camera lens’s

"Mike Hide" wrote:

As the price of digital cameras comes down [the local paper flyer has a Gateway 5.25 megapixels camera for $300] I am starting to wonder who are making the advertised off brand cameras, and should we now be looking for lens quality etc as we have done with film cameras rather than just megapixels.

I think we should always consider lens quality when buying a camera whether it’s a digital or film camera..

Manual lens have always had a slight edge over autofocus lens and I wonder if it is the same with digital lens..

I have a 5 megapixel camera myself and while it produces fine pics, it’s not as good as the pics taken with my older manual focus lens which also includes a few uncoated lens..

Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng
http://www.colyngoodson.com
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.html

"Colyn" wrote in message

"Mike Hide" wrote:

As the price of digital cameras comes down [the local paper flyer has a Gateway 5.25 megapixels camera for $300] I am starting to wonder who are making the advertised off brand cameras, and should we now be looking for lens quality etc as we have done with film cameras rather than just megapixels.

I think we should always consider lens quality when buying a camera whether it’s a digital or film camera..

Manual lens have always had a slight edge over autofocus lens and I wonder if it is the same with digital lens..

I have a 5 megapixel camera myself and while it produces fine pics, it’s not as good as the pics taken with my older manual focus lens which also includes a few uncoated lens..

I’ll side with that opinion. I’m a recovering silver based photographer and I still can’t shake the notion "It’s the photographer first and the glass second that makes the difference and the last will never make up for the first". The current debate (relatively) over pixel count reminds me of the older debate of 35mm vs 4×5. If you don’t have good composition and exposure taken through a decent chunk of glass, all you have is a bigger mistake. Yes, Ansel Adams is beautiful, but look at the work of Eugene Smith. It’s not the size of the negative, it’s the statement being made. I’ve seen a lot of people shell out money for a 4×5 and still take photos that leave me cold. I also remember a show that left me breathless that was done by a photographer in China using a 110 camera because that was all he could afford.

For a digital camera, I have an aging (three years old) Olympus 1.3 Megapixel camera. I’m not Ansel Adams or Eugene Smith, but I’d love to trade it in. I just can’t find a reason to. The camera does almost everything I ask it to. Action shots are the only place it falls down: the shutter does not always trip when I want it to. Somewhere in the next three months I may (Ooops!) drop it and have to replace it with a camera that behaves more the way my old conventional 35mm camera does. Until then, I’ll use it and then give it to the kids to use.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:21:16 GMT, Colyn
wrote:

I think we should always consider lens quality when buying a camera whether it’s a digital or film camera..

Yes.

Manual lens have always had a slight edge over autofocus lens and I wonder if it is the same with digital lens..

Once upon a time in a galaxy far,far away. Just like using zoom lenses could be reproduced by shooting through the bottom of a milk bottle. But times move on. Manual lenses are *worse*. Basically, because most cameras are AF and all lens development on manual lenses for most cameras stopped years ago. Lens technology now produces far better AF lenses than virtually all MF lenses. Of course, we are talking about 35mm.

I have a 5 megapixel camera myself and while it produces fine pics, it’s not as good as the pics taken with my older manual focus lens which also includes a few uncoated lens..

To some extent, you get what you pay for. Like, for example, buying a Contax or Leica rather than a Pentax.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Mike Hide" wrote in
news:T1zVb.122217$U%:

As the price of digital cameras comes down [the local paper flyer has a Gateway 5.25 megapixels camera for $300]

Saw one over the holidays. Image quality was what you would expect for something with this rating for that price. I.E., just plain bad.

I am starting to wonder who
are making the advertised off brand cameras, and should we now be looking for lens quality etc as we have done with film cameras rather than just megapixels.

I don’t recall that we ever should have been looking at just megapixels. Color saturation, clarity, lack of interpolation, lack of "digital zoom", amount of control, accessories, especially lenses, available. All of these weigh more than just raw resolution.

<snip>

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:21:16 GMT, Colyn
wrote:

I think we should always consider lens quality when buying a camera whether it’s a digital or film camera..

Yes.

Manual lens have always had a slight edge over autofocus lens and I wonder if it is the same with digital lens..

Once upon a time in a galaxy far,far away. Just like using zoom lenses could be reproduced by shooting through the bottom of a milk bottle. But times move on. Manual lenses are *worse*. Basically, because most cameras are AF and all lens development on manual lenses for most cameras stopped years ago. Lens technology now produces far better AF lenses than virtually all MF lenses. Of course, we are talking about 35mm.

I have a 5 megapixel camera myself and while it produces fine pics, it’s not as good as the pics taken with my older manual focus lens which also includes a few uncoated lens..

To some extent, you get what you pay for. Like, for example, buying a Contax or Leica rather than a Pentax.

Zeiss lenses are hard to beat…..Sony is using different variants of Zeiss in many of their digitals…..

I had heard many moons ago that at the end of WW2 part of Germany’s war retributions were the leica lens computations .these computations all done manually, amounted to rooms and rooms of paperwork. I do not know ffor certain if this is true or not, but it does sound feasible . With the advent of the high speed computer I would imagine the computations could now be done in short order.Furthermore with the computing power available that many nonlineararities can now be introduced into the calcs that never before could be considered and as a result better lens’s both manual and others produced than ever before . mjh

—

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:21:16 GMT, Colyn
wrote:

I think we should always consider lens quality when buying a camera whether it’s a digital or film camera..

Yes.

Manual lens have always had a slight edge over autofocus lens and I wonder if it is the same with digital lens..

Once upon a time in a galaxy far,far away. Just like using zoom lenses could be reproduced by shooting through the bottom of a milk bottle. But times move on. Manual lenses are *worse*. Basically, because most cameras are AF and all lens development on manual lenses for most cameras stopped years ago. Lens technology now produces far better AF lenses than virtually all MF lenses. Of course, we are talking about 35mm.

I have a 5 megapixel camera myself and while it produces fine pics, it’s not as good as the pics taken with my older manual focus lens which also includes a few uncoated lens..

To some extent, you get what you pay for. Like, for example, buying a Contax or Leica rather than a Pentax.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Mike Hide" wrote in message

I had heard many moons ago that at the end of WW2 part of Germany’s war retributions were the leica lens computations .these computations all done manually, amounted to rooms and rooms of paperwork. I do not know ffor certain if this is true or not, but it does sound feasible . With the

advent

of the high speed computer I would imagine the computations could now be done in short order.Furthermore with the computing power available that

many

nonlineararities can now be introduced into the calcs that never before could be considered and as a result better lens’s both manual and others produced than ever before . mjh

It’s not just a question of math, it’s also a question of manufacturing and quality control. You can have the greatest set of numbers for a lens design, but if you can not produce a consistantly high quality physical product from those specifications, you’re doomed. If you tried to polish a soft drink bottle (assuming you can still get a glass one) to those specs, you’ll still get a fuzzy picture.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:21:16 GMT, Colyn
wrote:

I think we should always consider lens quality when buying a camera whether it’s a digital or film camera..

Yes.

Manual lens have always had a slight edge over autofocus lens and I wonder if it is the same with digital lens..

Once upon a time in a galaxy far,far away. Just like using zoom lenses could be reproduced by shooting through the bottom of a milk bottle. But times move on. Manual lenses are *worse*. Basically, because most cameras are AF and all lens development on manual lenses for most cameras stopped years ago. Lens technology now produces far better AF lenses than virtually all MF lenses. Of course, we are talking about 35mm.

I have a 5 megapixel camera myself and while it produces fine pics, it’s not as good as the pics taken with my older manual focus lens which also includes a few uncoated lens..

To some extent, you get what you pay for. Like, for example, buying a Contax or Leica rather than a Pentax.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:43:31 GMT, "Mark" wrote:

Zeiss lenses are hard to beat…..Sony is using different variants of Zeiss in many of their digitals…..

Yea, they are/were (I’ve heard that the quality has dropped since they stopped making them in Germany and transferred production to the Far East).

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

Zeiss lenses are hard to beat…..Sony is using different variants of Zeiss in many of their digitals…..

Yea, they are/were (I’ve heard that the quality has dropped since they stopped making them in Germany and transferred production to the Far East).

Zeiss glass quality has in fact dropped since the move out of Germany..

German QC was always better than Japanese or other Asian QC..

Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng
http://www.colyngoodson.com
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.html

Colyn wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Zeiss lenses are hard to beat…..Sony is using different variants of Zeiss in many of their digitals…..

Yea, they are/were (I’ve heard that the quality has dropped since they stopped making them in Germany and transferred production to the Far East).

Zeiss glass quality has in fact dropped since the move out of Germany..

German QC was always better than Japanese or other Asian QC..
Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng
http://www.colyngoodson.com
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.html

Actually, I think that has to do with not using Russian glass.

—
Branko Vukelic ()

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:51:48 +0100, "Branko Vukelic" wrote:

Colyn wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Zeiss lenses are hard to beat…..Sony is using different variants of Zeiss in many of their digitals…..

Yea, they are/were (I’ve heard that the quality has dropped since they stopped making them in Germany and transferred production to the Far East).

Zeiss glass quality has in fact dropped since the move out of Germany..

German QC was always better than Japanese or other Asian QC..
Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng
http://www.colyngoodson.com
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.html

Actually, I think that has to do with not using Russian glass.

<g> Like the old Fed cameras you mean?

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui