Superzoom P&S's may have long "effective" focal lengths, but....

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
focal length can. These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. On top of that, the
images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. All of which reduces
detail.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35767510

Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
mirror lens. About a 500mm "equivalent."

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original

And here's where a 20x superzoom lens' resolution and CA performance EASILY
beats an easy to design and build 3X DSLR lens.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

Your point?

Oh that's right. You NEVER have one.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:09:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Jul 10, 9:43*pm, Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:39:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

They do NOT provide the kind of detail a DSLR with the same equivalent
focal length can. *These moon shots through a Panasonic FZ-50 prove
it, and it was one of the better superzooms made. *On top of that, the
images are washed out, and off-colour, plus they show considerable
chromatic aberration and lack of contrast. *All of which reduces
detail.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=35767510

Here's a shot of a bird's head with an APS sensor camera and a 350mm
mirror lens. *About a 500mm "equivalent."

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/99552245/original

And here's where a 20x superzoom lens' resolution and CA performance EASILY
beats an easy to design and build 3X DSLR lens.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...IS/outdoor_res...

Your point?

Oh that's right. You NEVER have one.

November 2008
Yes, that original Canon 18-55mm was dog. Not equaled in crumminess
until the Sony 18-70mm showed up. But they are hardly representative
of good quality kit lenses.

But you forgot to compare the resolution of that fixed-focal-length
one-aperture-setting-only mirror lens with all focal-lengths from 35 to
420mm and apertures from f/2.8 to f/11 in the superzoom camera. How many
mirror lenses would you have to haul around for that much focal-length
reach and aperture range in all of them? How much would they cost? How
large and sturdy of a camera bag to try to haul it all? Is that the largest
aperture you can get at 500mm? F/5.6 isn't even enough aperture to allow
shutter speeds fast enough freeze the image of someone walking during
sunset let alone any other more demanding wildlife photography. Oh, and if
you notice, the gull's image is downsized. The moon images were shot at
1/250 second, the gull at 1/3200 second. Even with all the technique
advantages given to the mirror lens' image there's more pixel level details
in the cropped-only 1:1 superzoom's moon images than in the gull image,
even in its downsized version, where pixel-level details should have
markedly increased, not reduced. Didn't you notice that?

Could you find any two more totally disparate lens and shooting conditions
to compare to try to prove something and yet totally fail even more at
doing so? I don't think it possible.

At least you got one of your fellow pretend-photographer trolls to out
himself again by agreeing with you. He never even realized he was agreeing
to your having provided perfect proof that you are 100% wrong and a fool.
All that you managed to accomplish is make complete fools of both of you.