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

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:20:46 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote:

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.

Oh look, another off-topic troll from the MOST PROLIFIC RESIDENT-TROLL around!
What were the chances of finding THAT again!

LOL

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:19:24 -0700, Serge Desplanques
wrote in
2007111706192416807%desplanques@volumeen:

On 2007-11-16 23:24:37 -0700, John Navas said:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:26:01 -0700, Serge Desplanques
wrote in
2007111616260116807%desplanques@volumeen:

I have a distant friend of long standing who was bitching about the
difference between modern "Leica" lenses versus the twehty- to
forty-year-old ones he still uses on his RFs (I think he has about six
bodies from the screw mounts up through an R8 digital) ...

With all due respect, I think that's just good old days syndrome --
current Leica lenses consistently score excellent in tests.

I guess I didn't express that very well...the subject came up in an
exchange of emails because I had been disappointed in the lack of
detail and sharpness of my Sony DSC-H2 compared to a Carl Zeiss lens
that I had used a while ago on a studio (view) camera, and Angelo said
he had tried a few "Leica" P&S cameras but had returned every one
because he found the lenses to be "crap" compared to the other Leitz
lenses he owned...not making any claim about modern Zeiss or Leica SLR
lenses, except that buying a Zeiss 85 or 50 for a Nikon D80 would be
overkill and a waste of money compared to a Nikkor 85 or 50 (but that's
a whole 'nother thread)...I do understand what you mean, though, it's
easy to fall into the trap of "backward-vision" as there are lenses
made today that are just as good design-wise, with far better AF, and
zooms have certainly come a long way since the 1970s

To be clear, I'm talking about Leica lenses on Panasonic cameras.

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

On 2007-11-18 17:52:47 -0700, John Navas said:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:54:35 -0700, Serge Desplanques
wrote in
2007111804543575249%desplanques@volumeen:

On 2007-11-17 19:47:47 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:

Nikon, for example, has NEVER used "prime" to mean fixed focal length
in any of its lens literature. Neither have most other camera and lens
manufacturers.

this site
http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/niko...bylens01.ht m
....which
....which

...which
...which is one I consult often, uses 'prime' to mean 'fixed FL' ...

That site isn't Nikon.

well, the rest of what I said:

"...which is one I consult often, uses 'prime' to mean 'fixed FL' as do
many thousands of folks today...terminology changes with usage and I
for one know what someone means if the say 'prime lens'"

....makes it pretty clear that I was not in the least confused about
that site being Nikon, but thanks for trying to invalidate my remarks
anyway, douche bag
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:26:15 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
wrote in
:

Calling a Crapasonic Lumix lens a "Leica" is kinda like calling a VW
bug a Porsche.

I'm not talking about Lumix lenses, I'm talking about Leica lenses.

Panasonic is actually a world class manufacturer.

Got anything substantial, or is flaming all you've got?

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

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:18:59 +0000, Tony Polson wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:10:28 +0000, Tony Polson wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

It seems you are right and my information was incorrect.

Apology accepted.

No apology either warranted or given.

Thanks anyway.

You're welcome.

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

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.

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.

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

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:20:14 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in
:

And of course you realize, given the poster's extremely long history of
complete fabrications, never with any citations, references, or names,
that "industry people I respect" does not mean that he actually knows,
or has talked to, anyone remotely connected to the industry in question.

That's actually you, Steven.

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

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:46:57 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:

Auto-focus actually does works well on most compact cameras, and an
speed issue is easily overcome with pre-focusing.

The reason manual focus is often omitted from compact cameras is that
most of the target market can't or won't use it. Those that want it can
of course choose a compact camera that has it.

This is the kind of shot where you need a fairly good focus system and
pre-focus simply will not work.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89149499/original

The boat is moving fast enough that if you try and pre-focus on it the
focus is likely to be off by the time you take the photo.

I've taken lots of much faster action photographs with pre-focus and
with manual focus.

Now I know you can get a photo like this with a non-DSLR since I have
taken a lot of them, but it is far harder to do.

Not for me.

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

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.

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

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:02:44 -0700, Serge Desplanques
wrote in
2007111819024416807%desplanques@volumeen:

that site being Nikon, but thanks for trying to invalidate my remarks
anyway, douche bag

Thanks for letting me know I needn't take anything you say seriously.

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