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

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:31:31 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .

What seems to be ****ing people off are differing points of view, which
they try to dismiss as trolling.

John, you're not a troll. But the only guy in the NG you agree with, the
jerk who keeps posting under different names, is a troll.

Cut the crap. He's far from the only guy I agree with.

I'm sure you have
actually persuaded yourself that your Panasonic motor-zoom wonder is equal
or superior to a DSLR in all respects.

I know from professional experience that servo systems can and do
outperform mechanical systems. And I didn't say "all respect" -- that's
another red herring -- all systems have pros and cons, and I've
mentioned real cons of servo systems, notably battery life.

It's sad that some DSLR (large sensor) fans are so threatened on

Does it really make you feel better to dismiss people as "threatened" who
simply state the obvious superiority of a manual zoom in terms of ease of
use, speed and accuracy? That's what is called projection, John.

Cut the crap. There's no "obvious superiority" and I feel neither
better nor worse.

equipment and technique that they feel the need to try to belittle and
put down smaller cameras and the people who use them.

Again, one does not "belittle and put down" a different type of camera
simply by pointing that it is at a disadvantage compared to a DSLR in
certain respects.

They belittle it when they belittle it.

But your persistence in claiming that a motorized zoom is as good (good =
user friendly, fast and accurate) as a manual zoom is just silly.

Your continuing insults are offensive.

You might
as well be claiming that a pickup truck is as good as a Ferrari for road
racing.

You are the one claiming a pickup truck is as good as a Ferrari for road
racing.

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

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:55:42 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:15:13 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

Who even bothers to read your whole posts? The first paragraph is the
tip-off that it's just more nonsense from Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088; a quick
check of the header (if that's even necessary) and there's no reason to
read
further.

Fair enough, but it then makes no sense to respond, especially with just
a few repetitive lines at the end of a very long quote, and especially
when the post wasn't directed at you.

A "very long quote"? It was only a few lines. What, are you on dial-up with
a 300bps modem?

It's been longer than that several times, and I'm tired of scrolling
down for no good reason. Have you no respect for others?

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

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:58:20 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .

That's a bunch of crap, and you know it. I actually made it clear from
the beginning that no such camera existed.

I don't think so. ...

That's a bunch of crap too. And you know it.

If it's that clear to you, then why do you keep taking
offense at anyone who points out the superiority of the manual zoom to
push-button zoom on existing cameras?

I'm doing no such thing. And you know it.

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

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm John Navas wrote:

Your claim flies in the face of the name of the group -- f/64

You are mistaken. At the time the group was formed (1932)
terms like "F/64 men" and "F/64 school" were understood to
apply to people who insisted on sharp definition - and had nothing
to do with depth of field.

This is explained in:
R. Child Bayley. _The_Complete_Photographer_. 10th ed. Methuen 1932. p.70.

According to R. Child Bayley, the term "F64 men" comes from a time
when rapid rectilinear lenses were the best available and those lenses
gave the best definition at f/64.

The manifesto of Group f/64 says:

The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number
of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent
the qualities of clearness and definition of the photographic
image which is an important element in the work of members of this Group.

Note that "It signifies ... clearness and definition" this agrees
perfectly with R. Child Bayley's understanding of "f/64 men".

So in 1932, f/64 still had its old connotation of high definition,
rather than high depth of field in the naming of the group.

Peter.
--

Neil, he's playing you like a drum. There is no way left for you to defeat
him. Now you're starting to look sad. Give it up for your own sake. Oh, and
I agree with everything you have said and admire your tenacity.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:25:16 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote in :

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm John Navas wrote:

Your claim flies in the face of the name of the group -- f/64

You are mistaken. ...

https://metropolitanmuseum.org/toah/hd/f64/hd_f64.htm

The group's effort to present the camera's "vision" as clearly as
possible included advocating the use of aperture f/64 in order to
provide the greatest depth of field, thus allowing for the largest
percentage of the picture to be in sharp focus ...

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9038225/Group-f64

The name of the group is taken from a setting of a camera diaphragm
aperture that gives particularly good resolution and depth of field.

http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/07/f64.html

Group f/64 included Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham, and Edward Weston
and took its name from the aperture f/64, because of the high
depth-of-field the tiny aperture implies. In the minds of group
members, this great depth-of-field implied a certain style of
photography.

http://www.scottnicholsgallery.com/artists/group-f64/

They believed that their "straight photography" was true to the
medium, and their aesthetic emphasized clarity of image, maximum
depth of field, sharp focus, and attention to detail and texture.

http://www.kcbx.net/~mhd/1intro/f64.htm

Emphasis was placed on "pure" photography, sharp images, maximum
depth-of-field, smooth glossy printing paper, emphasizing the unique
qualities of the photographic process. The significance of the name
lies in the fact that f/64 is the smallest aperture on the lens of a
large-format camera and therefore provides the greatest
depth-of-field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64

The term f/64 refers to the smallest aperture setting on a large
format camera, which secures maximum depth of field, rendering a
photograph evenly sharp from foreground to background.

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

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:17:11 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:

The zoom range is nice, but to get it, at that price, you give up a lot
of image quality.

It delivers excellent image quality,

Here is the FZ8 at the max tele setting, pretty bad.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...FZ8hMULTIT.HTM

That appears to be an anomaly -- mine doesn't exhibit that problem -- CA
is corrected by the onboard processor. That review states:

* Good color and detail reproduction
* Great print quality
* Sharp corners at wide angle
* Very good resolution for a 7-megapixel sensor

Another take:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page17.asp

* Excellent resolution & sharp results
* Good, natural color and excellent exposure
* Superb 12x optical zoom
* Effective image stabilization

As I wrote, nothing in the 35 mm world even comes close.

There are cases where having the zoom range would be more important then
image quality, but there is no free lunch.

It's part of the payoff from the smaller sensor.

At any given FL there is going to be a lens for my camera that does far
better then yours, but then I have to change lenses more.

Actually no better, if even close, and you may well not have it at all.
It's a bit unrealistic to assume infinite lenses.

And I have to
decide on this kind of trade off whenever I shoot, do I use my 70-300
and get pretty good images or do I use my 300mm f/4, depends on what I
am shooting.

You'll be shooting with 3 stops less lens speed for optimum lens
performance.

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

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:31:31 -0800 (PST), Scott W
wrote in
:
but the fact is
also true that he took thousands of images of people,
and often used shallow depth of field to emphasize parts
of an image.

Examples?

http://starbulletin.com/2006/09/03/features/art1d.jpg

That's one. A long way from "often".

John, you *really* need to research these topics before
making snide remarks. That particular photograph is
fairly famous as a *classic* example of portraiture by
Ansel Adams.

Here's a better copy,

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/ppprs/00000/00007v.jpg

In 1943 Adams photographed Japanese-Americans interned
in the Manzanar Relocation Center. Fabulous
photography, and the cited URL is a typical example of a
Japanese-American posed by Adams. Adams apparently
found nurse Aiko Hamaguchi an interesting subject,
because (as he did with many others) he photographed her
in several poses.

That particular portrait is typical of a style that
Adams described at least to some extent. It was a
documentary, so he wanted the people looking directly at
the camera. Outdoors he wanted only natural light.
There is *nothing* in that photograph that was haphazard
or one of a kind (other than the "instant" of Miss
Hamaguchi's soal that Adams caught on film).

Typical of the portraits are full head shots. To avoid
anything distracting the viewer's attention, he usually
cropped very closely, showing the neck but not the full
shoulders. He posed against backgrounds without any
distracting features if possible. (There were
exceptions to all of these "rules", but most of the
portraits followed this style.)

He used a Graflex 4x5 with a 300mm "process lens". I'm
not sure, but assume that had a maximum aperture of f/9
and was optimized to be sharpest at f/22. Hence it
should be obvious that while Adams desired the specific
effects of a shallow depth of field, the technology he
could bring to bear was different than one would have
with a DSLR today.

Indeed, interestingly enough it was perhaps more similar
to your situation with a P&S, with its limited
flexibility in that area.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:27:41 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:31:31 -0800 (PST), Scott W
wrote in
:
but the fact is
also true that he took thousands of images of people,
and often used shallow depth of field to emphasize parts
of an image.

Examples?

http://starbulletin.com/2006/09/03/features/art1d.jpg

That's one. A long way from "often".

John, you *really* need to research these topics before
making snide remarks.

I've dug through lots of his photographs, and I've not noticed "often"
among "thousands", which is why I wrote that simple statement of fact.
You're too quick to take offense. Or is it automatically a snide remark
when you're uncomfortable with the content?

That particular photograph is
fairly famous as a *classic* example of portraiture by
Ansel Adams.

Classic as in one, or classic as in many? Was "often" among "thousands"
a guess, hyperbole, or accurate? If indeed accurate, then it should
presumably be easy to come up with lots more, instead of just talking
about this one.

Indeed, interestingly enough it was perhaps more similar
to your situation with a P&S, with its limited
flexibility in that area.

Not P&S and not limited in that area. Cut the crap.

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

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:27:41 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:31:31 -0800 (PST), Scott W
wrote in
:
but the fact is
also true that he took thousands of images of people,
and often used shallow depth of field to emphasize parts
of an image.

Examples?

http://starbulletin.com/2006/09/03/features/art1d.jpg

That's one. A long way from "often".

John, you *really* need to research these topics before
making snide remarks.

I've dug through lots of his photographs, and I've not noticed "often"
among "thousands", which is why I wrote that simple statement of fact.
You're too quick to take offense. Or is it automatically a snide remark
when you're uncomfortable with the content?

That particular photograph is
fairly famous as a *classic* example of portraiture by
Ansel Adams.

Classic as in one, or classic as in many? Was "often" among "thousands"
a guess, hyperbole, or accurate? If indeed accurate, then it should
presumably be easy to come up with lots more, instead of just talking
about this one.

Don't act like you are 11 years old and didn't
understand what was said John. I gave you a place to
start from (the time, the location, and even a current
pointer into the Libarary of Congress for the collection
of images that one is part of). If you can't find
several other portraits by Adams that follow the exact
same style as the more famous classic example that has
been cited, that's *your* problem.

Indeed, interestingly enough it was perhaps more similar
to your situation with a P&S, with its limited
flexibility in that area.

Not P&S and not limited in that area. Cut the crap.

You ran out of squirming/weaseling room on this
argument. Better luck next time.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)