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

"Chester D" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:49:08 -1000, Scott W wrote:

John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:50:09 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:

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.
I did without auto-focus for a long time, with a Nikon SLR, but then it
had a nice focus ring and a fast f/1.4 lens and a really nice focus
screen. I can do manual focus with my DSLR fairly well but the focus
screen is no where near as good as my old Nikon. A point and shoot, I
have not seen one yet that is worth anything in manual focus, not if
you
need to focus in less then a second.

My FZ8 has manual focus image magnification that beats the hell out of
manual focusing with any optical viewfinder.


But if you are pushing buttons to zoom then it is a pain anyway. great
if you are focusing on a static object but not so good if it is moving
towards or away from you.

Scott

Then I use the manual zoom-ring on some of my P&S cameras,

Manual zoom is great, especially if it's really manual zoom and not just a
zoom ring that controls zoom by wire. It's probably the best thing about the
old Minolta Dimage 7 family of cameras, a few of which I still own.


but often I find that
the electronic zoom on my other P&S cameras as just as good for this.

If by "electronic zoom" you mean zoom by push button, there's no way that's
anywhere near as fast or accurate as a real manual zoom. I love my Nikon
Coolpixes, and can live with the rocker switch zoom but it's a poor
substitute for manual. I can understand why they had to do it that way for
the sake of compactness (even on my 8700 and 8800 which are not so compact),
but that doesn't make me like it any better.


Mostly
learned by using the zoom-toggle buttons on my camera that has the
manual-zoom
ring plus toggle-switch zoom.

So you're talking about a camera with two ways of controlling it but still
only zoom by wire, not a real manual zoom. It's just not the same thing.


So much depends on how quickly and how well the
photographer can learn to use new tools to their best advantages. Clearly
some
of them are still stuck in the last-century and can't get past that bump
in
their learning curve that will take them into this century.

guffaw!

There is no "bump in the learning curve" that when you "get past" suddenly
converts an inferior system into an equally good one. Power zoom, however
accomplished, is simply more awkward, slower and miuch less precise than
manual zoom. Anyone who's used both knows this.

Neil

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:40:13 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in :

"John Navas" wrote in message
. ..

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.

Cheap shot #1. "Fixed focal length" is now the commonly accepted
definition of "prime" lens -- see Wikipedia for a good discussion.

By all means, see Wikipedia -- and read the "Correct meaning of the term"
section.

Again: Nikon does not call fixed focal length lenses "prime" in any of their
literature. They would, if that's what it meant. Zeiss and Schneider make
cine/video lenses of *variable* focal length and catalog them as "variable
primes."

The meaning of "prime lens" has not changed. Only people who pick up their
terminology from popular but ignorant jargon in newsgroups (or other sources
that repeat it) think it means fixed focal length. Unfortunately that's a
lot of people -- especially in the newsgroups, obviously.


And she does not say that the lens was "designed by Leica" or that "Leica
monitors the quality control." She says, "Made in Japan by Panasonic to
Leica's specifications," which is all but meaningless.

Cheap shot #2. It's not meaningless, and these lenses do measure up to
Leica optical and quality standards.

It's meaningless. What *exactly* does she mean by it? What "Leica
specifications" does Panasonic make the lens to? Filter thread size?

Again: I am not knocking Panasonic in the least, or the quality of their
lenses. Again: I *own* a Panasonic FZ15 and the lens is great. I'm just
saying "Made in Japan by Panasonic to Leica's specifications" doesn't really
tell you anything. Panasonic's business arrangement with Leitz obviously is
such that they can use the Leica name on their lenses, which is a big plus
in the marketplace. Beyond that, what? It's been said here that the lenses
are of Panasonic design, to which Leitz suggested some modifications. That
sounds reasonable, and it hardly makes it what most people would consider a
Leica lens.

It's like Kodak using "Schneider Kreuznach" lenses on their cameras. How
much do you think Schneider actually has to do with the manufacture of those
lenses?

Neil

"GrangerD" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:44:48 -0500, "Neil Harrington"

wrote:


"SMS ???. ?" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Also there are several obvious similarities in all his message headers
(for
just one example, his newsreader is Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088), which he
clearly doesn't know how to change. He can only do the easy stuff that
most
ten-year-olds can do.

Neil


Oh look, the RESIDENT TROLLS are still whining that their trolling tactics
can't
be so easily defeated (nor so easily exposed). I can use ANY nntp server
on the
planet with ANY headers if I wanted to.

Your header still says Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088. Jump up and down and flap
your lip all you like, you're too ignorant to do anything but the easy stuff
that most ten-year-olds can do, as I said.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:14:27 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"Chester D" wrote in message
.. .

but often I find that
the electronic zoom on my other P&S cameras as just as good for this.

If by "electronic zoom" you mean zoom by push button, there's no way that's
anywhere near as fast or accurate as a real manual zoom. I love my Nikon
Coolpixes, and can live with the rocker switch zoom but it's a poor
substitute for manual. I can understand why they had to do it that way for
the sake of compactness (even on my 8700 and 8800 which are not so compact),
but that doesn't make me like it any better.

A sample of two does not a truth make, and motorized zoom on the Canon
Pro1 is better than on your Nikons. Fly by wire can be much better than
manual control, as any qualified commercial or military pilot would tell
you.

So much depends on how quickly and how well the
photographer can learn to use new tools to their best advantages. Clearly
some
of them are still stuck in the last-century and can't get past that bump
in
their learning curve that will take them into this century.

guffaw!

There is no "bump in the learning curve" that when you "get past" suddenly
converts an inferior system into an equally good one.

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.

Power zoom, however
accomplished, is simply more awkward, slower and miuch less precise than
manual zoom. Anyone who's used both knows this.

There's nothing inherently "inferior" about motorized zoom, which can
actually be more precise in terms of focus than manual zoom -- it's just
different, as any good photographer knows.

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

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:37:57 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:40:13 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in :

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.

Cheap shot #1. "Fixed focal length" is now the commonly accepted
definition of "prime" lens -- see Wikipedia for a good discussion.

By all means, see Wikipedia --

In film and photography, a prime lens is a photographic lens whose
focal length is fixed, as opposed to a zoom lens, which has a
variable focal length.

Case closed.

and read the "Correct meaning of the term"
section.

That day has long since passed. The majority of authorities now use
"prime" to mean "fixed focal length". Case in point: "Visual Effects in
A Digital World: A Comprehensive Glossary of over 7,000 Visual Effects
Terms" by Karen E. Goulekas (ISBN 0122937856).

Regardless, none of this changes the fact that your comment was a cheap
shot that had zero bearing on the credibility of the source.

And she does not say that the lens was "designed by Leica" or that "Leica
monitors the quality control." She says, "Made in Japan by Panasonic to
Leica's specifications," which is all but meaningless.

Cheap shot #2. It's not meaningless, and these lenses do measure up to
Leica optical and quality standards.

It's meaningless. What *exactly* does she mean by it? What "Leica
specifications" does Panasonic make the lens to? Filter thread size?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070624160310/http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/popup/behind_the_scenes/vol3.html
or http://tinyurl.com/3ble8x
In short:
* Lumix Leica lenses are designed by Panasonic
* Designs are reviewed and accepted or rejected by Leica
* Leica demands Leica level performance for acceptance
* Leica specifies manufacturing quality control
* Lumix Leica lenses exhibit Leica level performance

Again: I am not knocking Panasonic in the least, or the quality of their
lenses. Again: I *own* a Panasonic FZ15 and the lens is great. I'm just
saying "Made in Japan by Panasonic to Leica's specifications" doesn't really
tell you anything. Panasonic's business arrangement with Leitz obviously is
such that they can use the Leica name on their lenses, which is a big plus
in the marketplace. Beyond that, what?

Why not find out instead of attacking others?

It's been said here that the lenses
are of Panasonic design, to which Leitz suggested some modifications. That
sounds reasonable, and it hardly makes it what most people would consider a
Leica lens.

I disagree.

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

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:43:44 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"GrangerD" wrote in message
.. .

Oh look, the RESIDENT TROLLS are still whining that their trolling tactics
can't
be so easily defeated (nor so easily exposed). I can use ANY nntp server
on the
planet with ANY headers if I wanted to.

Your header still says Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088. Jump up and down and flap
your lip all you like, you're too ignorant to do anything but the easy stuff
that most ten-year-olds can do, as I said.

That's meaningless -- lots of people use that news client.

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

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
On 2007-11-19, Pboud wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Pboud wrote:
dj_nme wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
Serge Desplanques wrote
snip
and I for one know what someone means if the say 'prime lens'

You think you do, but if you see it used correctly you will probably
misunderstand what is being said. That's the problem.

Is the definition for "prime lens" which you use the following?
A lens with a focal length equal to the diagonal length of the
recording media (ie: for a full-frame 35mm camera, a "prime lens" has
a focal length of 43mm).
Please Mr Harrington, define your version of "prime lens".
Actually, the currently popular definition is that of a lens with a
single focal length.. i.e. not a zoom.

Now.. I state plainly that this is the *current* popular usage of the
'prime lens' definition. As to whether there is a nice, mathematical
definition, that's another story.

I think the term also sometimes refers to 'premium' lenses, when talking
about 'prime glass'.
That would also be a valid usage of the term, in current discussions..

As to what the classic definition is for a full-frame 35mm camera, I
leave that to the mathematical wizards.

While they're at it, maybe they could work out what it is for standard
1.5 DSLRs as well.. It might come in handy.

I haven't heard 'prime' used in that sense, that would be what I and
others call a 'standard' or 'normal' lens. It doesn't take much
mathematical wizardry, just a bit of GCSE pythagoras, to tell us that a
35mm lens is close enough to 'normal' on APS, just as 50mm is close enough
on 35mm.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg

"Neil Harrington" wrote:

It's been said here that the lenses
are of Panasonic design, to which Leitz suggested some modifications.


That was stated on one of the Leica online forums by a representative
of Leica (Solms).


That
sounds reasonable, and it hardly makes it what most people would consider a
Leica lens.


Agree 100%. It isn't a bad lens. It appears sharp and it is quite
good at resisting flare. But it has quite strong rectilinear
distortion and there is noticeable colour fringing. It is probably in
the top 10% of zoom lenses fitted to digital point and shoot cameras,
but that is not saying much.


It's like Kodak using "Schneider Kreuznach" lenses on their cameras. How
much do you think Schneider actually has to do with the manufacture of those
lenses?


None.

Samsung has partial rights to the Schneider Kreuznach brand for
limited use on digital point and shoot cameras, but it is no
particular indicator of quality. The brand is also applied to the kit
lenses for the Samsung DSLRs which are of Pentax DA origin, although
almost certainly not Pentax-made.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:14:27 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

There is no "bump in the learning curve" that when you "get past" suddenly
converts an inferior system into an equally good one. Power zoom, however
accomplished, is simply more awkward, slower and miuch less precise than
manual zoom. Anyone who's used both knows this.

Neil

Anyone who is crippled in their abilities to adapt to new ways and learn to use
options in new ways, and doesn't have the talent to do either, might "know
this". Think about it, why would I say these things if I have been using SLRs
for the previous non-digital 30 years? You're an idiot, a talentless and
unskilled idiot at that.

'Nuff said. You've proved enough about yourself to satisfy any further curiosity
about anything else you might ever say.

In rec.photo.digital Tony Polson wrote:

There are far better digital point and shoot cameras than the
Panasonic from the point of view of noise. Notable examples include
the FujiFilm Finepix F series, which produce images that could almost
pass for those from a DSLR.

Tony, maybe you left off "even at high ISO" from your Finepix F comparison,
but it seems to me the Canon G7 outperforms the Rebel 300D with kit lens
by a rather wide margin, at normal (daylight) ISO values.

"G7 better than Rebel DSLR?"
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NGzi

Perhaps the key here is "kit lens." It appears you don't use (any?)
Canon lenses, which are reportedly poor at wide angles.