pkipnis

Both Zeiss and Leitz had .95 glass in the late 30's and stopped down one or two F. stops they were damn fine glass. Those were the days in uncoated or very limited coatings so that makes them also much more incredible. Optics are sized to cover a particular format. that said the design of a lens, wide angle, retro wide angle, apo, etc help determine the angle they will cover and the normal magnification.
Optical design is one of give and take. You an get very sharp images with a triplet cooke design... if you don't mind color banding or fuzzy edges.
The world of 35mm had dumbed down a lot of the craft. Now we argue about APC, 5/4, full frame etc. It all comes down to the technique of the photographer to get the best out of his/her equipment. Not camera, equipment and that includes the human brain.

derekandmee Loc: Queensland Australia

Yes n3eg!
I will keep my canon500d for a long time,with 18-135is and plenty of other lens,its the user not the SLR,when I bought the 500d it was the best in my range at around $1000.00. now maybe $300.00.thats the world today what ever you buy it will be outdated tomorrow! my Canon has heaps to offer, a great many features to make great photos,one very happy chappie.
Derek, Australia.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Added to that - I do not like electronic view finders or cameras you have to hold at arms length! :shock:

thephotoman Loc: Rochester, NY

Ii am afraid you missed the news. John Issac uses a 4/3 camera and has many photos published in thst format with Nat Geo. He was tthe head photographer for the UN until he retired. Mr. Issacc started using 4/3 camera just before retirement. Again it is the skill of the photographer that makes the photo. I can use Babe Ruth's bat and the only record of his I will break is his strike outs not home runs.

thephotoman Loc: Rochester, NY

I am afraid you missed the news. John Issac uses a 4/3 camera and has many photos published in that format with Nat Geo. He was the head photographer for the UN until he retired. Mr. Issacc started using a 4/3 camera just before his retirement. Again it is the skill of the photographer that makes the photo. I can use Babe Ruth's bat but the only record of his I will break is his strike outs not home runs.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

I don't know; Babe Ruth was as good at striking out as he was hitting them out. Better in fact, because his strike out record still stands.....

sbesaw Loc: Boston

So does his Home Run record for games played in a season

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

HA!

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

Yeah but there's an asterisk in front of his name as he used performance enhancing hot dogs, beer and cigars!

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

A very good way to get on their mailing list! :mrgreen:

magnumkidd Loc: NC

[quote=Bugfan]It's marketing. It seems to be generally known for right or wrong reasons, that if you want quality you need an SLR. If you follow a professional photographer around that person is also using an SLR or, if s/he can afford it and justify it, a digital medium format camera.

As a result people tend to conclude that this is the way to superlative quality. And well, it is actually though not at the entry level of the SLRs, at that level the P&S cameras are just as good as are the bridge cameras in my opinion.

But to add to this baffling thread, what I don't understand fully is why people spend the money on an SLR and then proceed to take all their pictures in Auto. Why spend money to control exposure, white balance, ISO etc only to set the camera in Auto?

I realize a partial answer is they don't want to learn and auto is a lot simpler. But by not learning they won't achieve anything better by way of image quality than they can achieve in a high end P&S.

And as I try to get people to understand in my photography seminars ... the camera has no idea what it is you are trying to photograph and what kinds of mood and message you are trying to create. When you set it to Auto all it can do is average the image out. As a result another word for "Auto" is mediocre. So here they are spending a bundle on what's "best" and using it like a P&S. Go figure![/qu

You are absolutely right. It's marketing. I needed a new camera because my old Sony cybershot was just too slow. I take snaps of mostly church youth activities and with the sony the kids were completely gone before it would snap. Then last year everywhere you look, there's this super camera(Canon T3i) on sale. the adds said (it's fast, It's sharp, no end to simply amazing), and it came with 2 lens 1regular photo, 18-55, and 1 for super long shots 55-250. I bit, my bad. I know nothing about cameras, so imagine my surprise when i get this thing and theres no zoom. I put that super long lens on and crap , it won't reach as far as the sony did.
I started searching and found you guys and after reading for a while realized an sx40 would have been perfect.