Resdy to buy

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by jim, Sep 4, 2010.

  1. <bullshit advice snipped>

    And all that "fine" advice coming from someone who has never even owned a
    camera. Don't believe me? Do a search on this role-playing SMS psychotic.
    Here's a sampling of the kinds of wild tales it invents for attention:

    <http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>

    He also put up a website with stolen stock-photography to try to use it to
    convince everyone the above was true, when he was outted for being just
    another cyber-life psychotic.

    <http://nordicgroup.us/yellowstoneoldfaithful/>
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Sep 6, 2010
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. jim

    Ofnuts Guest

    You are talking about the Nikon 200-400 f/4... but given the kind of CA
    one can find in the P&S lenses, standard kit lenses are good enough...
    see for instance:

    http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/q110superzoomgroup/samples/specific/casioexh25_CIMG0507.JPG


    So, we have the kit 18-55 to which we add the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3
    which is a bit above $1000 à Amazon (and is 800mm equivalent on a Canon
    body, for those suffering from Freudian zoom envy). Or the kit 18-55,
    the Canon 55-250 IS for $230, and a Sigma 120-400 for $900 (or even the
    more expensive Canon 100-400 L at $1600). But the 55-250 has very little
    use in nature, it's better replaced by a 100mm macro lens ($500).

    So:

    Canon Rebel XSi+Lens $587
    Canon 55-250 IS $230
    Sigma 120-400 $900

    Total............... $1717

    And with the P&S we will miss some very important shots because it will
    have been slow to start, or not able to AF in time, or has ran out of
    batteries (because these little critters are power-hungry). And if you
    keep you long zoom on, you don't miss anything because the urgent
    pictures are always of far away objects.

    Yes, indeed, the weight & the bulk... but there are plenty of things to
    take photos of where you don't have to walk for hours with your gear:
    sports events, cities... And the pros doing nature photography do not go
    around shooting at random. They want a given picture of a given species,
    and it may take a lot more gear than a camera and its (note singular
    here) lens.
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 6, 2010
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. jim

    LOL! Guest

    Proving you've never used even ONE of them. Everything you just typed is
    pure bullshit.
    Do the math again. You forgot to price for equivalent aperture as well, you
    stupid troll-****.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    LOL!, Sep 6, 2010
    #23
  4. jim

    LOL! Guest

    Proving you've never used even ONE of them. Everything you just typed is
    pure bullshit.
    Do the math again. You forgot to price for equivalent aperture as well, you
    stupid troll-****.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Oh, and don't forget, you have to have image-stabilization throughout that
    whole zoom range as well. And don't forget to add in the 10lb. $259 tripod
    you'll REQUIRE to use that DSLR with those 10lb hunks of glass for those
    longer focal-lengths. That's 20 lbs. a person has to lug around. You trolls
    always like to leave out the important details.
     
    LOL!, Sep 6, 2010
    #24
  5. jim

    Peter Guest


    That's because only it knows the truth. We are unworthy of seeing his proof.
    Sheesh, you didn't know that?
     
    Peter, Sep 6, 2010
    #25
  6. jim

    Peter Guest

    Only Brucie. (And maybe it.)
     
    Peter, Sep 6, 2010
    #26
  7. jim

    Ofnuts Guest

    Right, let's talk about the apertures. You should have done your
    homework (in some cases, it's as simple as reading these off the camera
    pictures in the test):

    Canon SX20 IS 2.8-5.7
    Casio EX-FH25 2.8-4.5
    Fujifilm S2500HD 3.1-5.6
    Fujifilm HS10 2.8-5.6
    Kodak Z981 2.8-5.0
    Nikon P100 2.8-5.0
    Panasonic DMC-FZ35 2.8-4.4
    Pentax X90 2.8-5.0
    Samsung HZ25W 2.8-5.0

    Many of these lens aren't faster than the zoom lens I take in account
    for the DSLR. And none goes to f/4 or below at full bore, so that's at
    best one aperture notch for them, while DSLRs have at least two more ISO
    usable ISO notches for the same noise level.

    We could also, to be completely even, try to find a P&S with equivalent
    high-ISO noise levels as a DSLR but then poof! no P&S... I could also
    add a $100 50mm f/1.8 lens to my bag and insist that your superzoom
    should be at least as open (and sharp...) at its "standard" focal length.

    But I found a really curious thing while searching the specs of the Fuji
    2500HD. On its official page (at
    <http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/s/finepix_s2500hd/specifications/index.html>)
    it is said:

    Lens: Fujinon 18x optical zoom lens, F3.1 (Wide) - F5.6 (Telephoto)
    Aperture: Wide: F3.1 / F6.4, Telephoto: F5.6 / F11.0 with ND filter

    Than means: when that camera says f/11, it is really something else:
    (f/5.6? f/8?) with a grey filter to reduce the light. So trying to get
    f/11 isn't going to give any more DOF. Could that be diffraction limited
    optics? If this happens in that camera, does it happen under the cover
    in the others with equivalent specs (focal length and photosite size)?
    Di you homweork and you'll find that the three lenses in my table are
    stabilized, including the Sigma 120-400 (which is usable hand-held).

    He who LOLs last, LOLs best
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 6, 2010
    #27
  8. jim

    SMS Guest

    Yeah, the good thing is that you can build your system in stages as your
    needs and finances change, and there's plenty of good used lenses out
    there as well.

    It's good to see D-SLR usage increasing so much as people finally
    realize the limitations of P&S cameras. I was shocked yesterday when I
    was on a bus in San Francisco (not a tourist bus line either). People
    kept getting on at different stops carrying D-SLRs. I thought there
    might have been an SF Giants game that night, but no, they were out of
    town. Since when do local residents go around town carrying D-SLRs? Saw
    a lot of BWLs out yesterday on our hike. Some good shots of the Golden
    Gate that you could not get without a D-SLR.
     
    SMS, Sep 6, 2010
    #28
  9. jim

    SMS Guest

    All true, but one of the biggest issues is the high-ISO performance.
    Those with P&S cameras, including super-zooms, are consistently
    disappointed with their indoor results. Unless you buy a P&S that can
    also use an external flash like the G series, or a few other high end
    models. Even then, by the time you start buying external flashes you
    might as well get a D-SLR and get all the other advantages that you
    can't get with a P&S, whether it's a "super-zoom" or not. And remember
    than with a D-SLR you're able to get many indoor shots that would
    _require_ an external flash on a P&S.
    Ironically, by the time you equip that super-zoom with all the necessary
    accessories you're not saving much weight or bulk at all.

    The best option is a D-SLR _and_ a small Canon P&S for times when you
    don't want to carry the D-SLR. Install CHDK on the Canon P&S and you
    gain some useful functionality, but it doesn't turn it into a D-SLR.
     
    SMS, Sep 6, 2010
    #29
  10. jim

    Ofnuts Guest

    I'll grab my check book for a SX10IS... but wait... no longer made. Too
    bad. So where is the site that compares the SX20 to the Rebel or its
    successor?
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 6, 2010
    #30
  11. jim

    Peter Guest


    You are not worthy enough to receive that information.

    Besides, I have serious reservations about the integrity of the reviews of
    that website. I can only comment on what I know, based upon my own
    experiences. In his review of the Nikon 18-200mm, no mention is made of the
    softness of the lens, nor that it's not a real 200, except when focused at
    infinity.
     
    Peter, Sep 7, 2010
    #31
  12. Not necessary. This was already stated. The SX20 and SX1 (CMOS) both use
    the same lens. Apparently you're as adept at reading as you are at choosing
    cameras.

    Isn't it time for you to go troll someone that won't so easily show you to
    be the know-nothing fool TROLL that you are?

    I suspect most of you pathetically useless trolls are also masochists. You
    can't get enough of being proved to be complete idiots and fools on a
    worldwide stage. You thrive on the humiliation.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 7, 2010
    #32
  13. jim

    Robert Coe Guest

    : I suspect most of you pathetically useless trolls are also masochists.
    : You can't get enough of being proved to be complete idiots and fools
    : on a worldwide stage. You thrive on the humiliation.

    Alas, you are quite correct. If we weren't masochists, we wouldn't read one
    word of the crap you write.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 8, 2010
    #33
  14. jim

    Ofnuts Guest

    If you take it as information, yes. But if you take it as humor/fiction,
    it's quite enjoyable. The one with the tripod raccoon almost cost me two
    PCs due to coffee/tea spraying (mine and my daughter's).
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 8, 2010
    #34
  15. I knew I shouldn't have shared that story with useless piles of shit like
    you. To begin with, an injured wild animal, coming to me of its own free
    will for some help with food. Then on top of that, another animal that was
    enjoying the daily (nightly) handout went out of its way to also help that
    injured animal. For me to have seen that remarkable display of one species
    helping another was something extremely special in the animal kingdom. I
    realized while typing it that there's a good chance that that remarkable
    and cherishable experience, one that nobody else will probably ever witness
    during their whole lives, would be totally lost on wastes of flesh like
    you. Yes, you all deserve to perish. I'm certain of that now. You have zero
    value, zero worth. Zero reason for existing.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 8, 2010
    #35
  16. jim

    Peter Guest


    That's you own fault. You should know better than to read any Usenet posting
    with anything in your mouth, except what nature put there. :)
     
    Peter, Sep 8, 2010
    #36
  17. jim

    peter Guest

    They don't have to be thrown out. There are still uses.
    I converted an old P&S (Nikon CoolPix 8800) to infra red.
     
    peter, Sep 8, 2010
    #37
  18. jim

    Ofnuts Guest

    Not bad. But this story need a bear. Let's says that a bear barges in
    and startles everyone, until they find he carries a First Aid kit he
    took with him when he retired from his job of Yellowstone Park ranger.
    And then Bambi appears...
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 8, 2010
    #38
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.