"Tonight, you men will sleep with your cameras!"

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

And RichA will sleep with his keyboard.

"You will give your lens, a dog's name." (because that's how they
perform).

http://dpreview.com/news/1008/100812...00mmemount.asp

Now why on earth would I want a measly 18-200mm (27-300mm EFL) F3.5-6.3,
when I already have a 9-735mm (EFL) F2.7-3.5 on one of my superzoom
cameras, by using two high-quality converter lenses--camera and both
converter lenses all fitting into one roomy windbreaker pocket.

That's 2 stops more aperture on my camera at the long end with almost 2.5
times the focal-length. Meaning: noise-free images at ISO200 when you would
need to have noise-free images at ISO800. Ooops, you can't get a 735mm F6.3
lens. So sad. Crank up that ISO some more for longer focal-lengths. You can
get 600mm (EFL) out of that lens if you use a 2x tele-converter, but then
you're using an apparent aperture of F12.7. (Damn, can't use any
phase-detection focusing at that aperture on any camera. So sad.) Crank up
that ISO to 3200 now for 600mm. Boy, I sure hope that equivalent exposure
setting needed is noise-free on your camera. (LOL) Yet you still haven't
come close to the 735mm (EFL) reach of my camera yet. I also have almost 1
stop more aperture at the short end at 1/3rd of the shortest focal-length
of the $800 lens. Camera and both adapter lenses for a seamless zoom range
of 9mm to 735mm for less than 1/2 the price of that lens alone.

An old saying strongly comes to mind. "A fool and his money are soon
parted."

You've all already seen the tack-sharp, CA-free fish-eye, to
super-telephoto images (even when stacked with a +2 diopter closeup lens
for a tele-macro configuration) with details resolved down to single pixels
from my superzoom cameras. Remember the butterfly photo with its
wing-scales resolved from 7-8 feet away? So don't bother with the usual
"DSLR-Troll's Song and Dance" about better image quality, it doesn't get
better than what I already have. Mention image quality and you'll only look
like the fools that you are yet again.

Superzooms Still Win wrote in
:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

And RichA will sleep with his keyboard.

I think I'll start posting two pictures a day. One taken with a superzoom,
the other taken by a DSLR, both at 1600 ISO. What say you?

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:21:00 -0500, Rich wrote:

Superzooms Still Win wrote in
:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

And RichA will sleep with his keyboard.

I think I'll start posting two pictures a day. One taken with a superzoom,
the other taken by a DSLR, both at 1600 ISO. What say you?


Why? When you only need ISO100-200 on the superzoom for the focal-lengths
required for sports and nature photographers, due to their much larger
available aperture at those focal-lengths. Focal-lengths and apertures that
you can't even get on any DSLR.

So sad, for you.

Try again, TROLL.

"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:21:00 -0500, Rich wrote:

Superzooms Still Win wrote in
m:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

And RichA will sleep with his keyboard.

I think I'll start posting two pictures a day. One taken with a
superzoom,
the other taken by a DSLR, both at 1600 ISO. What say you?


Why? When you only need ISO100-200 on the superzoom for the focal-lengths
required for sports and nature photographers, due to their much larger
available aperture at those focal-lengths. Focal-lengths and apertures
that
you can't even get on any DSLR.


Awesome, so when are you going to post some?

Breath bated, waiting.............

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 06:49:03 +1000, "Pete D" wrote:



"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:21:00 -0500, Rich wrote:

Superzooms Still Win wrote in
:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:29:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

And RichA will sleep with his keyboard.

I think I'll start posting two pictures a day. One taken with a
superzoom,
the other taken by a DSLR, both at 1600 ISO. What say you?


Why? When you only need ISO100-200 on the superzoom for the focal-lengths
required for sports and nature photographers, due to their much larger
available aperture at those focal-lengths. Focal-lengths and apertures
that
you can't even get on any DSLR.


Awesome, so when are you going to post some?


Been there, did that, already done.

Did you miss them?

Boo-****ing-hoo for you.

Snooze ya lose!

"Pete D" wrote in
. au:




Awesome, so when are you going to post some?

Breath bated, waiting.............



Why wait? The flickr page will only show that it doesn't exist.

Therefore, the P&S Sybil Troll will never show in my newsreader.


--
__
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

Supernews, if you get a complaint from a Jamie Baillie, please see:
http://www.canadianisp.ca/jamie_baillie.html

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:23:47 -0500, SneakyP
wrote:

"Pete D" wrote in
.au:




Awesome, so when are you going to post some?

Breath bated, waiting.............



Why wait? The flickr page will only show that it doesn't exist.

Therefore, the P&S Sybil Troll will never show in my newsreader.

Aww... what's the matter? Weren't you getting your daily nipple-suck of a
glimpse of what that scary world outside of your mommy's basement must be
like?

Yep, that's exactly why.

Now everyone can see why my methods are working perfectly, as planned.


LOL!