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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
"David J Taylor" wrote in message ... "Dudley Hanks" wrote in message news:IQULn.5311$z%6.2582@edtnps83... [] In my case, my SX120 has a f/2.8 IS lens and an ISO 3200 setting which help it outperform my XSi in certain low-light situations, since I don't have a large-apertured, long focal-length lens for the XSi. Nor do you with the SX120 - at its longest focal length (60mm, 360mm equivalent), it's f/4.3, not f/2.8. The ISO 3200 image I found with a quick search was not full resolution, but 1600 x 1200. Cheers, David I was wondering when somebody would point that out... My only lenses for the XSi are either 3.5 - 5.6 or 4.0 - 5.6, so the f/2.8 - 4.3 is still larger, even at long focal lengths... As for the ISO 3200 not producing the full resolution, that would only be a problem if I intended to produce low light, large format prints, which I obviously would not, and the image size is plenty big enough for posts to Usenet, my site, etc... I forgot to put the smaller end of the aperture range, as I do not shoot at full zoom very often. Most of my pics are at the shorter to mid focal length of the 36 to 360mm lens. So, even at 3.5 for about 180mm, the aperture is as large as the lowend of my other lenses, which seems like a large aperture zoom to me... Take Care, Dudley |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message news:7waMn.5161$Z6.1914@edtnps82... [] I was wondering when somebody would point that out... My only lenses for the XSi are either 3.5 - 5.6 or 4.0 - 5.6, so the f/2.8 - 4.3 is still larger, even at long focal lengths... The aperture (as an f/number) may be slightly "smaller" (i.e. higher f/number), but more light is collected because the actual physical aperture is greater (i.e. more photons get in). As for the ISO 3200 not producing the full resolution, that would only be a problem if I intended to produce low light, large format prints, which I obviously would not, and the image size is plenty big enough for posts to Usenet, my site, etc... Of course, but applying the same resolution reduction, the DSLR will work as well at 6400 12800 etc. ISO. I forgot to put the smaller end of the aperture range, as I do not shoot at full zoom very often. Most of my pics are at the shorter to mid focal length of the 36 to 360mm lens. So, even at 3.5 for about 180mm, the aperture is as large as the lowend of my other lenses, which seems like a large aperture zoom to me... Take Care, Dudley Normally, I have similar lenses to you (16-85mm, f/3.5-f/5.6; 70-300mm, f/4.5-f/5.6), but I treated myself to an f/1.8 lens for my DSLR recently. The f/1.8 combined with the ISO 3200 allowed me some shots of the aurora borealis, with which I was very pleased. For low-light and night-time shots, I would be in envy of the full-frame DSLR and f/1.4 lenses! G Cheers, David |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
"David J Taylor" wrote in message ... "Dudley Hanks" wrote in message news:7waMn.5161$Z6.1914@edtnps82... [] I was wondering when somebody would point that out... My only lenses for the XSi are either 3.5 - 5.6 or 4.0 - 5.6, so the f/2.8 - 4.3 is still larger, even at long focal lengths... The aperture (as an f/number) may be slightly "smaller" (i.e. higher f/number), but more light is collected because the actual physical aperture is greater (i.e. more photons get in). As for the ISO 3200 not producing the full resolution, that would only be a problem if I intended to produce low light, large format prints, which I obviously would not, and the image size is plenty big enough for posts to Usenet, my site, etc... Of course, but applying the same resolution reduction, the DSLR will work as well at 6400 12800 etc. ISO. I forgot to put the smaller end of the aperture range, as I do not shoot at full zoom very often. Most of my pics are at the shorter to mid focal length of the 36 to 360mm lens. So, even at 3.5 for about 180mm, the aperture is as large as the lowend of my other lenses, which seems like a large aperture zoom to me... Take Care, Dudley Normally, I have similar lenses to you (16-85mm, f/3.5-f/5.6; 70-300mm, f/4.5-f/5.6), but I treated myself to an f/1.8 lens for my DSLR recently. The f/1.8 combined with the ISO 3200 allowed me some shots of the aurora borealis, with which I was very pleased. For low-light and night-time shots, I would be in envy of the full-frame DSLR and f/1.4 lenses! G Cheers, David You and me both ... My next lens will probably be either a macro (not sure which one) or the f/2.8 85mm lens. With my old A1 camera, I had a nice 130mm lens which was great for portraits, candids, etc, and I think the 85mm will yield similar results with the XSi. Take Care, Dudley |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:21:46 -0700, John Navas
wrote: On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:50:35 -0400, Bowser wrote in : On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:17:56 -0700, John Navas wrote: I've provided more than adequate proof repeatedly (again today), but you are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded. OK, just this once: You claim that the Panny FZ35 AF is as fast as a DSLR. ... I haven't said that. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or is your position so weak you have to put words in my mouth? When you've conquered that one, post a few samples shot at ISO 3200 that match the 5D II. I have no interest in ISO 3200. Is your position so weak you have to resort to fringe situations? The FZ28 and FZ35 do the job for 99% of the things I want to do, and I'm not terribly concerned about the other 1%. Then that explains why you're so satisfied with the Pannys. You have very modest demands and can live within the confines of a P&S. 99% of the time. For some of us, who need to get shots at ISO 6400, well, we need more capable tools to do the job. Happy snap shooting. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On 5/29/10 12:44 PM, in article , "Bowser" wrote: On Sat, 29 May 2010 09:29:45 -0500, George Kerby wrote: On 5/28/10 11:50 AM, in article , "Bowser" wrote: On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:17:56 -0700, John Navas wrote: On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:02:59 -0400, Bowser wrote in : On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:06 -0700, John Navas wrote: On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:22:29 -0400, Bowser wrote in : Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. Uh, really. I own an FZ28, which is excellent, and the FZ35 I borrowed for a day was ever better. Autofocus speed is excellent *if* you configure the cameras properly. Image quality likewise. I routinely get better shots (in all respects) than those shooting the same subjects with dSLR cameras. Perhaps you need more practice with the FZ35. Nah, it's configured just fine. Apparently not. Every time we go down this road I ask you to prove what you say, we banter, and you never provide proof. Some other time, John. I've provided more than adequate proof repeatedly (again today), but you are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded. OK, just this once: You claim that the Panny FZ35 AF is as fast as a DSLR. Prove it. Not your opinion, not a statement that "it's fast" but real proof. Some third party testing that shows it's as fast as, say, my Canon 5D II. When you've conquered that one, post a few samples shot at ISO 3200 that match the 5D II. We're all waiting. Don't hold your breath... I wasn't, trust me, George. And now the slimy little **** denies ever saying it. Even though it appears in his post just a day ago. Honestly, I think he has issues. Sad sack of a little man with a bloated ego is our little friend NavAss... |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:31:15 -0500, George Kerby
wrote: I wasn't, trust me, George. And now the slimy little **** denies ever saying it. Even though it appears in his post just a day ago. Honestly, I think he has issues. Sad sack of a little man with a bloated ego is our little friend NavAss... He truly is pathetic. First he makes wild claims about how his P&S focuses as fast as a DSLR, then he claims image quality is as good, then he claims he shot some night football under weak lighting using his P&S, but as usual he offers nothing but his bull**** opinion and resorts to weaseling out of anything he's said. Truly, truly a pathetic excuse for a human being. It's impossible to carry on a civil discussion with him. There is good news, however, since he's saved us the trouble of killfiling him. As we say up here in MA, "wicked mega luzah" |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Canon and Panasonic: updated models
zulu wrote:
How would you know this unless you were nothing but a psychotic net-stalking troll with no life?- Hide quoted text - Troll hunting fun, you good target NO, it's not fun for anyone here; it's way too easy, unless you're brand new, or a pest yourself. Please refrain from replying! -- john mcwilliams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CHDK Now Supports 25 Canon Powershot Models | trent_tagger[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | March 28th 08 12:18 AM |
New Canon PowerShot A models announced | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital Photography | 0 | January 18th 07 12:18 PM |
Swivel LCD models besides Canon? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | May 23rd 06 09:31 PM |
For Canon aficionados? Differences Between Canon S410, A80 and SD10 models. | Steve Lee | Digital Photography | 3 | June 29th 04 12:48 PM |