Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Canon Lens vs. Tamron - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/405973d9dc546800?hl=en
* CHDK continous mode? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ef4ee97947ff32fb?hl=en
* OT: Obama's Birth Certificate - 10 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d1aaeba15e393e31?hl=en
* OT Re: Which free software could acquire 48 bits color depth pictures from a
scanner ? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a04fec022c17778?hl=en
* 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo
corrections) - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/541401c3b2747095?hl=en
* Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11 - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3fc2177d18a4204e?hl=en
* Hey! P&S adherents, new DSLRs down to below $400 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c130091974ea5af?hl=en
* Sony Alpha A100 menus not working - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/63f3665bc4ce6267?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon Lens vs. Tamron
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/405973d9dc546800?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 4:29 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Mike Wilcox wrote:
> I'm looking to buy a Canon Xsi and am wondering what lens(es) to
> get.
> For roughly the same price I can get the body with 2 Canon IS lenses
> (18-55 and 55-250) or the same body with 1 Tamron 18-200 ( Tamron
> Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF)
> Macro Lens for Canon Digital EOS)
>
> Any recommendations on the two directions on lenses?

Unless you absolutely positively _need_ an 18-200 for some reason go
with the two lens kit.

Reasons:

The two Canon lenses are image stabilized, the Tamron isn't (the first
IS, or as Tamron calls it "VC" superzoom from Tamron is the 18-270,
which is brand new and about twice the price of their 18-200).

The 18-55 IS is optically a remarkably good lens--it's not perfect but
it's far, far better than the Tamron is in that range. Canon cheaped
on the mechanical parts, not the glass. The 55-250 is kind of so-so
for a Canon lens but again it's got better edge sharpness than the
Tamron and you get an additional 50mm plus a hair more aperture.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 6:29 am
From: ransley

On Nov 23, 9:35 pm, Mike Wilcox <m...@nick-zack.com> wrote:
> I'm looking to buy a Canon Xsi and am wondering what lens(es) to get. For
> roughly the same price I can get the body with 2 Canon IS lenses (18-55 and
> 55-250) or the same body with 1 Tamron 18-200 ( Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle
> 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens for Canon Digital
> EOS)
>
> Any recommendations on the two directions on lenses?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike

To get the most out of the sensor none of those lenses are good
enough.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 6:33 am
From: "J. Clarke"

ransley wrote:
> On Nov 23, 9:35 pm, Mike Wilcox <m...@nick-zack.com> wrote:
>> I'm looking to buy a Canon Xsi and am wondering what lens(es) to
>> get. For roughly the same price I can get the body with 2 Canon IS
>> lenses (18-55 and 55-250) or the same body with 1 Tamron 18-200 (
>> Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD
>> Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens for Canon Digital EOS)
>>
>> Any recommendations on the two directions on lenses?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mike
>
> To get the most out of the sensor none of those lenses are good
> enough.

And you know this how?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 8:25 am
From: Archibald

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:35:16 -0800, Mike Wilcox <mike@nick-zack.com>
wrote:

>I'm looking to buy a Canon Xsi and am wondering what lens(es) to get. For
>roughly the same price I can get the body with 2 Canon IS lenses (18-55 and
>55-250) or the same body with 1 Tamron 18-200 ( Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle
>18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens for Canon Digital
>EOS)
>
>Any recommendations on the two directions on lenses?

It comes down to how much quality you want vs cost and convenience.
Only you can decide that.

You can check out reviews on these lenses on the Web... for instance
at
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/45-canon-eos-aps-c

The Tamron has a small maximum aperture at the long end and will
probably not autofocus there.

Archibald

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHDK continous mode?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ef4ee97947ff32fb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 4:30 am
From: bugbear

Bengt T wrote:
> How/where, in the CHDK menu I assume, do I select continous mode?

You don't (AFAIK), it's just an option in the "drive mode"
on the normal Canon interface.

CHDK can alter what it does, though.

BugBear

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Obama's Birth Certificate
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d1aaeba15e393e31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 6:05 am
From: "Evad Remlu"

Its time to see the proof:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

And answer a very simple question.

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 6:15 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Evad Remlu added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

Totally assinine! A territory of the United States or anything
legally like one ARE considered to be "American soil" for the
purposes of deciding on natural born citizenship. While I am not
exctly happy with the president-elect, he DOES meet the
Constitutional test for both native born American and age. So did
John McCain who was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

You think no one might've challenged either candidacy if there was
even a hint of lack of citizenship or other obvious criteria to
hold Federal office?

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 6:51 am
From: That80sGuy

In message news:Xns9B605DEDFC3D6ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30, "HEMI-Powered"
<none@none.sn> done wrote:

> Totally assinine!

What's "asinine"? Misspelling "asinine"? I agree.

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 6:54 am
From: That80sGuy

In message news:Xns9B605DEDFC3D6ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30, "HEMI-Powered"
<none@none.sn> done wrote:

> You think no one might've challenged either candidacy if there was
> even a hint of lack of citizenship or other obvious criteria to
> hold Federal office?

Ummm... Obama's citizenship WAS challenged. It's the REAL reason he went
to Hawaii. He'd not seen his grandmother in A YEAR AND A HALF. Do you
really think he went to Hawaii to see her? Puh-leeze.

http://www.pr-inside.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-hawaii-lawsuit-
r868547.htm

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 7:10 am
From: George Kerby

On 11/24/08 8:51 AM, in article Xns9B60643A699B4That80sGuy@198.186.190.61,
"That80sGuy" <clark@griswold.com> wrote:

> In message news:Xns9B605DEDFC3D6ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30, "HEMI-Powered"
> <none@none.sn> done wrote:
>
>> Totally assinine!
>
> What's "asinine"? Misspelling "asinine"? I agree.
"Feline w/ 9 tails"?

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 7:18 am
From: "B?wser"

"Evad Remlu" <mrmsatellite@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ggecaq$kce$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Its time to see the proof:
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550
>
>
> And answer a very simple question.

I would have thought that this stupidity would stop by now:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Also, if any organization on the planet could have proven that Obama was not
a US citizen, it's the Republican National Committee. They didn't, and it
was never an issue during the campaign. Hmm....

Conclusion: anyone who believes that rumor is, well, either incredibly
stupid or just trolling. I vote for stupid here.

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 7:57 am
From: John McWilliams

B?wser wrote:
>
> "Evad Remlu" <mrmsatellite@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ggecaq$kce$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> Its time to see the proof:
>>
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550
>>
>>
>> And answer a very simple question.
>
> I would have thought that this stupidity would stop by now:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
>
> Also, if any organization on the planet could have proven that Obama was
> not a US citizen, it's the Republican National Committee. They didn't,
> and it was never an issue during the campaign. Hmm....
>
> Conclusion: anyone who believes that rumor is, well, either incredibly
> stupid or just trolling. I vote for stupid here.

I vote trolling, and he's caught about eight of us so far. "Dave Ulmer".
////

IAE, it's clear Obama was in on the Republican plot to destroy the
WTC.......

--
lsmft

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 8:32 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

That80sGuy added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> You think no one might've challenged either candidacy if
>> there was even a hint of lack of citizenship or other obvious
>> criteria to hold Federal office?
>
> Ummm... Obama's citizenship WAS challenged. It's the REAL
> reason he went to Hawaii. He'd not seen his grandmother in A
> YEAR AND A HALF. Do you really think he went to Hawaii to see
> her? Puh-leeze.
>
> http://www.pr-inside.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-hawaii-
> lawsuit- r868547.htm
>
He is neither going to see his white mother or his white
grandmother until he meets his Maker, they're both dead. Do you
really think either the DNC or the RNC would have let this slide if
he really weren't a natural born citizen? In Obama's first foray
into politics, he managed to knock off all three primary opponents
on election eligibility and candidacy petion signatures, so why
would neither Hillary or the Republicans have just summarily dumped
his ass 2 years ago?

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 8:35 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

B?wser added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

there needs to be something to debunk the horseshit on snopes.com,
but in this case, it may be right - there is NO doubt as to Obama's
pedigree. LOTS of doubt about his pals and his judgment, but not
his citizenship.

> Also, if any organization on the planet could have proven that
> Obama was not a US citizen, it's the Republican National
> Committee. They didn't, and it was never an issue during the
> campaign. Hmm....

Yepper. Hillary might've used it as well.

> Conclusion: anyone who believes that rumor is, well, either
> incredibly stupid or just trolling. I vote for stupid here.
>
Agreed. Just like them who quote snopes.com are little more than
feckless dunderheads.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 8:36 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

John McWilliams added these comments in the current discussion
du jour ...
>>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81
>>> 550
>>
>> I would have thought that this stupidity would stop by now:
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
>>
>> Also, if any organization on the planet could have proven
>> that Obama was not a US citizen, it's the Republican National
>> Committee. They didn't, and it was never an issue during the
>> campaign. Hmm....
>>
>> Conclusion: anyone who believes that rumor is, well, either
>> incredibly stupid or just trolling. I vote for stupid here.
>
> I vote trolling, and he's caught about eight of us so far.
> "Dave Ulmer". ////
>
> IAE, it's clear Obama was in on the Republican plot to destroy
> the WTC.......
>
No matter what one's politics, truth is truth and bullshit is
bullshit. No one being "trolled" is that dumb. What they are doing
is trying to stamp out flapdoodle bilge like this so that the less
intelligent are not unnecessarily distracted.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Re: Which free software could acquire 48 bits color depth pictures
from a scanner ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a04fec022c17778?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 7:01 am
From: Steve

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:06:19 -0600, Walt-Kasner <wkasner@kasner.com>
wrote:

>On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
>>people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.
>
>Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.
>
>Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....
>
>http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html

You don't even need to do multiple steps of processing to see why
sinc/lanczon interpolation is better. The following is an example of
a single stage resize and the difference it can make.

First, a 100% crop of an area showing why some interpolators might
have problems. The regular pattern of the corrugations in the side of
the plane are trouble:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3055500937/sizes/o/

Now, a resize to 640x427 by Nikon PicturePerfect. Notice how the
corrugations cause morrie patterns:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3056337614/sizes/o/

And now a resize to 640x426 by XnView using sinc/lanczos interpolator.
No more morrie patterns from the corrugations. Only typical jpeg
artifacts that I could have removed by compressing it less:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3055500557/sizes/o/

Steve

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor
typo corrections)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/541401c3b2747095?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 7:14 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:02:00 -0600, Lars McNally
<larsmcnally@nospamallowed.edu> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:29:51 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>Calvin Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>>>> Vern, <CashTownsend> wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although some P&S lenses are quite good, none are f/1.8 or faster,
>>>>>>> most have purple fringing CA problems & there are no really wide
>>>>>>> rectilinear options on P&S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lenses faster than f/2.0 are often subject to optical aberrations due to
>>>>>> being difficult to figure properly.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Pretty much impossible for P&S, easy for normal focal lengths on
>>>> DSLRs harder for wide & super-tele. Yes there are some odd effects, they
>>>> are still very useful and can be stopped down to clean them up.
>>>
>>> Again, you DSLR-trolls have that bass-ackward. It is the larger diameter optics
>>> that are more difficult to figure accurately, as adequately proved above.
>>
>>50mm f/1.8 is easy & cheap. P&S does not offer this. Stop down the 50mm
>>if you want to match a P&S, you can do that too. More choices.
>>
>>For long tele, smaller sensors have an advantage, and for compactness.
>>DSLRs can go further better at a price.
>>
>>>>>> They can only be used effectively at one aperture
>>>>>> to gain optimum use from them.
>>>> Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without
>>>> losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play
>>>> with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame.
>>>
>>> DSLR lenses are only diffraction-limited at 1 f-stop, IF THEY ARE LUCKY. Whereas
>>> P&S lenses are diffraction limited across most of their aperture range.
>>
>>OK I see what you are getting at that DSLR lenses are subject to lens
>>defects for apertures above the theoretical diffraction limit. And few
>>lenses take full advantage of the sensor's resolution at f/1.8 because
>>lens defects do take a toll in that range. But... you can always stop
>>those down to match P&S performance where the P&S have no f/1.8 lenses
>>so can't even operate where that's your requirement. And if you want the
>>wide aperture for shallow DOF, you'd need a theoretical f/0.7 lens
>>(guesstimate) for the P&S which isn't available & if built would have
>>much worse optical defects than a simple $50 DSLR lens. There are some
>>fancy cine lenses available for small sensors but not that fast as I know.
>>
>
>Shallow DOF can just as easily be accomplished by using a longer focal-length,
>but that has absolutely nothing to do with what is meant by diffraction limited.
>That's just red-herring reasoning.
>
>>It is implicit that the term, 'diffraction limited' means that from
>>there on down, each stop robs the image of sharpness so the sharpest
>>image is going to be wide open on a P&S if it is diffraction limited
>>throughout it's range, right?
>
>Correct. If a lens is truly diffraction limited, then you'll only see
>diffraction robbing the image of a slight amount of detail and sharpness the
>smaller the aperture gets.
>
>Diffraction limited means that, if all lens surfaces were ground into their
>perfect required curvatures, and all surfaces and curves were ground to a
>precision finer than 1/20th the wavelengths of green light, then only the
>diameter of the optics alone would define the diameter of the airy circle. That
>is a diffraction limited lens. The larger the diameter of the optics the finer
>the detail it can resolve IF it is ground to diffraction limited precision.
>
>A good case in point is that dSLR kit lens on that recent SX10 P&S review page:
>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>
>Note how the smaller P&S lens can resolve over 2x's the amount of detail (in the
>foliage images) on that smaller sensor with smaller photo-sites compared to the
>inexpensive kit lens on the dSLR. (Both images are shown with equal sized
>pixels from the cameras.) The larger lens, even though it is trying to image
>details on photo-sites almost exactly 3x's larger in area is resolving much less
>detail. Over 6x's less resolution is coming from the larger lens, when in fact,
>if that larger diameter dSLR lens was diffraction limited, this resolving
>ability would be exactly the reverse. This is a really really bad score in the
>world of optics. This is due to extremely poor lens figures. Diffraction has
>nothing to do with the resolving power seen on those images. It's all about lens
>quality. To top it off, that dSLR lens is stopped down to f/8 where it should be
>performing even better (by cutting out some diameter of that really bad glass)
>than the f/4 aperture on the P&S lens (that's only 1 stop from wide open on that
>lens).
>
>If all things were perfect on two sets of optics, one set larger, the other set
>smaller, the larger set would produce less diffraction and be able to resolve
>finer detail. That never seems to be the case in dSLR optics because they never
>have to be ground so precisely. Whereas in P&S optics they have to be that
>precise, causing image degradation only with smaller apertures, creating by the
>diffraction properties of light alone. The converse always seeming to be true in
>dSLR optics, image degradation at larger apertures from poor lenses.
>
>This size of optics vs. diffraction vs. quality is totally contradictory in the
>world of camera optics. No camera maker expends any more effort on the glass
>than is needed to fit it to a particular use. To bring larger dSLR glass up to
>diffraction-limited precision would make them, literally, astronomically
>expensive. Look at craftsmanship-level apochromatic refractor telescopes and see
>how much a good one costs, and that's only for ONE primary achromat-lens
>doublet, not the many lenses required in a camera lens. You are paying upwards
>of $20,000 just for one moderate sized telescope lens when it is properly ground
>to true diffraction-limited precision (as required in astronomy to resolve the
>finest detail for any given optics diameter). Camera manufacturers get away with
>this poorer quality in dSLR glass since the photo-sites on a larger sensor will
>not reveal the poorer curvatures and rougher lens surfaces (rough, as in several
>to many wavelengths of light deviations). They have no need to try to make that
>lens anywhere near diffraction limited, people are going to buy it anyway. They
>only have to make it marketable.
>
>Also contradictory in the world of camera lenses, because some of them are
>ground so poorly, when you stop it down and notice image degradation it may NOT
>be from diffraction limits. It can very well be that the best figured portion of
>the lens was part of the larger diameter of those glass elements and the smaller
>aperture is now revealing the poorest quality area being the central portion of
>the lens. This is why I find it so funny when some dSLR owner is rejoicing at
>finding a "sweet spot" in their aperture range. They don't realize that they may
>have found the only spot that hides the most defects in their really bad but
>really expensive lens. Their sensor's photo-sites are not small enough to
>resolve true diffraction limits of their larger optics (remember: larger optics
>= smaller airy disk = finer details). With their larger diameter optics their
>photosites would have to probably be about 3x's smaller than those on a P&S's
>sensor to resolve true diffraction softening problems. Their small-aperture
>image softening problem can't be from diffraction limits. Back to the real
>culprit being a poorly figured and poorly polished expensive lens . :-)
>
>Microscopes, optical components in semi-conductor manufacturing, small cameras
>with very fine photo-site densities (think now, that P&S lens has to have almost
>as much resolving power as the optics originally used to create that megapixel
>circuitry matrix, in order to create images on it again), etc., a smaller lens
>for these purposes has no room for error. In order to make it marketable they
>MUST grind that glass as precisely as possible. Luckily, this is far easier and
>far less expensive to accomplish on smaller lenses. So that at every aperture it
>is reaching near-perfection. THAT is a diffraction limited lens.
>
>Every time I hear someone say, "Your silly P&S camera has a lens that is
>diffraction limited!" I laugh, knowing full well that they don't have a clue
>that they just gave my inexpensive camera the absolute highest complement
>possible in the collective worlds of optics, physics, and precision
>manufacturing.
>
>My P&S lens is diffraction-limited?!??
>
>WOW!!!! Thanks!!!!! :-)

Whatever you may believe to be true from a theoretical perspective
doesn't pan out in the real world. No p&s camera has optics made with
the precision of a professional lab instrument. If they did, the
cost would be greater than the dlsrs you love to hate. The vast
majority of p&s cameras are not intended for anything more than 4x6
prints with the occasional enlargement done at the local WalMart.

Things like diffraction rarely have any meaning except to pixel
peepers because they rarely if ever show up in actual prints. On the
other hand, the high noise, purple fringing and blown highlights that
plague most p&s cameras can be quite objectionable. These things can
be minimized by modifying your technique or avoiding certain shooting
conditions, but that can severely limit the true usefulness of the
camera.

So let's see YOUR results made with YOUR p&s; not just some
theoretical predictions and recycled websites that compare good p&s
cameras with low-end dslrs under conditions that favor the p&s. The
only picture of yours I've seen is a shot of the front panel of a VCR,
complete with purple fringing.

>(We can all thank the online DSLR-trolls into reversing the true meaning of that
>term, because they never knew what it fully meant to begin with and thought they
>could use it as an insult. Showing everyone again just how extremely stupid they
>are.)

And here we thought you could get through an entire post without
calling everybody else stupid and using the meaningless "dslr-troll"
word. Maybe there's still hope for you, though.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 8:38 am
From: Paul Furman

Vern, <Lars McNally> wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Vern, <Calvin Andersen> wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>>>> Vern, <CashTownsend> wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although some P&S lenses are quite good, none are f/1.8 or faster,
>>>>>>> most have purple fringing CA problems & there are no really wide
>>>>>>> rectilinear options on P&S.
>>>>>> Lenses faster than f/2.0 are often subject to optical aberrations due to
>>>>>> being difficult to figure properly.
>>>> Yep. Pretty much impossible for P&S, easy for normal focal lengths on
>>>> DSLRs harder for wide & super-tele. Yes there are some odd effects, they
>>>> are still very useful and can be stopped down to clean them up.
>>> Again, you DSLR-trolls have that bass-ackward. It is the larger diameter optics
>>> that are more difficult to figure accurately, as adequately proved above.
>> 50mm f/1.8 is easy & cheap. P&S does not offer this. Stop down the 50mm
>> if you want to match a P&S, you can do that too. More choices.
>>
>> For long tele, smaller sensors have an advantage, and for compactness.
>> DSLRs can go further better at a price.
>>
>>>>>> They can only be used effectively at one aperture
>>>>>> to gain optimum use from them.
>>>> Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without
>>>> losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play
>>>> with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame.
>>> DSLR lenses are only diffraction-limited at 1 f-stop, IF THEY ARE LUCKY. Whereas
>>> P&S lenses are diffraction limited across most of their aperture range.
>>
>> you can always stop
>> those down to match P&S performance where the P&S have no f/1.8 lenses
>> so can't even operate where that's your requirement. And if you want the
>> wide aperture for shallow DOF, you'd need a theoretical f/0.7 lens
>> (guesstimate) for the P&S which isn't available
>
> Shallow DOF can just as easily be accomplished by using a longer focal-length,
> but that has absolutely nothing to do with what is meant by diffraction limited.
> That's just red-herring reasoning.

Nice rant but the DSLR can always stop down if you want to match
diffraction , or buy a better one. The P&S can't open up and backing
up/zooming in for DOF control is a kludge.

>> It is implicit that the term, 'diffraction limited' means that from
>> there on down, each stop robs the image of sharpness so the sharpest
>> image is going to be wide open on a P&S if it is diffraction limited
>> throughout it's range, right?
>
> Correct. If a lens is truly diffraction limited, then you'll only see
> diffraction robbing the image of a slight amount of detail and sharpness the
> smaller the aperture gets.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 8:39 am
From: ben-parker

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:14:43 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:

> No p&s camera has optics made with
>the precision of a professional lab instrument.

Wrong again, you useless idiot pretend-photographer resident-troll.

If an image is degraded by diffraction only then it is, by very definition,
diffraction-limited, i.e. precision lab-quality PRO optics. Nearly all P&S
lenses show the greatest signs of image degradation from diffraction-limitations
only. (Haven't you been paying attention? Of course not, how can you pay with
something that you don't possess.)

Troll's pretend-photographer delusions: 0
Pro-photographer's facts & reality: 1

Maybe now you're starting to see why I would never again waste my money and time
on the amateur-quality "upgrade" optics that they sell for all DSLRs. I know
enough to know when I'm being given a ride for my money, and it's not a good
ride. You, on the other hand, are too amazingly ignorant and stupid to know when
you're being taken for the fool that you are. How can a fool know when they are
being a fool? They can't. That's why they can so easily sell a last-century
mechanical camera to you and all the amateur-quality glass accessories that you
covet so much. You'll never be the wiser. "A fool and his money are soon
parted." Never is that truer than in the world of photography, especially in
this day and age.

Try to find someone to troll for attention that knows less than you do so they
won't expose you for the fool and troll that you are so easily with every reply.
I doubt you'll find anyone more stupid and foolish than you, but you should at
least try. If you don't then the only career you've ever known, being a useless
usenet-troll, is at an end.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 8:51 am
From: Ron_Lancaster

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:38:33 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>
>Nice rant but the DSLR can always stop down if you want to match
>diffraction , or buy a better one.

Stopping-down may make no difference to improve image quality in dslr glass, and
can even reveal a worse portion of your glass. Even a better one may not be
diffraction limited. I guess that you too don't have any attention with which
you can pay. Read the facts again.

> The P&S can't open up and backing
>up/zooming in for DOF control is a kludge.

Stop down? Can't back up? None of that will help you when the light level is so
low that you can't focus on anything in that dim and dark OVF. I never have that
problem with a good camera that uses an EVF.

Try some more red-herring arguments. See what you can catch with your next
trolling run. Red-herring only works as bait on little fish.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 9:02 am
From: Douglas BW

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:06:50 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:

>
>If you are truly an award-winning photographer, I would think you
>would have posted images that were more in line with your abilities.

You don't read anything that you reply to, do you, just like all usenet-trolls.
:-)

Didn't you just recently post a quote from someone that said exactly why real
pros don't post their marketable photography online? Is your memory also
hindered by your drastic lack of intellect? Must be. Those are some seriously
disabling qualities that you're displaying about yourself.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3fc2177d18a4204e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 7:18 am
From: John McWilliams

Stephen Bishop wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:52:17 -0800, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:34:09 -0600, ReplyingToFools
>>>
>>>> you do know that, don't
>>>> you? Have fun trolling someone else. I've outted your stupidity and nonsense so
>>>> many times you're nothing but boring now. Let someone else reveal how everything
>>>> that you type is total and utter bullshit. It's clear to me now. I don't need to
>>>> prove it to myself anymore.
>>> You don't even know what a troll is, do you? Definition: Look in a mirror.
>> What irony! A guy who creates a new identity (within the last 10 days or
>> so) and posts ad nauseum only to photo groups ostensibly to put down
>> 'the troll' is himself a pest.
>>
>> Just who were you, "Stephen" before you became such?
>
>
> If you think I'm a pest, just ignore me. I've not had any issues
> with you whatsoever. Why start?

Because what you're doing is for your own amusement only.
>
> Unless, however, you are yet another false persona of our p&s friend,
> posing as one of his allies? Just who were you, John, before you
> began to take offense at things that don't concern you?

My history is long and very readily apparent, if not pretty boring.

You, however, are a newly created "personality" and have descended on
the photo groups with a vengeance. So I asked you politely what other
nyms do you post under (the 'who are you, dude' part), hoping for some
sort of response of a direct and civil nature. Civil I got; thanks for
that. So far I am simply reminded of Steve Young, a fine lad from Ohio.

--
john mcwilliams

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 8:53 am
From: John A.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:55:27 -0600, AlderWeathermore
<aweathermore@spamremover.org> wrote:

>Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
>easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs

Uh, yeah. That's why scale models are always *so* much more highly
detailed than the full-size originals. :/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hey! P&S adherents, new DSLRs down to below $400
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c130091974ea5af?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 8:15 am
From: Dave Cohen

jmeehan@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> On Nov 20, 11:25 pm, "RichA" <ob...@haslittletime.com> wrote:
> ..
>> Many people I know had to really think hard a few years back, because they
>> had to plunk down $1200 or more to buy an "entry level" DSLR. But they did
>> it for quality. Now, the price is under $500 so the cost argument is dead.
>> That leave LAZINESS.
>
> Your idea of quality is likely far different than most other
> people. What you look for in a camera is likely far different than
> most other people. More expensive or factors that apply to a
> professional news photographer or ... Does not define quality for all
> people.
>
> How do you figure Laziness? I might buy someone suggesting they
> are just too cheap to buy something more expensive (even when it is a
> better choice (not considering price) for their use, but even then is
> someone "cheap" because they choose to spend more money, say on a new
> car, than a new camera?
>
> Your arguments seem less and less logical.
>
If we confined ourselves to logical arguments there wouldn't be any posts.
Dave Cohen

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sony Alpha A100 menus not working
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/63f3665bc4ce6267?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 24 2008 8:30 am
From: Dave Cohen

Pete D wrote:
>> If no one has a better idea, remove battery for an extended period. If
>> that doesn't help I would call or email their support people.
>> Dave Cohen
>
> There may also be another battery that holds settings when the main battery
> is removed, would be worth removing that one as well.
>
> Pete
>
>
I didn't not think of that when I made my post. The problem is whereas
my old A40 used a readily replaceable watch battery (which I had to
replace when I handed it down to my wife), my A95 uses a rechargeable
and appears to be well hidden so I just skipped that issue. I think the
op will need to contact support.
Dave Cohen