From: Russ D on
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:35:37 +0200, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:25:59 -0500, the more highly educated
>and vastly more experienced Russ D photographer wrote:
>
>> No different than all those DSLR P&S snapshooters that
>> are dependent on auto-focusing and buy their cameras accordingly. They
>> can't do it manually so throw money at it. Maybe their camera will save
>> them from their own feeble attempts.
>
>You must be one of them, considering your previous statement.
>
>"Luckily too, that smaller sensor cameras are often
>combined with contrast-focusing methods, instead of phase-detection
>methods. This ensures that all your images are in perfect focus, instead of
>using the faster but hit and miss methods employed on DSLRs. I'd rather
>walk away with 100 perfectly focused images for 100 shots, rather than 10
>out of 1000."

That only comes in handy the few times I use auto-focusing. At least it's a
method that can be safely depended on when I choose to use it.

Run along troll. I'm done babysitting you for your desperate need for
attention today.

From: Robert Spanjaard on
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:51:22 -0500, the P&S troll wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:35:37 +0200, Robert Spanjaard
> <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:25:59 -0500, the P&S troll wrote:
>>
>>> No different than all those DSLR P&S snapshooters that are dependent
>>> on auto-focusing and buy their cameras accordingly. They can't do it
>>> manually so throw money at it. Maybe their camera will save them from
>>> their own feeble attempts.
>>
>>You must be one of them, considering your previous statement.
>>
>>"Luckily too, that smaller sensor cameras are often combined with
>>contrast-focusing methods, instead of phase-detection methods. This
>>ensures that all your images are in perfect focus, instead of using the
>>faster but hit and miss methods employed on DSLRs. I'd rather walk away
>>with 100 perfectly focused images for 100 shots, rather than 10 out of
>>1000."
>
> That only comes in handy the few times I use auto-focusing. At least
> it's a method that can be safely depended on when I choose to use it.

Ofcourse. And PD can be safely depended on when I choose to use it.

> Run along troll. I'm done babysitting you for your desperate need for
> attention today.

LOL

You're the one who keeps changing his nick to escape killfilters. Wouldn't
I do that if I was as desperate as you are?



--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: John McWilliams on
Russ D wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:13:05 -0500, Doug McDonald
> <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/2010 11:08 AM, Russ D wrote:
>>
>>> Your thinking is twisted--from trying to justify your poor choices in life
>>> and from relentlessly parroting the same nonsense that all the DSLR-Trolls
>>> do, just like the rest of you archaic DSLR-Dolts. Since the sensor is
>>> smaller the light is spread over a smaller area for the same amount of
>>> aperture. The exposures will be identical, f/stop for f/stop. A smaller
>>> entrance pupil is required for smaller sensors.
>>
>> UH, **NO**
>>
>> The number of photons ... which determines the S/N ratio ... depends
>> on the actual aperture SIZE, not f/number.

>
> Correct, if the sensor is not efficient enough at a certain aperture then
> there will be degradation from noise. Most smaller sensor cameras have no
> problems shooting noise-free images in low-light conditions at ISO200-400,
> even including light levels low enough to image dim aurora and 9th
> magnitude stars. Which mine do quite well, thank you.

Ah, do post an example with EXIF info, please!

The benefit from
> small sensors is that larger f/ratio lens designs can be used at longer
> focal lengths, so high ISO sensitivity is not required for the very same
> exposures and focal-lengths that are needed by DSLR sized sensors wilth
> their diminished f/ratios. If you have to use more than ISO400 for your
> photography you've only managed to prove to the world that you're an inept
> snapshooter with very little experience and zero talent.
>
> High ISO is a merely a crutch for those those crippled by talent or
> equipment design... << Snipped bits out >>

Ever shot sports at night??

--
john mcwilliams
From: me on
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:03:26 -0400, "Tim Conway"
<tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>news:4bd83aaf$0$27747$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:hr95fu$d94$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>I want one of these. Hey, it's only $7,000. dream on. :-)
>>>
>>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1272386298.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> Try the new 2.8 70-200 with the new aspherical 2x extender. Yes I know
>> it's f5.6 and not f4, but the price and weight difference may be worth it.
>>
>> But, yup! I like that lens.
>
>Definitely more affordable solution. I'll keep it in mind. Thanks

Definitely a "different" solution. I can't speak to the new versions,
however I can speak to the originals. I've shot the orginal 70-200mm
f/2.8 VR + TC-20EII on a D70/D200?D300 for quite a few years. I've now
also had the orignal 200-400 f/4 VR for several years. Totally
different worlds and one does get what one pays for. Each has its own
set of limitations. The 70-200+TC-20 is cheaper, and lighter. It does
not give the same sharpness on small subjects at range as the 200-400.
So how valuable the combo might be to you depends not only on, size,
wt, $$, but maybe also your intended subject. Panning shots of auto/MC
racers taken with both and compared where shutter speeds where kept
around ~1/320 s showed aproximately the same sharpness. The bigger
lens is definitely a lot more difficult to pan, especially if not
given an easy subject/point to pick up. The combo is much easier to
get up to panning speed. The combo is slower focusing than the big
lens. The big lens gives you a shorter focal length range and
definitely a closer focusing distance.

All that said, now having both, the 200-400mm pretty much lives mated
to a TC-14 and the 70-200 gets used by itself of mated to the 1.4x
also. In good light I will mate the 2x to the big lens. Despite what
Nikon publishes the D70/200/300 will try to autofocus the 200-400 f/4
+ TC-20 F/8 combo and in bright light the resulting image is stll
outstanding.

http://edwardgruf.com/bluebird.html

From: Tim Conway on

"me" <me(a)mine.net> wrote in message
news:0aght5l0te9movbk5034934j0p4m37dmnh(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:03:26 -0400, "Tim Conway"
> <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:4bd83aaf$0$27747$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hr95fu$d94$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>I want one of these. Hey, it's only $7,000. dream on. :-)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1272386298.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Try the new 2.8 70-200 with the new aspherical 2x extender. Yes I know
>>> it's f5.6 and not f4, but the price and weight difference may be worth
>>> it.
>>>
>>> But, yup! I like that lens.
>>
>>Definitely more affordable solution. I'll keep it in mind. Thanks
>
> Definitely a "different" solution. I can't speak to the new versions,
> however I can speak to the originals. I've shot the orginal 70-200mm
> f/2.8 VR + TC-20EII on a D70/D200?D300 for quite a few years. I've now
> also had the orignal 200-400 f/4 VR for several years. Totally
> different worlds and one does get what one pays for. Each has its own
> set of limitations. The 70-200+TC-20 is cheaper, and lighter. It does
> not give the same sharpness on small subjects at range as the 200-400.
> So how valuable the combo might be to you depends not only on, size,
> wt, $$, but maybe also your intended subject. Panning shots of auto/MC
> racers taken with both and compared where shutter speeds where kept
> around ~1/320 s showed aproximately the same sharpness. The bigger
> lens is definitely a lot more difficult to pan, especially if not
> given an easy subject/point to pick up. The combo is much easier to
> get up to panning speed. The combo is slower focusing than the big
> lens. The big lens gives you a shorter focal length range and
> definitely a closer focusing distance.
>
> All that said, now having both, the 200-400mm pretty much lives mated
> to a TC-14 and the 70-200 gets used by itself of mated to the 1.4x
> also. In good light I will mate the 2x to the big lens. Despite what
> Nikon publishes the D70/200/300 will try to autofocus the 200-400 f/4
> + TC-20 F/8 combo and in bright light the resulting image is stll
> outstanding.
>
> http://edwardgruf.com/bluebird.html

Nice