User Tag List

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 35 to 51 of 98
  1. #35
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [QUOTE = drifit; 1283674] i can see that you dont have experience in advance p & s camera. Before this, complained about the puny size of the lens. Please re-check the sensor size. I did mention before about the lens distance to sensor do affect DOF. here, i read your lecture about DOF but it is not complete, is ok. how about [URL = "http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1273101&postcount=11"] this DOF [/ URL]? nice?
    macro photography, can i know which lens can do image size larger than the subject size?
    by the way, we want to see your masterpieces isnt to critique but to admire and share the experience. [/ QUOTE]

    P&S cameras can do close-up photography but no macro. My Leitz 65mm Elmar macro lens which I used to take macro photos with my Visoflex can go down to a reproduction scale to 1.2. If I add a bellows unit, it goes to 1.85. With my 50mm summicron lens plus bellows I can get to a reproduction scale to 3.2. If I use Leitz's special photar macro lenses with an adapter I can go to 19 X.
    A typical P&S sensor measures a mere 4.29mm x 5.76mm. Can you get a subject this small to fill up the sensor, to call it a true macro? Or divide 4.29mm x 5.76mm by 19 and try to fit the product into 4.29mm x 5.76mm, to qualify as super macro.

  2. #36
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    home
    Posts
    278
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    taneepak,

    what's ur take on lumix gf1 (not sure if u have had the opportunity to check it out, but if you did...)? tnx vm.

    MetalOrange

  3. #37
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default So, Mr.T...

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    ...
    The number of pictures and the equipment one takes or owns is not a good indicator of quality or expertise
    ...
    ..so, what is "a good indicator" of quality or expertise???..
    Just simply by spewing infos gathered from the many souces on the internet???..




    NATO = No Action Transcribe Only

  4. #38
    Moderator drifit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Selangor, Malaysia
    Posts
    6,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctjcad View Post
    NATO = No Action Transcribe Only
    may i correct you?

    NATO = No Action Talk Only

  5. #39
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    A typical P&S sensor measures a mere 4.29mm x 5.76mm. Can you get a subject this small to fill up the sensor, to call it a true macro?
    Err.. so what and who cares? Are you buying a camera just so that you can qualify to own an "true macro"?

    I am quite certain Master Drifit fully recognises the limitation of his G11 and is getting around them taking excellent photographs instead of bitching about what his G11 cannot do (or be called).

    Photography (and many things) are like badminton, there are people who cannot any results despite the best equipment and there are people who can get the best results despite their equipment.

  6. #40
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weeyeh View Post
    Err.. so what and who cares? Are you buying a camera just so that you can qualify to own an "true macro"?

    I am quite certain Master Drifit fully recognises the limitation of his G11 and is getting around them taking excellent photographs instead of bitching about what his G11 cannot do (or be called).

    Photography (and many things) are like badminton, there are people who cannot any results despite the best equipment and there are people who can get the best results despite their equipment.
    On the contrary I think P&S cameras are very useful and are quite indispensable for quicky shots not possible with larger cameras. Yes, great pictures can be taken with any type of camera, including P&S cameras. There are many news events that only P&S can access, simply because they are so ubiquitous. Perhaps out of a crowd of 50 people there maybe 45 people who have P&S or a mobile phone that can record any news-worthy event. You will be lucky to find even one out of a crowd of 50 who carries a f/f dslr. No camera, no pictures, and it is for this reason P&S now is king.
    Let us stay focussed on the issue here-that P&S including the likes of the better and larger ones like the Lumix LX3 and Canon G10 and G11 are not a semi dslr by any definition. Also fixed lens with small imaging sensors in P&S cameras are not maco capable, only close focussing. For true macro and micro capability the lens must be interchangeable to allow for use of macro lenses and other accessories like bellows and adaptors/extension tubes and microscope adapters for looking into the really small world. BTW, macro lenses are optimized for close focussing, not like the average infinity lens although they can be used like an ordinary lens for infinity focussing.
    I feel obliged to clarify as Drifit seems to come out strong on P&S being great for macro.
    FYI, close focussing is not the same thing as macro. Photography with lenses which cover a magnification range up to 20X is known as photomacrography. For higher magnification a compound microscope consisting an objective lens and an eyepiece lens is used. The eyepiece magnifies the image created by the objective. Photography through the microscope is referred to as photomicrography.
    Both photomacrography and photomicrography should not be confused with microphotography which is just the opposite-the technique of making a very small precision photography of a large object rather than producing a greatly enlarged image of a very small object. They should also not be confused with close focussing.
    Now do you stii think P&S with their small fixed non-interchangeable lenses make great photomacrography?

  7. #41
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    [QUOTE = drifit; 1283674] i can see that you dont have experience in advance p & s camera. Before this, complained about the puny size of the lens. Please re-check the sensor size. I did mention before about the lens distance to sensor do affect DOF. here, i read your lecture about DOF but it is not complete, is ok. how about [URL = "http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1273101&postcount=11"] this DOF [/ URL]? nice?
    macro photography, can i know which lens can do image size larger than the subject size?
    by the way, we want to see your masterpieces isnt to critique but to admire and share the experience. [/ QUOTE]

    P&S cameras can do close-up photography but no macro. My Leitz 65mm Elmar macro lens which I used to take macro photos with my Visoflex can go down to a reproduction scale to 1.2. If I add a bellows unit, it goes to 1.85. With my 50mm summicron lens plus bellows I can get to a reproduction scale to 3.2. If I use Leitz's special photar macro lenses with an adapter I can go to 19 X.
    A typical P&S sensor measures a mere 4.29mm x 5.76mm. Can you get a subject this small to fill up the sensor, to call it a true macro? Or divide 4.29mm x 5.76mm by 19 and try to fit the product into 4.29mm x 5.76mm, to qualify as super macro.
    Like I said in my last reply to your posting, even in "professional" DSLR systems used for paid macro work, there is only one piece of off the shelf equipment out that that allows you to get more than 1:1 magnification straight out of the camera without additional accessories like bellows, multipliers, extension tubes and dioper add-on lenses. Or even tricks like reverse mount and antics of the like.

    So what makes it so imperative that PnS cameras need to able to do beyond 1:1 magnification in macro ?? Your Elmar Macro can only do 1:2 straight mounted onto the camera... so what's the big deal then ?

    In any case, your Leitz lens excluding the camera costs more than any prosumer PnS and it still does not do 1:1 macro...

  8. #42
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctjcad View Post
    ..so, what is "a good indicator" of quality or expertise???..
    Just simply by spewing infos gathered from the many souces on the internet???..




    NATO = No Action Transcribe Only
    If one were to try to spew info from the internet you can be sure that he or she will end up tying oneself in knots. Look, I was into photography from a young age, took cameras apart, spent considerable time in the dark with smelly chemicals, spent no less than US$40,000 (at 1984 prices) on equipment of many formats with bridges to connect the large to the small, spanning telescopes, microscope, visoflexes, lenses that can be dismantled for multiple uses on rf, slr, telescope, macro, and many self-designed adapters, etc.
    BTW, with slides every shot costs real money which unlike today's almost free recording digital medium. When things are not "free" you use your brain more. When things are "free" you shoot endlessly, hoping to get a chance for a great shot. In my days, I have never used auto focus and seldom used the camera's exposure meter. Today, just try to do without both and try a film camera with slides. This may bring back some of the deliberations necessary for creativity.

  9. #43
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladius View Post
    Like I said in my last reply to your posting, even in "professional" DSLR systems used for paid macro work, there is only one piece of off the shelf equipment out that that allows you to get more than 1:1 magnification straight out of the camera without additional accessories like bellows, multipliers, extension tubes and dioper add-on lenses. Or even tricks like reverse mount and antics of the like.

    So what makes it so imperative that PnS cameras need to able to do beyond 1:1 magnification in macro ?? Your Elmar Macro can only do 1:2 straight mounted onto the camera... so what's the big deal then ?

    In any case, your Leitz lens excluding the camera costs more than any prosumer PnS and it still does not do 1:1 macro...
    Let me try to explain in conceptual terms. True macro photos of quality can only be achieved with macro lenses, which are specifically designed for such work and are not optimized for infinity focussing. Non-macro lenses are general lenses that are optimized for infinity and are not ideal for macro work.
    Macro lenses are generally designed for use as is, which usually means at around 1X magnification, plus, and this is a very important plus for macro lenses worth their salt, it must be offered with accessories like bellows, adapters, extension tubes to increase magnification significantly greater than 1X.
    Now, if you were to design a macro lens that has a native magnification of 3X it is practically useless for photos that require 1X to 2.5X magnification. This is called an "idiot's" design. Macro lenses are designed for a low base of around 1X magnification but with the option to scale greater heights.
    Please don't mix up macro capabilities of P&S with dslr. They are not the same.

  10. #44
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Poole
    Posts
    540
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    thank you taneepak for once again going off topic and filling a thread with useless junk. we can always rely on you for this type of rubbish.

    mods, is there a delete function to get rid of useless posts?

  11. #45
    Regular Member red00ecstrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Hong Kong S.A.R. China
    Posts
    1,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I still don't know why many threads here were ended up like this?Yes, everyone has freedom to speak. Therefore, just let Mr.T speak..........ALONE!

  12. #46
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    Let us stay focussed on the issue here-that P&S including the likes of the better and larger ones like the Lumix LX3 and Canon G10 and G11 are not a semi dslr by any definition.
    The topic here is about G11. There is really no definition of a semi-dslr despite the term's wide misuse. A camera either have a mirror, or it does not. In the popular use, the term simply refers to cameras that fits between a DSLR and the typical compact.

    I feel obliged to clarify as Drifit seems to come out strong on P&S being great for macro.
    Really? Where? AFAICT, you are adamant in pointing out deficiency of P&S by throwing in arbitrary technical terms (which are only partially correct).

    Now do you stii think P&S with their small fixed non-interchangeable lenses make great photomacrography?
    Is it important, or is this another of taneepak's shot off the tangent?

  13. #47
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Uuhhmm..

    Quote Originally Posted by drifit View Post
    may i correct you?

    NATO = No Action Talk Only
    ..have you heard Mr.T's voice (literally)??..
    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    If one were to try to spew info from the internet you can be sure that he or she will end up tying oneself in knots. Look, I was into photography from a young age, took cameras apart, spent considerable time in the dark with smelly chemicals, spent no less than US$40,000 (at 1984 prices) on equipment of many formats with bridges to connect the large to the small, spanning telescopes, microscope, visoflexes, lenses that can be dismantled for multiple uses on rf, slr, telescope, macro, and many self-designed adapters, etc.
    BTW, with slides every shot costs real money which unlike today's almost free recording digital medium. When things are not "free" you use your brain more. When things are "free" you shoot endlessly, hoping to get a chance for a great shot. In my days, I have never used auto focus and seldom used the camera's exposure meter. Today, just try to do without both and try a film camera with slides. This may bring back some of the deliberations necessary for creativity.
    - 1st part. It's good & dandy you've had extensive knowledge in all the previous manual cameras, lenses, all the scopes technology. But do you have any real hands on experience w/modern digital photography?? Or have you cracked open a compact digicam or DSLR, un-assembled and then re-assembled the parts back again??..
    - 2nd part. If the current recording digital medium is "free, easy to use and one can shoot endlessly", then let's see some of your action and results.
    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    No, I have not despite an offer from my son to get me a GH1 or GF1 so that I can put my many Leitz M and Zeiss rf lenses to good use.
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    ...Maybe, when handed a digital camera I may be lost for a while on how to operate it but I should be able to get it to work after a short while. The basics in cameras and lenses have not changed, unless it can spit out money when I command it to do so..
    ..so, what are you waiting for??..




    NATO...
    Quote Originally Posted by red00ecstrat View Post
    I still don't know why many threads here were ended up like this?Yes, everyone has freedom to speak. Therefore, just let Mr.T speak..........ALONE!
    ..you're right! But Mr. T probably needs some company...and i think we're just being nice to him by accommodating his posts..
    Last edited by ctjcad; 10-30-2009 at 01:50 AM.

  14. #48
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    Let me try to explain in conceptual terms. True macro photos of quality can only be achieved with macro lenses, which are specifically designed for such work and are not optimized for infinity focussing. Non-macro lenses are general lenses that are optimized for infinity and are not ideal for macro work.
    Macro lenses are generally designed for use as is, which usually means at around 1X magnification, plus, and this is a very important plus for macro lenses worth their salt, it must be offered with accessories like bellows, adapters, extension tubes to increase magnification significantly greater than 1X.
    Now, if you were to design a macro lens that has a native magnification of 3X it is practically useless for photos that require 1X to 2.5X magnification. This is called an "idiot's" design. Macro lenses are designed for a low base of around 1X magnification but with the option to scale greater heights.
    Please don't mix up macro capabilities of P&S with dslr. They are not the same.
    Let me ask the question again... Why is it imperative that a PnS has a "true Macro" capability when even a DSLR system out of the box is unable to do that without dedicated lenses?

    Any proof of that other than "in theory"

    And what makes you think that a Prosumer PnS cannot achieve almost equivalent qualities of Macro as a dedicated DSLR macro lens system with similar dedicated accessories as would be needed by your Leitz system to achieve 'true' macro then? From your statement above, that means your Leitz Elmar Macro is not a 'true macro lens' either, since it does not natively achieve 1:1 magnification.
    Last edited by Gladius; 10-30-2009 at 05:38 AM.

  15. #49
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladius View Post
    Let me ask the question again... Why is it imperative that a PnS has a "true Macro" capability when even a DSLR system out of the box is unable to do that without dedicated lenses?

    Any proof of that other than "in theory"

    And what makes you think that a Prosumer PnS cannot achieve almost equivalent qualities of Macro as a dedicated DSLR macro lens system with similar dedicated accessories as would be needed by your Leitz system to achieve 'true' macro then? From your statement above, that means your Leitz Elmar Macro is not a 'true macro lens' either, since it does not natively achieve 1:1 magnification.
    There is no imperative that P&S must have macro lenses. It would be silly in the face of their current non-interchangeable lens system.
    P&S cameras do not have interchangeable lenses. Because it has only a fixed lens and these type of fixed lens, either a zoom or a prime, are called standard lenses which are corrected for a distant subject. Their performance at short distances are poorer. Yes, all standard lenses other than macro lenses are designed and optimized for infinity. As the subject distance gets shorter their performance gets poorer. Therefore such standard lenses found in both P&S as well as all dslr cameras are not very good for macro.
    For quality macro work you need lenses that are optimized and corrected for very short conjugate. Using a non-macro lens on a dslr to take macro photos delivers poor quality relative to a macro lens. A macro lens for a dslr is designed for use from infinity to a magnification of 1, with the highest correction for the very short distances. This macro lens is usually optimized for best performance at about 0.1 magnification, although it can be used to take pictures from infinity down to a magnification of 1. P&S cannot use macro lens because the lens cannot be changed.
    The key is the option and capability to use a macro lens. P&S simply cannot accept a macro lens. DSLR can accept a macro lens, and if you don't have one then you cannot take quality macro pictures with your dslr.
    My Leitz Elmar Macro is a systems lens, not a complete macro lens. By itself it cannot work as it has no focussing mount (it cannot be focussed). You have to select a system combination. My Elmar macro system comes in separate parts, a reflex housing that converts the M4 RF into a slr, the Elmar 65mm macro lens head, a universal focussing mount common to the Elmar macro, the 90mm summicron, 200mm Telyt, and a few other lenses, two dedicated tubes, and bellows. So my reach is very extensive, from infinity to a magnification of 1.85. The Elmar 65 macro on its own is useless as it cannot be even mounted onto the camera body. Your claim that my Elmar 65 cannot go further than 1:1 is not true because I am sure you are not aware that the Elamar 65 is not a standalone lens head only. Depending on the owner's combination choice it can vary from 0 (infinity) to 0.8 magnification or from 0 (infinity) to a 1.85 magnification, the latter is what I have. However, I agree that the Elmar 65 is rather poor by Leica standard at longer conjugates as it should be. It is horses for courses.

  16. #50
    Moderator drifit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Selangor, Malaysia
    Posts
    6,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    many thanks for the macro photography lesson. but... we are not going to take close-up of Lin Dan's eye during badminton match.

    we are talking about simple camera or p&s camera for badminton's photo. dont ask anyone just jump into leica or any other dslr which they do not know how to operate.

  17. #51
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Jakarta & Auckland
    Posts
    349
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    G series (and s series) you can add adapter and someone add another adapter to mount lens reverse, you can get pretty good macro from that setup.
    Anyway I think better stop at this.. or start another thread? this topic really getting OOT

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Canon EOS-1D X
    By drifit in forum Badminton Photography
    Replies: 6
    : 12-29-2012, 01:07 PM
  2. Canon sx1 IS
    By cheeyf in forum Badminton Photography
    Replies: 4
    : 12-17-2008, 07:22 AM
  3. Anyone getting the Canon 40D?
    By Sealman in forum Badminton Photography
    Replies: 12
    : 10-05-2007, 03:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •