On May 3, 10:57 pm, "Neil H." <t...@s.unlisted> wrote:
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
>
> news:4639d41b$0$8730$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> > I note that pro's using SLR's (film OR digital), and
> > pro's doing video always use socking great lens hoods.
>
> > If I want to maximise the quality
> > of the shots I take with my digital compact
> > (I now have a Canon a630) should I follow
> > suit?
>
> > Or are the small lenses of a compact down
> > a deep enough hole that a lens hood is not needed?
>
> A lens hood is generally a good idea, especially one that's matched as well
> as possible to the lens's actual field of view -- of course with zoom lenses
> that's difficult or impossible to do perfectly since the field of view
> changes dramatically. Compact and ultracompact cameras often have a more or
> less rectangular cutout in front of the lens which to some extent serves the
> same purpose as a lens hood. A real lens hood would be better, but that's
> usually moot since most compact cameras have no provision for attaching one.
> If there is some convenient way of putting a hood on your Canon A630 then go
> for it, but otherwise you can probably shade the lens with your hand when
> it's really important (sun shining directly on the lens, etc.).
The hoods are put on a lens, so that to cut off the light which might
be refracted by the lens in an unplanned fasion and create glare.
Point-n-shoot cameras are too cheap and produce a too low quality to
bother with the lens hood.
I wonder why did the Sigma people create a lens hood for their new
point-n-shoot camera DP1 ??
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:4639d41b$0$8730$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> I note that pro's using SLR's (film OR digital), and
> pro's doing video always use socking great lens hoods.
>
> If I want to maximise the quality
> of the shots I take with my digital compact
> (I now have a Canon a630) should I follow
> suit?
>
> Or are the small lenses of a compact down
> a deep enough hole that a lens hood is not needed?
A lens hood is generally a good idea, especially one that's matched as well
as possible to the lens's actual field of view -- of course with zoom lenses
that's difficult or impossible to do perfectly since the field of view
changes dramatically. Compact and ultracompact cameras often have a more or
less rectangular cutout in front of the lens which to some extent serves the
same purpose as a lens hood. A real lens hood would be better, but that's
usually moot since most compact cameras have no provision for attaching one.
If there is some convenient way of putting a hood on your Canon A630 then go
for it, but otherwise you can probably shade the lens with your hand when
it's really important (sun shining directly on the lens, etc.).
carrera d'olbani wrote:
>
> The hoods are put on a lens, so that to cut off the light which might
> be refracted by the lens in an unplanned fasion and create glare.
> Point-n-shoot cameras are too cheap and produce a too low quality to
> bother with the lens hood.
But surely (on your assumption) if a lens
is low quality, and (hence...) prone to glare,
isn't a hood MORE required, not less?
"carrera d'olbani" <dolbani@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178199268.993938.90300@u30g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...
> Point-n-shoot cameras are too cheap and produce a too low quality to
> bother with the lens hood.
Well, that's not true. Even cheap point-and-shoot cameras, if from quality
manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, et al.) have excellent lenses for what
they're intended to do. I use Nikon digital SLRs and also Nikon and other
brands of digital compact and ultracompact cameras. They all produce fine
images.
On Thu, 03 May 2007 13:22:51 +0100, bugbear wrote:
> I note that pro's using SLR's (film OR digital), and
> pro's doing video always use socking great lens hoods.
>
> If I want to maximise the quality
> of the shots I take with my digital compact
> (I now have a Canon a630) should I follow
> suit?
>
> Or are the small lenses of a compact down
> a deep enough hole that a lens hood is not needed?
>
> BugBear
FWIW - though it's not really a 'compact' Kodak has a lens hood available
for their P series.
Neil Harrington wrote:
> "carrera d'olbani" <dolbani@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1178199268.993938.90300@u30g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...
>
>> Point-n-shoot cameras are too cheap and produce a too low quality to
>> bother with the lens hood.
>
> Well, that's not true. Even cheap point-and-shoot cameras, if from quality
> manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, et al.) have excellent lenses for what
> they're intended to do. I use Nikon digital SLRs and also Nikon and other
> brands of digital compact and ultracompact cameras. They all produce fine
> images.
>
> Neil
>
>
You two guys miss the point, when one has invested in a high end model
one doesn't want to be told a lesser model also has merit.
Dave Cohen
? "Dave Cohen" <user@example.net> ?????? ??? ??????
news:Eep_h.7189$dy2.2129@trndny01...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
> > "carrera d'olbani" <dolbani@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1178199268.993938.90300@u30g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> >> Point-n-shoot cameras are too cheap and produce a too low quality to
> >> bother with the lens hood.
> >
> > Well, that's not true. Even cheap point-and-shoot cameras, if from
quality
> > manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, et al.) have excellent lenses for
what
> > they're intended to do. I use Nikon digital SLRs and also Nikon and
other
> > brands of digital compact and ultracompact cameras. They all produce
fine
> > images.
> >
> > Neil
> >
> >
>
> You two guys miss the point, when one has invested in a high end model
> one doesn't want to be told a lesser model also has merit.
> Dave Cohen
Why lesser?Just for different purposes and different point of view.I
wouldn't make the same mistake again and go for a SLR when I'm mainly a
snapshot photographer.But I want good quality up to A4 blowups!Back in the
day, a SLR was the way to go but now many people have P&S.Anyway, now when
there are no (mainstream used) B&W or slide films a P&S is not that much an
disadvantage.Back in the film days, when you wanted to shoot transparencies
it was impossible with a compact, but now?And slrs are quite expensive, too.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
"Dave Cohen" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:Eep_h.7189$dy2.2129@trndny01...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "carrera d'olbani" <dolbani@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1178199268.993938.90300@u30g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>>> Point-n-shoot cameras are too cheap and produce a too low quality to
>>> bother with the lens hood.
>>
>> Well, that's not true. Even cheap point-and-shoot cameras, if from
>> quality manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, et al.) have excellent
>> lenses for what they're intended to do. I use Nikon digital SLRs and also
>> Nikon and other brands of digital compact and ultracompact cameras. They
>> all produce fine images.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>
> You two guys miss the point, when one has invested in a high end model one
> doesn't want to be told a lesser model also has merit.
> Dave Cohen
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:4639d41b$0$8730$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>I note that pro's using SLR's (film OR digital), and
> pro's doing video always use socking great lens hoods.
>
> If I want to maximise the quality
> of the shots I take with my digital compact
> (I now have a Canon a630) should I follow
> suit?
>
> Or are the small lenses of a compact down
> a deep enough hole that a lens hood is not needed?
>
> BugBear
I bought the lens hood for my S1 IS when it was new, and it's rarely been
off camera since. It keeps unwanted light off of the lens and, in a fashion,
also helps to protect that lens.
Lens Hoods on compacts? 
Linear Mode
