable. The one with the tripod raccoon almost cost me two
PCs due to coffee/tea spraying (mine and my daughter's).



That's you own fault. You should know better than to read any Usenet posting
with anything in your mouth, except what nature put there. :-)

--
Peter

On 9/8/2010 7:50 AM, DanP wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:19 pm, wrote:


I'll grab my check book for a SX10IS... but wait... no longer made. Too
bad. So where is the site that compares the SX20 to the Rebel or its
successor?

--
Bertrand

What is the point? You will throw away the camera with the lens
attached to it when you upgrade to another P&S.
Better buy a good SLR lens and keep it.

DanP

They don't have to be thrown out. There are still uses.
I converted an old P&S (Nikon CoolPix 8800) to infra red.

----
Peter

On 08/09/2010 11:28, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:08:28 +0200,
wrote:

On 08/09/2010 02:31, Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:54:32 -0500, Superzooms Still
wrote:
: I suspect most of you pathetically useless trolls are also masochists.
: You can't get enough of being proved to be complete idiots and fools
: on a worldwide stage. You thrive on the humiliation.

Alas, you are quite correct. If we weren't masochists, we wouldn't read one
word of the crap you write.

Bob

If you take it as information, yes. But if you take it as humor/fiction,
it's quite enjoyable. The one with the tripod raccoon almost cost me two
PCs due to coffee/tea spraying (mine and my daughter's).

I knew I shouldn't have shared that story with useless piles of **** like
you. To begin with, an injured wild animal, coming to me of its own free
will for some help with food. Then on top of that, another animal that was
enjoying the daily (nightly) handout went out of its way to also help that
injured animal. For me to have seen that remarkable display of one species
helping another was something extremely special in the animal kingdom. I
realized while typing it that there's a good chance that that remarkable
and cherishable experience, one that nobody else will probably ever witness
during their whole lives, would be totally lost on wastes of flesh like
you. Yes, you all deserve to perish. I'm certain of that now. You have zero
value, zero worth. Zero reason for existing.

Not bad. But this story need a bear. Let's says that a bear barges in
and startles everyone, until they find he carries a First Aid kit he
took with him when he retired from his job of Yellowstone Park ranger.
And then Bambi appears...
--
Bertrand