A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old November 18th 07, 04:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Neil Harrington[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default 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  
Old November 18th 07, 04:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Peter Irwin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 352
Default 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  
Old November 18th 07, 05:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Grumpy AuContraire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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  
Old November 18th 07, 06:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
arnold ziffendorfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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  
Old November 18th 07, 07:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
John Navas[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,956
Default 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  
Old November 18th 07, 12:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Serge Desplanques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default 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  
Old November 18th 07, 02:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Tony Polson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,194
Default 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  
Old November 18th 07, 02:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Neil Harrington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,001
Default 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  
Old November 18th 07, 06:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Grumpy AuContraire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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  
Old November 18th 07, 08:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 369
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.