Nikon AF Long Lens under $9,000 !! s

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:32:49 -0500, wrote in
:

If you want to make your point John, why not post the original resolution ?

I made my point.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:52:29 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, John Navas
wrote in
:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote in :

I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
surfing, and wildlife photography.

I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.

Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
reasonable cost?

With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

Sample images:
* http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg
* http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg
* http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg

You've succeeded in proving your point *if* your point is that images
from a bridge camera like an FZ8 or FZ20 (not a true P&S, but a bridge
camera that loses the main advantage of a P&S, pocket portability) can
look as good as a DSLR if it was taken in nice bright sunshine and
scaled down to 800x600 and if you don't care about making the image
really look better by blurring the background, which would have been
nice in the bird pictures. As a substitute for what a D3 can do,
you've proven nothing. But congrats anyway.

Steve

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:47:20 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

Sample images:
* http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg
* http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg
* http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg

You've succeeded in proving your point *if* your point is that images
from a bridge camera like an FZ8 or FZ20 (not a true P&S, but a bridge
camera that loses the main advantage of a P&S, pocket portability) can

Fits nicely in my jacket pocket.

look as good as a DSLR if it was taken in nice bright sunshine and
scaled down to 800x600 and if you don't care about making the image
really look better by blurring the background, which would have been
nice in the bird pictures. As a substitute for what a D3 can do,
you've proven nothing. But congrats anyway.

You must feel very very threatened.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:59:28 -0500, wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:45:06 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:32:49 -0500, wrote in
:

If you want to make your point John, why not post the original resolution ?

I made my point.

Which is you're point is lacking.. I posted full frame dslr photos for
comparison..

I'm not interested in a meaningless and pointless pixel-peeping ****ing
contest, or in having my images stolen -- sorry.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:15:05 -0500, wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:06:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
wrote:

I'm not interested in a meaningless and pointless pixel-peeping ****ing
contest, or in having my images stolen -- sorry.

Then you are just ****ing into the wind.

Thank you for proving my point.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

On 2009-01-01, John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:47:20 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

Sample images:
* http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg
* http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg
* http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg

look as good as a DSLR if it was taken in nice bright sunshine and
scaled down to 800x600 and if you don't care about making the image
really look better by blurring the background, which would have been
nice in the bird pictures. As a substitute for what a D3 can do,
you've proven nothing. But congrats anyway.

You must feel very very threatened.


Threatened? Perhaps he should put you in his killfile so he won't feel
threatened by your righteous crusading.

Still waiting for you to put up or shut up. Terms previously posted.

--
savvo orig. invib. man

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:57:37 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:47:20 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

Sample images:
* http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg
* http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg
* http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg

You've succeeded in proving your point *if* your point is that images
from a bridge camera like an FZ8 or FZ20 (not a true P&S, but a bridge
camera that loses the main advantage of a P&S, pocket portability) can

Fits nicely in my jacket pocket.

Here, you're rationalizing your purchase. You must feel really
threatened. Hell, my DSLR fits in my jacket pocket too. But I don't
always wear a jacket.

look as good as a DSLR if it was taken in nice bright sunshine and
scaled down to 800x600 and if you don't care about making the image
really look better by blurring the background, which would have been
nice in the bird pictures. As a substitute for what a D3 can do,
you've proven nothing. But congrats anyway.

You must feel very very threatened.

Why would I feel threatened? I have 2 DSLRs *and* 3 digital P&Ss so I
know what each is capable of doing and use the one suited for the job
at hand. You're the one who seems to feel threatened. At least
that's what it looks like when you try to justify your pseudo P&S
purchase by claiming that it somehow can replace a D3 in a
professional photographer's arsenal.

Steve

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:41:56 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:57:37 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

Fits nicely in my jacket pocket.

Here, you're rationalizing your purchase. You must feel really
threatened. Hell, my DSLR fits in my jacket pocket too. But I don't
always wear a jacket.

If your dSLR with a 36-432 mm f/2.8 zoom lens fits in your jacket
pocket, then you and your jacket must be WAY bigger than me.

You are too funny!

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:06:09 -0800, John Navas
wrote Re Nikon AF Long Lens under
$9,000 !! s:

I'm not interested in a meaningless and pointless pixel-peeping ****ing
contest, or in having my images stolen -- sorry.

There seems to be a lot of pixel-envy in this NG. A lot of people here
seem to think that the quality of their images is directly related to
the number of pixels. Well, that's understandable. If they can't
produce an artistic image, at least the can produce one with a lot of
pixels saying: "... this camera cost so much $$ the images must be
good.."

What a bunch of uncreative morons.

Well put, Caesar. I could give a rip about pixel count.

All I wanted was recommendation on a lens...




"Caesar Romano" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:06:09 -0800, John Navas
wrote Re Nikon AF Long Lens under
$9,000 !! s:

I'm not interested in a meaningless and pointless pixel-peeping ****ing
contest, or in having my images stolen -- sorry.

There seems to be a lot of pixel-envy in this NG. A lot of people here
seem to think that the quality of their images is directly related to
the number of pixels. Well, that's understandable. If they can't
produce an artistic image, at least the can produce one with a lot of
pixels saying: "... this camera cost so much $$ the images must be
good.."

What a bunch of uncreative morons.