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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that
couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big* dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera. Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249 usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for anything remotely sports-related. I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs. I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras, when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size. I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research, I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could recommend a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a 7.1 or higher. I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
Jules Vide wrote:
I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big* dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera. Define *big*. 8x10? 11x17? 16x20? Poster size? Wall murals? Billboards? How closely will they normally be viewed? Arm's length? 3 feet? Across a room? From the highway? Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249 usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for anything remotely sports-related. I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs. I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras, when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size. I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research, I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could recommend a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a 7.1 or higher. I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always. Zeiss makes very sharp lenses. If you need high resolution then Zeiss is a good option, but Canon also makes good lenses, as do many others. The basic problem is that if you want *big* high resolution photos then you may be in the domain of medium or large format, depending on how you define *big* and "high resolution". -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
Jules Vide wrote:
I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big* dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera. Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249 usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for anything remotely sports-related. I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs. I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras, when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size. I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research, I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could recommend a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a 7.1 or higher. I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always. I think the salesman was using the term Zeiss as a figure of speech, as in Panasonic cameras which use Leica-designed lenses. Zeiss and Leica were noted for their superb optics in the sixties, and indeed still are, but there are many cheaper high-pixel-count cameras which have inferior optics/sensors and will not produce the quality of print you require. IMHO the perfect digital camera has yet to be invented, but we are getting there, gradually, and it isn't going to be cheap when it arrives. I regard pixel-counting as a guide, but only a guide, and unfortunately the ideal digital camera will almost certainly come from one of the big-name makers, and will therefore be expensive. Your Canon lens will probably suffice for what you use it for, and you would not notice any difference if the lens was a Zeiss or Leica, it's all to do with marketing, says he, proudly fondling his Panasonic FZ30! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
Mr. Ruf, Could you possibly take a look at the specs on the Canon, on a
review site of your choice, and tell me if this has a "long focal lens?" (Sorry for the top posting.) Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: On 3 Jul 2006 04:41:05 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Jules Vide" wrote: I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big* dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera. Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249 usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for anything remotely sports-related. I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs. I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras, when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size. I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research, I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could recommend a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a 7.1 or higher. I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always. First what exactly do you mean by the term "high resolution nature photographs?" Are you talking about scenic or landscape photography which you wish to print very large, say greater than 8x10? Are you talking about wildlife photography where even with a long focal length lens cropping will come into play? Next, you have to realize that it is not just the quantity of the pixels which count, but also the quality. The smaller the sensor, the smaller number of receptor sites per pixel, leading to greater noise. For example, my 6MP Nikon D70 blows away my 7MP Casio Z-750. But, I can't stick my D70 in my pocket like I can the Z-750. If you mean scenic/lanscape photos you can always stitch images together to get higher resolution no matter what camera you are using. If you mean wildlife photography, there is no substitute for long focal length lenses, the faster, lower f number, the better. -- Ed Ruf ) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
"Jules Vide" wrote in message
oups.com... I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big* dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera. Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249 usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for anything remotely sports-related. I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs. I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras, when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size. I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research, I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could recommend a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a 7.1 or higher. I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always. Hi. You need to define what you mean by "big" and "high resolution". You new Canon A620 is an everyday sort of camera. It is not a "Sports" or any other specialised thing. You were being subjected to Sales Speak, as you were when he went on about a Zeiss lens. If that was built in a German factory, which only produced lenses, and was owned by Zeiss, then it would be worth having. Zeiss Lenses were not famous for outstanding designs, it was the craftmanship and build quality which made them superior. The 140mm (Equivalent) focal length lens can not be considered "Long" nowadays, it is only 4x its shortest length. Quite a few cameras have 10x or 12x lenses, and go up to 400mm ( Equivalent) Roy G |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
On 3 Jul 2006 06:28:07 -0700, Jules Vide wrote:
Mr. Ruf, Could you possibly take a look at the specs on the Canon, on a review site of your choice, and tell me if this has a "long focal lens?" (Sorry for the top posting.) The A620 goes to a maximum focal length of 140mm. I wouldn't call that a long lens. If you need a long lens, for wildlife off in the distance or similar, consider the Canon S3IS or one of its competitors like the Panasonic FZ7 or Sony H2. You'll lose a megapixel (those are all 6 MP cameras), but you'll get about 3 times the optical zoom power. The question you should be asking is "what kind of pictures do I like to take". Once people get an idea of your range of photographic interests, we can start recommending models. The A620 is, by all accounts, a thoroughly decent camera, but it may not be optimal for your needs. -dms |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
"Jules Vide" wrote in message oups.com... I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big* dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera. Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249 usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for anything remotely sports-related. I guess there were higher "spiffs" on the Sony cameras... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
Daniel Silevitch wrote:
On 3 Jul 2006 06:28:07 -0700, Jules Vide wrote: Mr. Ruf, Could you possibly take a look at the specs on the Canon, on a review site of your choice, and tell me if this has a "long focal lens?" (Sorry for the top posting.) The A620 goes to a maximum focal length of 140mm. I wouldn't call that a long lens. If you need a long lens, for wildlife off in the distance or similar, consider the Canon S3IS or one of its competitors like the Panasonic FZ7 or Sony H2. You'll lose a megapixel (those are all 6 MP cameras), but you'll get about 3 times the optical zoom power. The question you should be asking is "what kind of pictures do I like to take". Once people get an idea of your range of photographic interests, we can start recommending models. The A620 is, by all accounts, a thoroughly decent camera, but it may not be optimal for your needs. -dms I can highly recommend the Sony H2, 12x optical zoom, as someone pointed out is about 400mm by 35mm standards. With it's fully auto mode being very capable and easy to use, but also with optional full manual control, you have to chance to learn more "bells and whistles" as you grow more comfortable with the camera. I like to always have my camera with me, and for many years used a 2MP canon, because it was cheap enough to take anywhere, and small enough not to worry about. The Sony is a little larger, but still fits into a quite small camera bag, which is easily belt mountable and thus unobtrusive. My only bug bear at the moment, is the constant whirring noises the camera makes when turned on, seems some motor is constantly going. Before anyone jumps in, it's not auto-focus, or zoom motors, just some internal system. I should email Sony to query it sometime. It doesn't register on video, and thus I don't consider it a major problem. Duncan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
Daniel Silevitch wrote:
The A620 goes to a maximum focal length of 140mm. I wouldn't call that a long lens. If you need a long lens, for wildlife off in the distance or similar, consider the Canon S3IS or one of its competitors like the Panasonic FZ7 or Sony H2. You'll lose a megapixel (those are all 6 MP cameras), but you'll get about 3 times the optical zoom power. Thanks for taking the time to write this, because you address an ignorance I should rectify before returning/refunding the A620 becomes moot. Someone on another newsgroup (involving camcorders, not digital cameras) said that any optical "promise' over 10x is gaudy "beads for the natives" even if other mutually dependent features of a camera are top of the line. This poster claimed that only a very very VERY expensive camera can successully tackle optical zoom above-and-beyond 10x. I think what I really need is a good online primer detailing exactly what those features are, because I do realize that megapixel count is bells-and-whistles for digital morons such as yours truly. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Sports" Lens vs. Zeiss Lens (Canon PowerShot A620)
I own both a Canon A620 and I have a Carl Zeiss lens on a Sony camera. Both
cameras are very good. The A620 is sooooooo good my friends do the WOW! thing when I show them a 8X10 picture. The Zeiss lens in on an older Sony camera and I still use it for certain things since it has an f2.0 rating it's really fast and I can also use it for infrared photography. The Zeiss lens is great, but does it render better photos than the Canon? No. Is the Canon a "Sports" camera? No, it's a great all around camera that is now lower in price. Maybe the salesman didn't have as much vig in the Canon as in something not marked down. I think this is a vigorish question. Ask the salesman what the spiff is on the unmarked camera. "Jules Vide" wrote in message oups.com... I've posted here several times looking for help in a situation that couldn't be helped. I needed high resolution photographs--*big* dimension, high resolution photographs--with a 4.1 HP camera. Yesterday I bought a Canon PowerShot A620. It's a 7.1 and cheap ($249 usd). The clerk at the chain retail store where I bought it seemed reluctant to sell it to me because it didn't have a Zeiss lens. He said it was a "sports camera." I don't really know the difference between football and soccer, and I definitely don't need a camera for anything remotely sports-related. I need it for nature photographs, high resolution nature photographs. I've read reviews here on this Usenet group, and one person says only ignoramuses (such as myself) fall for the high pixel count cameras, when camera sensors aren't geared to accommodate high pixel size. I told the clerk that depending on what I learn from my 'net research, I may return the camera today. I'd like to know if I can take high resolution photographs with a 6.1 camera, and if anyone could recommend a 6.1 camera whose features make it more desirable than a 7.1 or higher. I would also like to know exactly what is so desirable about a Zeiss lens IF YOU'RE AN AMATEUR. Thank you very much, as always. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon Powershot A620 Lens | JJ | Digital Photography | 3 | April 18th 06 01:34 PM |
Canon 350D + EF 28-105 lens = actually 45-160? | Steve | Digital Photography | 50 | March 9th 06 10:09 AM |
FYI Rawshooter Essentials 2006 available | MarkČ | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | February 27th 06 08:22 AM |
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses | Joseph Chamberlain, DDS | Digital SLR Cameras | 128 | November 20th 05 01:01 AM |