D30 vs P & S cameras

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
[]
Designing and building a lens that's good over a 10:1 range of focal
lengths is much MUCH harder than designing a lens that's good at one
focal length, or even at a shorter range, maybe 2:1, of focal
lengths. There are more tradeoffs that come into play.

True .... although Panasonic/Leica seem to have produced a high-quality
12:1 image-stablised zoom for their cameras such as the FZ5, FZ7, FZ20
series. Not having to make the lens interchangeable may be a positive
benefit in this case.

David

"David J Taylor" writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
[]
Designing and building a lens that's good over a 10:1 range of focal
lengths is much MUCH harder than designing a lens that's good at one
focal length, or even at a shorter range, maybe 2:1, of focal
lengths. There are more tradeoffs that come into play.

True .... although Panasonic/Leica seem to have produced a high-quality
12:1 image-stablised zoom for their cameras such as the FZ5, FZ7, FZ20
series. Not having to make the lens interchangeable may be a positive
benefit in this case.

The shorter actual focal lengths help a lot, as I understand it.

Also, I wonder if maybe they're already taking advantage of digital
correction of, for example, barrel/pincushion distortion, built into
the camera? That would make it simpler too.

And we have no objective measure of lens quality (that correlates well
with people's liking for the photos the lens produces), so we can also
ask the question "How good is that Leica lens *really*?".

Zeiss made (probably still makes) a very nice 10-100mm f/1.8 lens
that's of *extremely* high quality. It covers at least 16mm; quite
possibly not more (guess where I worked with it). It's a bit heavy
(and large) for still camera use, though, and a bit expensive for most
normal people (I was told the one we used was worth about $25,000, 10
years ago; no idea how correct that was, or if it was perhaps the
*new* price for that model rather than the worth of the actual sample
I had in my hands).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"David J Taylor"
writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
[]
Designing and building a lens that's good over a 10:1 range of focal
lengths is much MUCH harder than designing a lens that's good at one
focal length, or even at a shorter range, maybe 2:1, of focal
lengths. There are more tradeoffs that come into play.

True .... although Panasonic/Leica seem to have produced a
high-quality 12:1 image-stablised zoom for their cameras such as the
FZ5, FZ7, FZ20 series. Not having to make the lens interchangeable
may be a positive benefit in this case.

The shorter actual focal lengths help a lot, as I understand it.

Also, I wonder if maybe they're already taking advantage of digital
correction of, for example, barrel/pincushion distortion, built into
the camera? That would make it simpler too.

And we have no objective measure of lens quality (that correlates well
with people's liking for the photos the lens produces), so we can also
ask the question "How good is that Leica lens *really*?".

Zeiss made (probably still makes) a very nice 10-100mm f/1.8 lens
that's of *extremely* high quality. It covers at least 16mm; quite
possibly not more (guess where I worked with it). It's a bit heavy
(and large) for still camera use, though, and a bit expensive for most
normal people (I was told the one we used was worth about $25,000, 10
years ago; no idea how correct that was, or if it was perhaps the
*new* price for that model rather than the worth of the actual sample
I had in my hands).

I haven't had a good explanation (IIRC) of /why/ shorter focal length
lenses are easier (to me it just says tighter manufacturing tolerances!),
but I'm sure you are right.

There is no digital barrel correction - this is a consumer level camera!

I think the shape of the MTF curve influences people's perception of lens
performance - some like a long tail but others a higher low-frequency
value up to the fall-off point. Adding the sensor and anti-alias filter
complicates things!

I'm certainly not claiming that the Panasonic/Leica lens is anything near
the Zeiss you mention, but it /is/ one of those designs which has hit the
sweet spot and has become a classic.

David

aaJoe wrote:
It looks like the D30 may be the cheapest way of getting into DSLR
photography. If not please suggest other bodies (Canon, Nikon, Pentax,
Minolta, etc).

The cheapest new DSLR in the market is Pentax *ist DL at the moment,
beachcamera (http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/prod...px?sku=PKISTDL)
has the best deal for that to my knowledge.

Pentax *IST DL Digital SLR Body - $405.00

Accessories bundle - $139.99
Includes:
Dane 1 GB SECURE DIGITAL {SD} MEMORY ( A Necessity)
GGI SD USB2.0 Hi-Speed Card Reader
Powerhaus Rapid AC/DC Worldwide (110-240v) Charger w/ 4 AA 2600mAh
NiMH Batteries
Sakar Digital Camera Screen Protectors for LCD's up to 2.2 inches
Tamron Domke F-5XB Shoulder/Belt Bag (Black)
Sakar 3pc. Lens Cleaning Kit

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL Lens for *istD /*istDS Digital SLRs usa
warranty - $86.00

Tamron 28-200 F/3.8-5.6 XR SUPER for PENTAX AF with 6 year Tamron usa
warranty - $129.00

Sakar Digital Concepts 528AF TTL Flash for Pentax and Samsung Digital -
$79.00

That is a quite good setup for a sub-$850 budget.

Now if you have a little more budget, you can go with a D50 body and
Tamron AF 18-200 mm F3.5 - F6.3 Di-II lens. You can find a cheap Nikon
body (refurbished or factory demo, with full warranty) with 1 GB memory
card in either Cameta Camera or Beach Camera, under $480.00.
For the lens, I saw a good offer at
http://www.prestigecamera.com/product~id~tm18200afn.htm
That whole deal, again, is a good setup in my opinion.
I saw a factory-refurbished unopened Rebel XT W/18-55mm, 3-Yr Mack
International Warranty going for about $630.00 in ebay few days back.
If you do not have problem buying refurbished items, you can find
similar deals if you keep an open eye.

Ruman wrote:
aaJoe wrote:
It looks like the D30 may be the cheapest way of getting into DSLR
photography. If not please suggest other bodies (Canon, Nikon, Pentax,
Minolta, etc).

The cheapest new DSLR in the market is Pentax *ist DL at the moment,
beachcamera (http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/prod...px?sku=PKISTDL)
has the best deal for that to my knowledge.

Pentax *IST DL Digital SLR Body - $405.00

Accessories bundle - $139.99
Includes:
Dane 1 GB SECURE DIGITAL {SD} MEMORY ( A Necessity)
GGI SD USB2.0 Hi-Speed Card Reader
Powerhaus Rapid AC/DC Worldwide (110-240v) Charger w/ 4 AA 2600mAh
NiMH Batteries
Sakar Digital Camera Screen Protectors for LCD's up to 2.2 inches
Tamron Domke F-5XB Shoulder/Belt Bag (Black)
Sakar 3pc. Lens Cleaning Kit

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL Lens for *istD /*istDS Digital SLRs usa
warranty - $86.00

Tamron 28-200 F/3.8-5.6 XR SUPER for PENTAX AF with 6 year Tamron usa
warranty - $129.00

Sakar Digital Concepts 528AF TTL Flash for Pentax and Samsung Digital -
$79.00

That is a quite good setup for a sub-$850 budget.

Now if you have a little more budget, you can go with a D50 body and
Tamron AF 18-200 mm F3.5 - F6.3 Di-II lens. You can find a cheap Nikon
body (refurbished or factory demo, with full warranty) with 1 GB memory
card in either Cameta Camera or Beach Camera, under $480.00.
For the lens, I saw a good offer at
http://www.prestigecamera.com/product~id~tm18200afn.htm
That whole deal, again, is a good setup in my opinion.
I saw a factory-refurbished unopened Rebel XT W/18-55mm, 3-Yr Mack
International Warranty going for about $630.00 in ebay few days back.
If you do not have problem buying refurbished items, you can find
similar deals if you keep an open eye.

About the prestige camera deal, I looked up in reseller ratings dot com
- they seemed to be yet another fraud
(http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1995.html)
However digital foto has a good deal for that lens
(http://tinyurl.com/mn8lg).

Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:

" the D30 it takes much
better pictures"

wrong homey.
You could use a 5D, a 3.2mp, Pentax K-1000, or a single use P&S, it all
depends on the photog NOT the camera.

If it all depended on the photographer then he wouldn't need no steekeeng
_camera_.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"David J Taylor" writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"David J Taylor"
writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
[]
Designing and building a lens that's good over a 10:1 range of focal
lengths is much MUCH harder than designing a lens that's good at one
focal length, or even at a shorter range, maybe 2:1, of focal
lengths. There are more tradeoffs that come into play.

True .... although Panasonic/Leica seem to have produced a
high-quality 12:1 image-stablised zoom for their cameras such as the
FZ5, FZ7, FZ20 series. Not having to make the lens interchangeable
may be a positive benefit in this case.

The shorter actual focal lengths help a lot, as I understand it.

Also, I wonder if maybe they're already taking advantage of digital
correction of, for example, barrel/pincushion distortion, built into
the camera? That would make it simpler too.

And we have no objective measure of lens quality (that correlates well
with people's liking for the photos the lens produces), so we can also
ask the question "How good is that Leica lens *really*?".

Zeiss made (probably still makes) a very nice 10-100mm f/1.8 lens
that's of *extremely* high quality. It covers at least 16mm; quite
possibly not more (guess where I worked with it). It's a bit heavy
(and large) for still camera use, though, and a bit expensive for most
normal people (I was told the one we used was worth about $25,000, 10
years ago; no idea how correct that was, or if it was perhaps the
*new* price for that model rather than the worth of the actual sample
I had in my hands).

I haven't had a good explanation (IIRC) of /why/ shorter focal length
lenses are easier (to me it just says tighter manufacturing tolerances!),
but I'm sure you are right.

I think of it as "shorter focal length", but what it *really* is is
"smaller coverage". Hence the many, many zoom lenses for consumer
Super-8 movie cameras in the 1970s with 10:1 or even 12:1 zooms that
were f/1.4 or even f/1.2 and supported "macro focus" down to contact
with the front element. They could do that because they only had to
cover the 8mm frame.

It's harder to make an extremely short or long lens for any given
frame coverage than it is to make a "middle" focal length lens for
that size frame, of course.

Whereas lenses for 4x5 cameras have to not only cover the whole 4x5
frame, but for most users they need to provide significant coverage
*beyond* that to support movements. Hence the very high cost and slow
apertures of 4x5 lenses in comparison to 35mm lenses (it's interesting
how much the useful focal lengths overlap -- common 4x5 lenses are
something like 90mm to 400mm).

There is no digital barrel correction - this is a consumer level camera!

How do we (you) actually know this? There's a lot of image-processing
power in a consumer digital camera.

I think the shape of the MTF curve influences people's perception of lens
performance - some like a long tail but others a higher low-frequency
value up to the fall-off point. Adding the sensor and anti-alias filter
complicates things!

I've never become very familiar with MTF curves, but yes, the general
idea that people actually prefer different choices in lens design is
nearly certain to be true.

I'm certainly not claiming that the Panasonic/Leica lens is anything near
the Zeiss you mention, but it /is/ one of those designs which has hit the
sweet spot and has become a classic.

I certainly hear it's a fine lens; I have at least one friend with
one.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"David J Taylor"
[]
There is no digital barrel correction - this is a consumer level
camera!

How do we (you) actually know this? There's a lot of image-processing
power in a consumer digital camera.

If such correction were present, I am sure that the remaining distortions
which are seen would not, in fact be present.

I think the processing power required for such corrections is still in
excess of the processing power available. Not even any camera in the
expensive DSLR line offers this - yet.

David