dan_wolfgang

While it'd be a bit of a drive, <A HREF="http://www.menunkatuck.org/pages/hbrdcl.html">Hammonnasset State Park</A> is considered <I>it</I> in Connecticut.

Has there been any exhaustive testing of 35mm lenses vs. digital

camera lenses? Most digicam review sites don't do much testing of

the lens quality it seems.

 

Specifically, I'm curious about high-power zooms. A 28-200/300mm

lens for a 35mm camera isn't considered a particularly good lens

because of the huge range it covers and the compromises made to

cover it. There are several digital equivalents: Nikon 5700 (8x

zoom) and Minolta 7/7i (7x), and how about the Sony F707 (5x)? Are

these lenses equally poor (or worse)? Or does the smaller CCD (vs a

35mm frame) and smaller diameter optics make it easier to construct

a better lens?

 

I'd love the opportunity to do some testing to convince myself one

way or another, but I'm still sitting in the film world.

I used the padded bag for my old Peak 1 Apex backpacking stove. It works well. <A HREF="http://www.campmor.com/webapp/commerce/command/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=13710&prmenbr=226">Here</A>'s one for $6.99.

The vast majority of what I shoot is technically correct--sharp, well expsosed, good depth of field. Most here probably find the same results. But I feel lucky to find one really good shot in a (36-exposure) roll. Finding a shot that really grabs my attention, has a high "replay" value and is just plain interesting is not easy. It is likely the writer sees things the same way.

Well, I don't have the Bogen pistol-grip head; I have the Slik variation. One thing I've found (which I don't like) is that I need to keep my hand on the lever/grip to move the head. That is, if I've got one hand on the camera and one on the lens, I need to move a hand to adjust the head.

 

This is overly obvious, of course. I just didn't realize how big a pain it was to do this while trying to frame something.