Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Common Grackle (I think) at local Zoo  (Read 6095 times)
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2009, 07:51:02 PM »
ReplyReply

You're crazier than I thought you were.

... The bird is out of focus and it is the camera's fault. ... Amazon is posting fake images on dpreview to sell more cameras ...

I see.

Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2009, 09:01:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
You're crazier than I thought you were.
... The bird is out of focus and it is the camera's fault. ... Amazon is posting fake images on dpreview to sell more cameras ...
I see.

I'm crazy?  You and the old dude are some kind of megalomaniacs, deciding that YOU are the arbiters of correctness on the LL forum.

And no, in the sane world (not yours) the entity that has a commercial interest in pushing hardware and taking Panasonic's money for ads does indeed have a very real incentive to, er, not mention certain things.

I wouldn't say you're crazy other than what I mentioned, but you're either a bad liar or terribly naive.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2009, 09:38:09 PM »
ReplyReply

And no surprise on the actual review contained at the DPReview site: They used the kit (14-45) lens, and an Olympus 50 mm lens.  Other than a mere mention that a 45-200 lens was available, they did absolutely no tests with it, nor did they comment one word about it.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2009, 10:10:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
And no surprise on the actual review contained at the DPReview site: They used the kit (14-45) lens, and an Olympus 50 mm lens.  Other than a mere mention that a 45-200 lens was available, they did absolutely no tests with it, nor did they comment one word about it.

More research from the (I'm crazy?) person: I read the full review at Cameralabs.com - same deal as DPReview - nary a mention of the 45-200 except "it exists".

Then I read the 27 user reviews at DPReview - 4 people mentioned the 45-200, but only 3 commented on the quality:

1. 45-200 not sharp.
2. 45-200 good, but not as good as the 14-45.
3. 45-200 resolution goes down the more you zoom.

I'd say the evidence is coming in in my favor as far as facts are concerned, unfortunately not as far as having good equipment is concerned.
Logged
cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2009, 04:19:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
One of the things I strive for in wildlife photos is to try to give the animals a dignified presentation, without being exploitative.

Yes, I can see that too. (Just wanted to stop by and say that, now Im off here since I dont like whats going on here.)
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2009, 06:03:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
And no surprise on the actual review contained at the DPReview site: They used the kit (14-45) lens, and an Olympus 50 mm lens.  Other than a mere mention that a 45-200 lens was available, they did absolutely no tests with it, nor did they comment one word about it.
Sorry, dude ... all the photos I linked were shot with the 45-200 at 200.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2009, 08:24:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Sorry, dude ... all the photos I linked were shot with the 45-200 at 200.

What you should be sorry for is making a personal attack when you don't have your facts straight. The reviews at both sites had a conspicuous absence of commentary about the lens, and the actual users did, which was unfavorable.  Your linked photos prove absolutely nothing.  I can supply photos "proving" anything.  But I don't, because I'm not an attack dog like you.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2009, 08:42:14 AM »
ReplyReply


Quote from: dalethorn
making a personal attack ... But I don't, because I'm not an attack dog like you.

Uh, huh.

"Russ, but of course, I think he's very common"

"Russ's critiques are often dismissive, contemptuous, uninformed or informed on an unrelated topic"


And with respect to your inability to focus a camera ... stop blaming the camera.  You are the problem.  Invest in a quality tripod or learn how to hold the thing still.

Unless you are accusing dpreview of outright fraud, the images I posted actually do prove my point and disprove your claim that the lens was designed to suck.

The images I posted prove that the Panasonic G1 with the 45-200mm lens can be accurately and effectively focused at 200mm ... if you know how to use the camera.

Your problem is that you've gotten overly used to the forgiveness a tiny senor and a tiny absolute focal length give a hack like you.

Now that you've stepped up to the 'huge' 4/3 sensor, you just can't keep it still in your shaky little hands ... keep at it ... in a year or two you might actually get something in focus.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #28 on: July 04, 2009, 08:46:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Uh, huh.
"Russ, but of course, I think he's very common"
"Russ's critiques are often dismissive, contemptuous, uninformed or informed on an unrelated topic"

And with respect to your inability to focus a camera ... stop blaming the camera.  You are the problem.  Invest in a quality tripod or learn how to hold the thing still.
Unless you are accusing dpreview of outright fraud, the images I posted actually do prove my point and disprove your claim that the lens was designed to suck.
The images I posted prove that the Panasonic G1 with the 45-200mm lens can be accurately and effectively focused at 200mm ... if you know how to use the camera.
Your problem is that you've gotten overly used to the forgiveness a tiny senor and a tiny absolute focal length give a hack like you.
Now that you've stepped up to the 'huge' 4/3 sensor, you just can't keep it still in your shaky little hands ... keep at it ... in a year or two you might actually get something in focus.

The truth hurts, doesn't it mr. attack dog?  I've been using big cameras since the 1960's, which is yet another fact that your ignorance missed.  I know very well what I'm doing, and all you can come up with to cover your embarrassment is tripe, and more attacks.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2009, 08:54:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
And no surprise on the actual review contained at the DPReview site: They used the kit (14-45) lens, and an Olympus 50 mm lens.  Other than a mere mention that a 45-200 lens was available, they did absolutely no tests with it, nor did they comment one word about it.

Who has their facts wrong?  Me?  Try again ...

"Panasonic Lumix G1 Review Samples (33 of 49), 400 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/640 sec, F5.6, +0.0 EV, G VARIO 45-200mm/F4.0-F5.6"

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/panasoncdmcg1_samples/



Another fraudulent image?  Is that your claim?

Do you understand logic?  You claim the lens cannot be focused at 200mm to achieve a reasonably sharp image.  You claim that your failure to do so is proof of your claim.  This is illogical.  What you have proved is that YOU have not so far produced an acceptably sharp image with this lens.

The fact that someone else has done so, and that I have shown several images shot with that camera and lens at 200mm is, in fact, proof that your claim is false.

Elementary, my dear Watson ... elementary.

We have proved two things:

1) The lens/camera combo can produce sharp images at 200mm in capable hands

2) You do not have capable hands

Now ... if you want to continue picking on a Korean War veteran who takes damn good photographs and has a lot of valuable insights and experience to share ... be my guest ... but if you do, I will smack you down every time.

Peace.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #30 on: July 04, 2009, 08:55:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
I've been using big cameras since the 1960's

All that proves is that you are a REALLY slow learner.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #31 on: July 04, 2009, 08:57:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
All that proves is that you are a REALLY slow learner.

All this posting proves is that you're a liar and attack dog, devoid of facts and full of bile.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #32 on: July 04, 2009, 08:57:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
I know very well what I'm doing

Then let us see that. Most of what you post isn't even in focus, so it is hard to accept this claim.

Show us some of stuff that would make your daddy proud ... he was an artist, right?  Show us some of that genetic advantage.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #33 on: July 04, 2009, 08:58:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
All this posting proves is that you're a liar
Liar?  What have I lied about?
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #34 on: July 04, 2009, 09:00:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Who has their facts wrong?  Me?  Try again ...

"Panasonic Lumix G1 Review Samples (33 of 49), 400 mm equiv, ISO 100, 1/640 sec, F5.6, +0.0 EV, G VARIO 45-200mm/F4.0-F5.6"

Another fraudulent image?  Is that your claim?

Do you understand logic?  You claim the lens cannot be focused at 200mm to achieve a reasonably sharp image.  You claim that your failure to do so is proof of your claim.  This is illogical.  What you have proved is that YOU have not so far produced an acceptably sharp image with this lens.

The fact that someone else has done so, and that I have shown several images shot with that camera and lens at 200mm is, in fact, proof that your claim is false.

Elementary, my dear Watson ... elementary.

We have proved two things:

1) The lens/camera combo can produce sharp images at 200mm in capable hands

2) You do not have capable hands

Now ... if you want to continue picking on a Korean War veteran who takes damn good photographs and has a lot of valuable insights and experience to share ... be my guest ... but if you do, I will smack you down every time.

Peace.

Peace from a liar and attack dog?  Is that like "Mars Attacks", i.e. "we come in peace"?

BTW mr. attack dog, I've posted photos from the 45-200 that have gotten excellent reviews here.  But you probably missed those, and would prefer the "official" versions from DPReview.  No doubt you believe the Oswald photos are genuine as well.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2009, 09:02:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
if you want to continue picking on a Korean War veteran....

At your age I'd conclude your eyesight, as well as some other body parts, are probably failing.
Logged
adam z
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


« Reply #36 on: July 04, 2009, 09:16:33 AM »
ReplyReply

If that lens was not capable of being focused at 200mm, then they probably would not have sold it. It may not be the sharpest lens in the world, but if a shot is in focus on a soft lens, it is still obvious that it is in focus, and with digital you can sharpen it up even more if need be. Being 400mm equivalent on that camera body, sorry if I missed a detail, but perhaps camera shake was the problem.

Anyway, I reccomend buying a good sharp lens, that way you can't blame your equipment.

This was shot through my back window with Canon 70-200 2.8L IS.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #37 on: July 04, 2009, 09:17:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
At your age
Unless you are lying about your lab experience in the Army in 1967, you are at least 20 years my senior ... so I'm not sure I get the age attacks ... but for the record ...

I was born in 1969.  I'll be 40 in September ... I have zero presbyopia and my myopia was laser corrected to 20/10.

My vision is perfect ... hence my ability to see right through your bullshyte.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #38 on: July 04, 2009, 09:41:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Unless you are lying about your lab experience in the Army in 1967, you are at least 20 years my senior ... so I'm not sure I get the age attacks ... but for the record ...
I was born in 1969.  I'll be 40 in September ... I have zero presbyopia and my myopia was laser corrected to 20/10.
My vision is perfect ... hence my ability to see right through your bullshyte.

A Korean War veteran born in 1969?  Sure.  And your logic, comparing eyesight to being able to digest print - that's classic too.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #39 on: July 04, 2009, 09:45:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
A Korean War veteran born in 1969?
Russ fought in Korea, you idiot.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad