Photography Equipment - Zoom Lens and Two Cameras Compared

In my last post (Link to last post) I talked about my Panasonic FZ200 which has a 24-600mm super Leica zoom lens.  This post will show you why equipment can make a difference - it all depends on why you are taking the photos and what use you might be using them for as well as whether you and your subject are happy with the results.

My comparison lens, which I just bought on Ebay, is the AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR.  Notice the f/3.5-5.6 on this lens compared to the f/2.8 for the Panasonic.  For my purposes for this comparison, it won't have any advantage to have the faster lens because I shoot almost all photos between f/5.6 and f/11 when shooting candid outdoor shots with either camera.  For portraits, you wouldn't be using a zoom lens in either case.  Although, after seeing the results of the Nikkor lens, I would feel pretty confident on getting a good portrait shot.  

Now about the camera - the lens was put on a Nikon D600.  Compared to the Panasonic FZ200, it is capable of shooting at a much higher ISO - 400 ISO maximum for the FZ200 compared to 3200 ISO for the Nikon for usable results.  What that means is I can get the same light at f/8 on the Nikon as I could get at f/2.8 on the Panasonic.  Or at a faster speed.  So you are much more likely to get sharper photos.  And this is exactly what happened with the Nikon - every photo I shot came out sharp and well focused.  Note that both camera lens combinations have a form of vibration reduction which allows you to shoot steady at lower shutter speeds.

Another difference between the two cameras (and there are many), is that the Panasonic is 12.1 megapixels, and the Nikon is 24 megapixels so the images from the Nikon can be enlarged quite a bit more - see the last photo in the below series.  So although the Panasonic goes to 600mm and the Nikon to 300mm, the central part of the Nikon image can be equal in size and quality to the 600mm.  With zoom lenses, especially super zoom lenses, the central part of the image is the sharpest.  The edges tend to get pretty soft.

This has gotten a bit more complex than I thought it would, but the results should show the differences between the two cameras.  Every shot in this series came out sharp.  Both cameras expose very well.

For action shots, the D600 is much better, although the FZ200 will work, but not as many usable shots.  Had I shot Paula and Gaston with a prime lens, they would have been sharply in focus, but very little else would have been.

The photo below is a close-up crop of the photo above.  The original could be printed at a size of about 40x60 inches.  But this was just to illustrate the differences between the two cameras.  There was no post processing done, no planning for the shot, just a fun photo for these two wonderful people.

Hope this explained some of what you might read elsewhere about equipment mattering or not mattering.  Of course, everything is dependent on the right light - direction, type, color, intensity, diffusion, the size of the light source, surface reflections, etc.  That topic is for another post that will be coming up.

Photography Equipment

Having been an amateur and professional photographer for a long time, starting with film and now with digital, I know the importance of the right equipment...the right cameras, lenses, lighting, etc., that will give you the best results.  This article is about one camera's pros and cons.

There are some who will say the equipment doesn't matter, it's the photographer.  It's both.  To illustrate this point, I have what I call my beach camera, a Panasonic FZ200.  It uses a fixed Leica zoom lens, f2.8 at all focal lengths, and zooms from 24mm - 600mm.  Sometimes I'm amazed at how well it works, other times it's a bit limiting.  For example, after shooting a photo, it takes a couple of seconds before I can shoot the next one.  Sometimes it takes a few seconds to find the focus or doesn't focus on the subject correctly.  One of the dials is in a spot where it is easy to accidentally move it to a different setting - this recently happened until after shooting several images.  The zoom is with a lever instead of a ring on the lens, so it's difficult to make a quick or accurate change.  All these variables cause problems.  I learned in a photo class many years ago, eliminate the variables.

On the other hand, the zoom range lets me get up close to a subject, even when far away.  For an everyday walk around camera, or as I call it, my beach camera, it works pretty well.  But having used professional equipment, it leaves a bit to be desired.

Below are some photos I have taken with this camera.

Shot at f5.6 at about 600mm - pretty sharp photo

Shot at f5.6 at around 24mm - these top two show the benefit of the long zoom range.  The cloud formation was quite unusual - seen at Venice Beach. 

The above two photos were shot at f5.6 at around 450mm -500mm - although they aren't bad, they are not as sharp as what I would like.  One was shot at the art walls at Venice Beach, the other on the Ballona Creek bike path near Mar Vista, CA.  At this size they look fine, but when enlarged, then the problems show.

The above two were shot at a Tommyland show at Venice Beach - the fog kept going in and out.  I was happy with these results.

In the above photo, the image is nice and sharp.  This is why the focus is so important.  You can always soften an image, but you can't really sharpen an out of focus image (well, a little bit with editing software, but not a lot).  In the photo below, the image is pretty soft.  She almost looks like she's part of the painting on the wall because of that - an interesting effect.   Both these images were shot along Ocean Front Walk at Venice Beach, CA.

I hope in a future article to shoot a series of photos with a different camera lens combination, and then link the two articles so you can see the difference.  Keep in mind these will be with zoom lenses, so they will never be as sharp as fixed focal length lenses (also call prime lenses) - they would be what I would use for portraits (families, children, boudoir, headshots, etc.).

Vaccines - But Wait, There's More

More of what?  Ingredients (contaminants) in vaccines that aren't listed.  This is according to the latest study done in Italy.  Why isn't this done in the U.S.?  Why would they bother - the vaccine makers are not liable for whatever injuries or deaths that might result from these contaminants.  If they found them, they would have to recall the vaccines, and it would cost them money.  Leaving them alone costs them nothing.  Here's a link to the article:  Dirty Vaccines: New Study Reveals Prevalence of Contaminants.

Some of the extra ingredients include lead, stainless steel, tungsten, platinum, silver, bismuth, iron, glass, and a gold-zinc aggregate.  In addition, they may be contaminated with viruses and retroviruses.  No one knows what these ingredients may do short or long term.  It would be bad enough to inject all this into an adult, but into a tiny infant?  These are all in addition to a vaccine's ingredient list which is bad enough.  Actually, pretty terrible.

Remember, we are talking about the effects on human lives, not a malfunctioning car or chair.  The LIVES of your children (or your life)!  The final sentence of the above link says exactly what I have been saying since starting my research on vaccines:  "The results of these investigations not only negate every assertion that vaccines are “safe and effective”, but they confirm that they are actually a clear and present danger."

Perhaps it's not only a person's genetic makeup that determines how they'll react to a vaccine, but also what contaminants are in the vaccine.

What has been in the news every day since Trump took office?  Immigration.  What has not been in the news on any day since then?  Deaths and injuries from vaccines.  How many have there been (best estimates from historical data since 2000)?  Over 700 deaths since Jan 20, 2017.  Over 900 disabled, over 31 thousand E.R. visits, and over 7000 hospitalized with 1265 being life threatening.  And this is over a period of about 3 weeks!  But what do you hear on the news regarding vaccines?  The flu is going around, get your shot - the shot that, BTW, has some of the most adverse reactions.

Now it's up to you.  Who are you going to believe?  Those who profit from vaccines (pharma, media, doctors, hospitals, CDC, etc.) or independent researchers who are trying to tell you the truth.  It's your choice - I've done my research and am trying to help you make the right choice.  The only thing I have to gain is knowing I did the right thing.

The Truth About Vaccines and Disease

From "A Few Good Men:"

But, just in case you can, what is the truth?  Below are some facts:

From 2000 - 2015, there were at least 65,000 deaths, 2 million E.R. visits, 600,000 hospitalized, 112,000 reactions that were life threatening, and 82,600 people disabled from vaccines.  All amounts probably are at least 10 times higher - just add a zero to the end of each one.  Here's a chart I had put together from VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System):  Chart.  The chart (and therefore, the amounts listed above) doesn't include all vaccines.   These numbers are called "safe" by the drug companies, government, and the media.  Speaking of the media lies, this is from TheAtlantic.com on 1/25/2017 - "For American science, the next four years look to be challenging. The newly inaugurated President Trump, and many of his Cabinet picks, have...questioned the repeatedly proven safety of vaccines."  You know, the same vaccines that the U.S. Supreme Count called "Unavoidably Unsafe."  It really boggles the mind.  The mantra ought to be:  "If vaccines are safe, then the Earth is flat and the tooth fairy is real."

Are vaccines effective?  Most cases of whooping cough are in those who were vaccinated 3+ times.  Almost all cases of mumps have been happening in vaccinated individuals.  The flu vaccine may save one person out of 100 who get the vaccine (but increases other upper respiratory infections by 4 times).  And on and on.  They call this "effective" (drug companies, government, media).  Use some logic here - IF vaccines were actually effective, why would anyone care if anyone else was not vaccinated if you were protected by them?

Well, what about the immune compromised?  Oh, I see, you're willing to possibly sacrifice another child for my immune compromised child.  That's what you're saying.  But, vaccines may actually make it more likely to cause a problem for your immune compromised child because those who are vaccinated can still be carriers of the disease in stealth mode (no symptoms to alert you to stay away).  As mentioned above, the flu vaccine increases the liklihood of getting another upper respiratory infection by 4x, so more like your immune compromised child will actually be in more danger.

So, they are not safe, they are not effective.  But, you ask, didn't vaccines eradicate disease?  If you look at historical charts of disease that go back to at least 1900, you will see a 90 - 95% decrease in all vaccine related diseases before the vaccines arrived.  And you will further see that scarlet fever and several other diseases for which there never was a vaccine have disappeared at the same rate as all the vaccinated diseases did after vaccines came out.  So we have another lie.

The truth is that vaccines may or may not do any good, are causing permanent brain damage, death, allergies, diabetes, cancers, and more.  The long term health problems have never been studied on the current schedule, so they are in fact experimental, and worse, unknown.

When I keep seeing the mantra "safe and effective," or "the science is settled," it upsets me because it's a lie that can injure and kill innocent children.  And just as bad is the discrediting of doctors, nurses, scientists, and those few politicians who dare to tell the truth.  They may take away the doctor's license to practice medicine like they did with Andy Wakefield.

Do your own research to verify the above - just make sure it's from independent sources (i.e. - not from the drug companies, not the media, and not the CDC).  And use some logic and common sense.

One last question - why would all these thousands of women be making up stories about their children being injured or killed by vaccines?  They know when something has happened to their child, especially when it's within hours or days after the vaccination!