Nikon AF Long Lens under $9,000 !! s

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:59:05 -0500, M-M wrote in
:

In article ,
John Navas wrote:

Not when the image is captured properly in the first place.
With the 432 mm f/2.8 reach of my FZ20, I can frame accurately,
and make terrific prints -- see my samples.

Two words, John:

Shutter Lag

With the camera properly configured (e.g., high-speed focusing), it's
simply not a problem.

The man wants a "sports, surfing and wildlife" lens for his D3. You
can't do it with a 1.35 - 1.48 second shutter lag.

With the camera properly configured, shutter lag is a small fraction of
that.

Sure, you may get lucky occasionally, but all those shots you'd miss
would drive the OP up the wall.

Much of what I shoot is fast action water sports, and I'm not missing
such shots. Here's a sample: http://i44.tinypic.com/oacbxt.jpg

I'm guessing you have little or no experience with the FZ20 and/or other
Panasonic super-zoom models.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

On 2 Jan 2009 12:10:42 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:41:56 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:57:37 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

Fits nicely in my jacket pocket.

Here, you're rationalizing your purchase. You must feel really
threatened. Hell, my DSLR fits in my jacket pocket too. But I don't
always wear a jacket.

If your dSLR with a 36-432 mm f/2.8 zoom lens fits in your jacket
pocket, then you and your jacket must be WAY bigger than me.

I can get my DSLR with its 35 mm film equiv of 28-400mm zoom into my
jacket pocket. But at its longest it's max aperture is f5.6, two stops
over your f2.8. But because my pixels are bigger, I can push ISO more
than two stops past your P&S at the same noise level. So I've got a
wider zoom range with better low light capability in a jacket
pocketable camera. Does that make it superior?

Really? Stabilized? Same level of quality? What lens would that be?

And the aperture issue isn't dismissed so easily.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:18:02 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:49:20 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

If your dSLR with a 36-432 mm f/2.8 zoom lens fits in your jacket
pocket, then you and your jacket must be WAY bigger than me.

You are too funny!

My DSLR with a 27-300mm (a much more useful 11x zoom range than your
12x 36-432mm zoom range) f/3.5-5.6 (which works out to be faster than
your f/2.8 since I can go to several stops higher ISO than your P&S

Really? Stabilized? Same level of quality? What lens would that be?

without the images turning to mush) fits in my jacket better pictures
than you could ever hope to.

As good in many conditions, yes.
Better in some conditions, yes.
Not as good in some conditions, also yes.

Would I want to carry it that way? Nope.

So it's not really comparable.

But I wouldn't want to
carry a bridge camera that way either.

Works fine for me.

Which is why I also have a
true pocketable P&S

So do I. Don't have much use for it anymore though -- unlike you, I'm
not saddled with a dSLR.

and don't have to rationalize my purchases by
claiming they can do things which they cannot, like you do all the
time.

Ah yes, the insult -- you must feel very threatened to concede that way.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

Well put. The inherent shutter lag in ALL P&S and bridge cameras renders
them useless for fast action sports, and fast moving birds.

I do already HAVE a P&S digicam for exactly what they are perfect for:
family birthday parties...




"M-M" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Navas wrote:

Not when the image is captured properly in the first place.
With the 432 mm f/2.8 reach of my FZ20, I can frame accurately,
and make terrific prints -- see my samples.


Two words, John:

Shutter Lag

The man wants a "sports, surfing and wildlife" lens for his D3. You
can't do it with a 1.35 - 1.48 second shutter lag.

Sure, you may get lucky occasionally, but all those shots you'd miss
would drive the OP up the wall.

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

Who the **** is this egomaniacal asshole named Navas? This guy has a major
"short dick complex" trying to convince the world he knows what he's talking
about when he clearly doesn't.

I'd be VERY hesitant to buy any of his consulting services (see his website)
based on what a friggin' fruitcake he comes across here as. Who would trust
any business services from such an imbalanced idiot?

Navas: you might want to thing about going anonymous. You're hurting your
business by posting such stupid **** here. You're as stupid as the asshole
driving down the freeway cutting people off with his business number
plastered on the side of his car.

Some people just do not have their brain engaged...





"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On 2 Jan 2009 12:10:42 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:41:56 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:57:37 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

Fits nicely in my jacket pocket.

Here, you're rationalizing your purchase. You must feel really
threatened. Hell, my DSLR fits in my jacket pocket too. But I don't
always wear a jacket.

If your dSLR with a 36-432 mm f/2.8 zoom lens fits in your jacket
pocket, then you and your jacket must be WAY bigger than me.

I can get my DSLR with its 35 mm film equiv of 28-400mm zoom into my
jacket pocket. But at its longest it's max aperture is f5.6, two stops
over your f2.8. But because my pixels are bigger, I can push ISO more
than two stops past your P&S at the same noise level. So I've got a
wider zoom range with better low light capability in a jacket
pocketable camera. Does that make it superior?

Really? Stabilized? Same level of quality? What lens would that be?

And the aperture issue isn't dismissed so easily.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:47:12 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:18:02 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

[...]
My DSLR with a 27-300mm (a much more useful 11x zoom range than your
12x 36-432mm zoom range) f/3.5-5.6 (which works out to be faster than
your f/2.8 since I can go to several stops higher ISO than your P&S

Really? Stabilized? Same level of quality? What lens would that be?

Of course stabilized. The Nikon 18-200 VR is 27-300 35mm equivalent,
that's what we were talking about, right? You were quoting 35mm equiv
focal length when you said 36-432 because your real focal length is
6-72mm. And the overall image quality of that lens on a DSLR is
better than a 12x zoom on a P&S.

without the images turning to mush) fits in my jacket better pictures
than you could ever hope to.

As good in many conditions, yes.
Better in some conditions, yes.
Not as good in some conditions, also yes.

You'll have to enlighten us as to what conditions your P&S would have
better image quality.

Would I want to carry it that way? Nope.

So it's not really comparable.

Of course it's comparable. I can carry both a bridge P&S and a DSLR
in my jacket. I don't want to carry either a bridge P&S or a DSLR in
my jacket. Completely comparable. What's not comparable is a small
P&S, which I wouldn't mind carrying in a jacket pocket.

But I wouldn't want to
carry a bridge camera that way either.

Works fine for me.

Because you feel the need to justify your purchase, you're more
tolerant of the bulk.

Which is why I also have a
true pocketable P&S

So do I. Don't have much use for it anymore though -- unlike you, I'm
not saddled with a dSLR.

You're saddled with a bridge camera, giving up the advantages of a
DSLR without picking up the advantages of a small P&S.

and don't have to rationalize my purchases by
claiming they can do things which they cannot, like you do all the
time.

Ah yes, the insult -- you must feel very threatened to concede that way.

You claiming there's an insult when there was none is just another
example of you being disengenious. Saying that you rationalize your
purchase by claiming it can do things which it cannot is exactly what
you were doing when you suggested that someone should, and I quote:

"Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a
complement, with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens
that's f/3.3 @ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens."

as an alternative to buying a long lens for D3. The fact that you
think they're even remotely the same thing is laughable! And calling
you out on it is not insulting you. It's just telling the truth.

Steve

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Who the **** is this egomaniacal asshole named Navas? This guy has a
major "short dick complex" trying to convince the world he knows what he's
talking about when he clearly doesn't.

I'd be VERY hesitant to buy any of his consulting services (see his
website) based on what a friggin' fruitcake he comes across here as. Who
would trust any business services from such an imbalanced idiot?

Navas: you might want to thing about going anonymous. You're hurting your
business by posting such stupid **** here. You're as stupid as the asshole
driving down the freeway cutting people off with his business number
plastered on the side of his car.

Some people just do not have their brain engaged...



Please just killfile him, it is the honourable thing to do. He is a fool of
the highest order.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:37:06 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:47:12 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:18:02 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

[...]
My DSLR with a 27-300mm (a much more useful 11x zoom range than your
12x 36-432mm zoom range) f/3.5-5.6 (which works out to be faster than
your f/2.8 since I can go to several stops higher ISO than your P&S

Really? Stabilized? Same level of quality? What lens would that be?

Of course stabilized. The Nikon 18-200 VR is 27-300 35mm equivalent,
that's what we were talking about, right? You were quoting 35mm equiv
focal length when you said 36-432 because your real focal length is
6-72mm.

In other words, much less zoom range in addition to being much slower,
so not really comparable.

And the overall image quality of that lens on a DSLR is
better than a 12x zoom on a P&S.

Trying to duck the lens issue with the "overall image quality" claim is
both disingenuous and meaningless.

As good in many conditions, yes.
Better in some conditions, yes.
Not as good in some conditions, also yes.

You'll have to enlighten us as to what conditions your P&S would have
better image quality.

Been there; done that; and not interested in another silly ****ing
contest.

So it's not really comparable.

Of course it's comparable. ...

It's objectively not comparable.

Works fine for me.

Because you feel the need to justify your purchase, you're more
tolerant of the bulk.

Ah yes, the insult -- you must feel very threatened to concede that way.

So do I. Don't have much use for it anymore though -- unlike you, I'm
not saddled with a dSLR.

You're saddled with a bridge camera, giving up the advantages of a
DSLR without picking up the advantages of a small P&S.

For you, not for me.

Ah yes, the insult -- you must feel very threatened to concede that way.

You claiming there's an insult when there was none ...

Not even a nice try.

Since you have nothing new to add, just rehashing the same old same old,
and persist in insults, "discussion" over as far as I'm concerned.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:43:30 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:37:06 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:47:12 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:18:02 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

[...]
My DSLR with a 27-300mm (a much more useful 11x zoom range than your
12x 36-432mm zoom range) f/3.5-5.6 (which works out to be faster than
your f/2.8 since I can go to several stops higher ISO than your P&S

Really? Stabilized? Same level of quality? What lens would that be?

Of course stabilized. The Nikon 18-200 VR is 27-300 35mm equivalent,
that's what we were talking about, right? You were quoting 35mm equiv
focal length when you said 36-432 because your real focal length is
6-72mm.

In other words, much less zoom range in addition to being much slower,
so not really comparable.

let's see, 11.1x zoom vs. 12x zoom is "much less zoom range"? Please
don't be an idiot all the time. For the purposes of this discussion,
it's completely comparable.

And while the lens itself is 2/3 stop slower (which is also completely
comparable for the purposes of this discussion) the lens/camera
combination is several stops faster since the FZ8 has several stops
less usable ISO range than any somewhat decent DSLR. According to
dpreview, even at ISO400, the FZ8 has "chroma blurring used by the
Venus III engine has a destructive effect on low contrast detail and
color information." and "All low-contrast chroma information (hair,
foliage, fine texture) is lost entirely at ISO 400 and above."

So you can really only get good performance at ISO200. But then "At
ISO 100 the FZ8 - like other current Lumix models - looks a bit grubby
close up, with obvious noise reduction artefacts." It goes on to say
"if you produce prints or reduce the images to fit on-screen you won't
see it", which is obviously why you won't show 100% images and only
show them reduced to 800x600.

So giving you the benefit of the doubt, we'll say that ISO200 is
"usuable". But on a current DSLR, ISO1600 is perfectly usable and is
at least as clean as the FZ8 at ISO200. So that's a 3 stop advantage
for the DSLR. Take the 2/3 stop slower lens into consideration and
it's still a 2 1/3 stop advantage for the DSLR.

You're right, THAT is not comparable ... but not the way you'd like it
to be.

And the overall image quality of that lens on a DSLR is
better than a 12x zoom on a P&S.

Trying to duck the lens issue with the "overall image quality" claim is
both disingenuous and meaningless.

LMAO!!!! Now I know why you like your camera. Because "overall image
quality" is not important to you. In fact, you think it's
meaningless. Everything is beginning to make sense now. You'd rather
have a 12x zoom vs. 11.1x zoom even if it costs you 2 1/3 stops of
usable speed AND it costs you "overall image quality." That last 0.9x
zoom range is really that important to you while "overall image
quality" is meaningless to you.

Thanks for finally admitting the truth about the way you feel. It
brings everything else you say into the proper light.

Steve

"D.Mac" wrote in message
...

Everyone here has equal rights. Live and let live fella.


edited for brevity

I hope you remember you said that.