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

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:35:47 GMT, arnold ziffendorfer
wrote in
:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:42:40 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin wrote:

A zoom lens is one which allows the focal length to
be changed and remains in focus when the focal length is
adjusted.

That's a parfocal zoom-lens. A zoom-lens need not be parfocal to be called a
zoom-lens.

A "true" zoom is parfocal. If focus varies with focal length,
then it's a varifocal lens, not a "true" zoom lens.
See http://www.tokina-usa.com/glossary.html
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

Many so-called "zoom" lenses, particularly in the case of fixed lens
cameras, are actually varifocal lenses, which gives lens designers more
flexibility in optical design trade-offs (focal length range, maximum
aperture, size, weight, cost) than true parfocal zoom, and which is
practical because of auto-focus, and because the camera processor can
automatically adjust the lens to keep it in focus while changing focal
length ("zooming") making operation essentially the same as a true
parfocal zoom.

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

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:44:26 GMT, arnold ziffendorfer
wrote in
:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:59:25 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
wrote:

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...

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.

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.

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.

Also well said.

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

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:05:03 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

arnold ziffendorfer wrote:

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.

Well now manual focus can work, but it normally does not work well on a
P&S camera. On a P&S you pretty much are stuck with auto-focus, so it
really better work pretty good.

Auto-focus actually does works well on most compact cameras, and any
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.

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

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:06:58 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
wrote in
:

arnold ziffendorfer wrote:

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. ...

I shot action sports for years with manual focus, and I'm still often
doing that even with fast and accurate auto-focus. One of the big
reasons is that even the best auto-focus will all too often fail to
focus on the object I care about, an important issue that tends to be
overlooked by those bragging about auto-focus speed.

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.

The FZ10 is now pretty long in the tooth. Try a current FZ-series
camera, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

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

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

That site isn't Nikon.

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

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:33:31 +0000, Tony Polson wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:03:08 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in
:

It all comes down to the sensor and the over-aggressive noise reduction
that is Panasonic's forte.

There's nothing wrong with the sensor, which is current state of the
art, and the noise reduction can be turned down (or even off with RAW)
if you don't like it.

Get some real experience so you'll hopefully not make yourself look so
foolish.

Far from making himself look foolish, which he has done many times on
here in the past, SMS is 100% right on this one.

He's at best half-right (on noise reduction), and even that's being very
generous (since noise reduction is configurable on some models, and even
RAW is available on some models).

I carry a Panasonic DMC-LX2 with me all the time. It has a Leica lens
and is sold with a different finish and slightly different settings
for colour rendition as the Leica D-Lux 3. I like it very much
because of the 16:9 widescreen format, the excellent 28mm (equivalent)
wide end of the zoom lens and the high degree of creative control that
can be applied.

But it is a noise box. The noise is extremely bad at high ISOs. And
as SMS says, the noise is noticeable at ISO 100.

A single data point. Other Panasonic cameras are very good at ISO 100,
including the FZ8.

There are far better digital point and shoot cameras than the
Panasonic from the point of view of noise. Notable examples include
the FujiFilm Finepix F series, which produce images that could almost
pass for those from a DSLR.

Again just a single data point, and they suffer in other ways (e.g.,
optics, resolution).

There are few worse digital point and
shoot cameras than the Panasonic from the point of view of noise in
this price bracket. ...

In fact Panasonic is comparable to other digital cameras with similar
sensors. What's different is that default noise reduction settings of
the latest Panasonic processors are more aggressive than some (not all)
other cameras, although that's adjustable on some models.

Furthermore, the colour fringing from the "Leica" lens is noticeable.
It also lacks sharpness wide open at the edges, and doesn't perform
all that well in the centre.

Independent reviews say just the opposite.

I use Canon DSLRs (two EOS 5D bodies) with mainly Carl Zeiss lenses
and a range of film cameras including 35mm rangefinder bodies and
Leica lenses. The "Leica" lens on the Panasonic DMC-LX2 is not worthy
of the Leica name it carries.

I've used German-made Leica lenses, Canon L-series lenses, and other
top-grade lenses, and I strongly disagree.

I have tried several examples of the Panasonic DMC-LX2 and found they
performed more or less the same. I have compared my results with
those from friends who use the Leica D-Lux 3 and they are essentially
the same - except the colour rendition is more subdued, but that is a
known feature of the D-Lux 3's firmware.

In the end, I have had to accept that the Panasonic DMC-LX2 is a very
noisy camera. I limit its use to situations where it performs well
and/or for applications that don't demand good results. It is a noisy
camera with a lens that is seriously optically flawed.

It's pretty clear that you're unhappy with your LX2, probably should
have gone with something else, that you're confusing lens with sensor,
and that you lack experience with other Panasonic models, judging the
entire brand on your unhappiness with the LX2. Do yourself a favor and
try other models.

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

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:19:39 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in
:

Tony Polson wrote:

But it is a noise box. The noise is extremely bad at high ISOs. And
as SMS says, the noise is noticeable at ISO 100.

No question about it. I don't own one, but I've seen the results from
one. ...

Painfully obvious, like other superficial nonsense you post.

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

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:45:27 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in :

"SMS ???. ?" wrote in message
.. .

GOOD GRIEF!

He must have a lot of time on his hands, and nothing to do with it but
troll.

Steven clearly does.

How pathetic is that?

Quite.

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

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:42:52 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in
:

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.

Translation: You're not troubled by those exposing your fantasies for
what they are.

It actually saves time by not having to wade through hundreds of
posts by know-it-alls that know nothing.

On the contrary -- you're not in it.

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

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:58:43 GMT, John Navas wrote:

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.

Considering how much that DSLR users depend on, pray to, and worship their
camera's auto-focus I'm surprised that this feature hasn't been dropped from all
DSLRs. If it wasn't for how fully "point and shoot" featured their DSLRs were
they'd never buy them. The way they talk about their dependencies on auto-focus
I doubt most of them even know what manual focusing is used for or even how to
find it on their cameras.

All my P&S cameras have manual focus. The ones I like best have a manual
focus-ring on the lens barrel, just like all my SLR gear. Then again one of my
others can run CDHK. That gives it a menu option to change the default manual
focus method from button presses to the zoom lever, making it about as easy to
use as a manual focusing ring. It also has a nice feature added, a simple press
of another button does a micro-focus touch-up once you are in the right
neighborhood. Locking in on the most detailed object within a few millimeters of
where you manually focused to, never aiming for something of stronger contrast
in the background because that's outside of it's micro-focus hunting limits. A
well thought out compensation that's pleasurable and quite easy to use. It was
the first P&S camera I bought that didn't have a manual focus-ring method. But
then I wasn't buying it for that, I was buying it for how many more things it
could do than no DSLR could ever do. I thought I'd hate the button-presses
method. It was implemented surprisingly well. Not as nice as my others with a
focusing-ring, but quite useable once you learn how to use it properly. Just as
fast and accurate, if not more so under the right circumstances.

A compact camera is a small sub-set of all P&S cameras. So it's fine to say that
manual focusing has been dropped from many of those. But don't go lumping all
P&S cameras into compacts or you'll be giving everyone the wrong impression.
Most all the P&S cameras with manual modes have manual focusing of one type or
another.