If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"SMS ???. ?" wrote in message ... grant_jiles wrote: About as pathetic as a person with that much time on their hands to compile a list like that. No compiling at all. Just dumping the contents of my Thunderbird filter list for rec.photo.digital. It may help others in setting up their kill files without having to add the e-mail addresses individually. With a good filter list, newsgroups becomes much more readable and more useful. It actually saves time by not having to wade through hundreds of posts by know-it-alls that know nothing. Add one more of course, ". 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. Neil |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm arnold ziffendorfer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:42:40 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin wrote: But their definition of "zoom lens" is just wrong. There are many lenses of adjustable focal length which are not zoom lenses. For instance, a front cell focussing lens is focussed by changing the focal length, and would not be called a zoom lens by anyone. A zoom lens is one which allows the focal length to be changed and remains in focus when the focal length is adjusted. Peter. That's a parfocal zoom-lens. A zoom-lens need not be parfocal to be called a zoom-lens. OK. How would you class a front cell focussing triplet? It is designed to be variable in focal length in order to focus. I sure wouldn't call it a zoom. How would you class a variable focal length Dallmeyer Adon? It can adjust to a pretty huge range of focal lengths for different magnifications, but not only do you have to refocus it, you have to calculate the aperture each time you change it. I would hardly call it a "zoom"; it is a fairly difficult lens to use. Though called parfocal zoom-lenses none are truly parfocal. Any zoom lens worthy of the name should be close enough that you can get away without refocussing. Peter. -- |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
arnold ziffendorfer wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:42:40 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin wrote: In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Wilba wrote: So you're saying that the entire site should not be taken seriously? Their dictionary definition of "Prime lens" is "A lens with a fixed focal length" (http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Primelens). What's the right definition? Some pedants insist that "prime lens" is best left as the term for the main lens when using a supplementary lens. They may have a point, but it is a widely used piece of slang and rarely causes confusion. But their definition of "zoom lens" is just wrong. There are many lenses of adjustable focal length which are not zoom lenses. For instance, a front cell focussing lens is focussed by changing the focal length, and would not be called a zoom lens by anyone. A zoom lens is one which allows the focal length to be changed and remains in focus when the focal length is adjusted. Peter. That's a parfocal zoom-lens. A zoom-lens need not be parfocal to be called a zoom-lens. There are many telescope and microscope zoom-lens oculars that are anything but parfocal. Though called parfocal zoom-lenses none are truly parfocal. This is why they have to depend on auto-focusing mechanisms after each new zoom setting and always allow for some "slop" at the infinity stop. It's easier to correct for minor difference in focusing than it is to compensate in glass configurations and the more complex internal lens shifting methods that would be required. This is an important consideration with moving media. A cinematographer should plan his shot by focusing on the longest focal length to be used and take advantage of the larger depth of field to compensate for any error when going, (or leaving), a wide shot. One of the oldest tricks in the book... JT |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:59:25 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
wrote: arnold ziffendorfer wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:42:40 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin wrote: In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Wilba wrote: So you're saying that the entire site should not be taken seriously? Their dictionary definition of "Prime lens" is "A lens with a fixed focal length" (http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Primelens). What's the right definition? Some pedants insist that "prime lens" is best left as the term for the main lens when using a supplementary lens. They may have a point, but it is a widely used piece of slang and rarely causes confusion. But their definition of "zoom lens" is just wrong. There are many lenses of adjustable focal length which are not zoom lenses. For instance, a front cell focussing lens is focussed by changing the focal length, and would not be called a zoom lens by anyone. A zoom lens is one which allows the focal length to be changed and remains in focus when the focal length is adjusted. Peter. That's a parfocal zoom-lens. A zoom-lens need not be parfocal to be called a zoom-lens. There are many telescope and microscope zoom-lens oculars that are anything but parfocal. Though called parfocal zoom-lenses none are truly parfocal. This is why they have to depend on auto-focusing mechanisms after each new zoom setting and always allow for some "slop" at the infinity stop. It's easier to correct for minor difference in focusing than it is to compensate in glass configurations and the more complex internal lens shifting methods that would be required. This is an important consideration with moving media. A cinematographer should plan his shot by focusing on the longest focal length to be used and take advantage of the larger depth of field to compensate for any error when going, (or leaving), a wide shot. One of the oldest tricks in the book... JT Exactly. This is why I see no huge compelling argument to the "my camera focuses faster than your camera" childishness. I only use the auto-focus on my camera to quickly find either a nice average to put the subject(s) within the DOF needed or when I use a hyperfocal setting so nothing is missed. The same as I've done for the last 40 years in all my cameras, manual or otherwise. Once that is done I lock it into manual focus so it stays there. Occasionally using the manual adjustment to touch up on what the camera ADVISED for a starting point. No different than the advice you get from the exposure readings. How often that is wrong too. Auto-focus may get me there quicker in most situations but is by no means the answer to worthwhile photography. I do just as well without it if I need to. I'll turn it off completely depending on the shooting scenario. Particularly with macro-photography where it is more of a huge hindrance than any kind of a help. If the "fast auto-focus" admirers only realized how often they reveal their own lack of talent and skills at photography. Snap-shooters that have been brainwashed into thinking that they can buy a camera that will magically bestow them with talent. They need to read Jack & the Beanstalk for hints on how to find some magic beans while they're at it. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On 2007-11-17 19:47:47 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:
"Prime lens" means the camera lens as opposed to some other lens or optical device used with it, such as a close-up lens, tele converter, etc. When used with such a device, the camera lens itself is the prime lens -- whether it's fixed focal length or zoom makes no difference. There are variable focal length prime lenses made by Schneider, Zeiss and others which are catalogued just that way: "variable primes." http://schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/ki...le_prime_e.pdf http://www.cinequip.com/Category_det...ategory=Lenses http://rentacam.ru/eng/index.php?area=article&id_art=58 http://www.oscars.org/scitech/1998/winners.html (scroll down) 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 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' -- "Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Wilba" wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: Wilba wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: John Navas wrote: 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. So you're saying that the entire site should not be taken seriously? Their dictionary definition of "Prime lens" is "A lens with a fixed focal length" (http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Primelens). That isn't "their dictionary definitiuon." AFAIK, Photonotes.org has nothing to do with Pop Photo. Yeah, sorry. I went looking, got distracted, and thought I got there from a link on popphoto. What's the right definition? "Prime lens" means the camera lens as opposed to some other lens or optical device used with it, such as a close-up lens, tele converter, etc. When used with such a device, the camera lens itself is the prime lens -- whether it's fixed focal length or zoom makes no difference. There are variable focal length prime lenses made by Schneider, Zeiss and others which are catalogued just that way: "variable primes." http://schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/ki...le_prime_e.pdf http://www.cinequip.com/Category_det...ategory=Lenses http://rentacam.ru/eng/index.php?area=article&id_art=58 http://www.oscars.org/scitech/1998/winners.html (scroll down) 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. OK, so it's one of those terms that is irredeemably contaminated, like the way people say laptop when they mean notebook, or massive when they mean large. When I searched for "prime lens", none of the first three or four definitions I found mentioned the definition you use, they all referred first to fixed focal length. Unfortunate but true, I know. Your phrase "irredeemably contaminated" is probably about right. Neil |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
arnold ziffendorfer wrote: On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:59:25 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire wrote: arnold ziffendorfer wrote: snip That's a parfocal zoom-lens. A zoom-lens need not be parfocal to be called a zoom-lens. There are many telescope and microscope zoom-lens oculars that are anything but parfocal. Though called parfocal zoom-lenses none are truly parfocal. This is why they have to depend on auto-focusing mechanisms after each new zoom setting and always allow for some "slop" at the infinity stop. It's easier to correct for minor difference in focusing than it is to compensate in glass configurations and the more complex internal lens shifting methods that would be required. This is an important consideration with moving media. A cinematographer should plan his shot by focusing on the longest focal length to be used and take advantage of the larger depth of field to compensate for any error when going, (or leaving), a wide shot. One of the oldest tricks in the book... JT Exactly. This is why I see no huge compelling argument to the "my camera focuses faster than your camera" childishness. I only use the auto-focus on my camera to quickly find either a nice average to put the subject(s) within the DOF needed or when I use a hyperfocal setting so nothing is missed. The same as I've done for the last 40 years in all my cameras, manual or otherwise. Once that is done I lock it into manual focus so it stays there. Occasionally using the manual adjustment to touch up on what the camera ADVISED for a starting point. No different than the advice you get from the exposure readings. How often that is wrong too. Auto-focus may get me there quicker in most situations but is by no means the answer to worthwhile photography. I do just as well without it if I need to. I'll turn it off completely depending on the shooting scenario. Particularly with macro-photography where it is more of a huge hindrance than any kind of a help. If the "fast auto-focus" admirers only realized how often they reveal their own lack of talent and skills at photography. Snap-shooters that have been brainwashed into thinking that they can buy a camera that will magically bestow them with talent. They need to read Jack & the Beanstalk for hints on how to find some magic beans while they're at it. Call me old fashioned but at the same time I will take advantage of current technology. Back in the old days when my main work tool was an Arri S or BL, autofocus was never heard of and you planned your "attack" and used your gut instincts for on-the-fly shooting. When you're working with a small 16MM 1:35 format, there's no room for error and certainly no forgiveness for mishaps while shooting. It's sorta like modern cars. The old one's (pre 1968) will get you to your destination and in the rare event of a failure, you have a chance to make roadside repairs. Modern tin, er, plastic that fails will leave you where you're at and when it comes time to pay the piper, it won't be cheap. I love my FZ10 but know well its limitations. The 12X zoom is acceptable for most of my routine work but as I mentioned previously in another post, if I want to get serious, I'll step backwards to my ancient M2. JT (Who drives a well maintained '83 Civic FE that provides mpg that rivals that of hybrids) |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Bill Tuthill | Digital Photography | 1067 | December 29th 07 03:46 AM |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Helmsman3 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 790 | December 26th 07 06:40 PM |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Helmsman3 | Digital ZLR Cameras | 640 | December 26th 07 06:40 PM |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Helmsman3 | Digital ZLR Cameras | 22 | November 17th 07 09:45 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |