From: Michael Benveniste on
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote:

>> The 45mm lens is a bit too wide for
>> the role (35mm equivalent of a 36mm lens), and the 75mm a bit long.
>
> The 45mm would be fine here as a normal lens. I use 65mm on 6x7 and 40mm
> on 24x36.


For The Love Of Dog, Montresor! I beg you, don't open up that cask of
worms. While I prefer a slightly wider "normal" lens as well, even today
the ghost of Oskar Barnack haunts the industry. I can't see Pentax/Hoya
bucking that "Conventional Wisdom."

While I though about exchanging my 45mm f/2.8 for an autofocus model,
I never got around to it. Instead, I replaced the standard focus screen
with a split-prism one. Should I decide to buy a 645D, I'll regret that
decision.

--
Mike Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Amo conventum instituti. -- Artifex Hannibal




From: Die Wahrheit on
On 12 Mar 2010 14:18:12 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>I can easily read the tiniest print, including the
>print of the Compact photoreduced OED with nine normal print pages
>compressed onto one.

That's no wonderful feat. What is a wonderful feat is using that ability to
see detail to find that the more recent OED's have been edited by
bliss-blinded self-serving christians to further their psychotic agenda.
One need merely compare v1, v2, and v3 of the digital OEDs to see the
biased edits and truncations made to thousands of word definitions. The OED
is no longer the reference it once was. In fact it is no longer a reputable
reference of any kind at all. Akin to the burning of books in the Library
of Alexandria by equally well-intentioned christians who brought the Dark
Ages upon us all, and whose shadow of ignorance borne of insecurity that we
all live under to this very day. Reenacted yet again in the most recent
versions of OED. (fwiw: the digital version 2 of OED was the last one to
contain all the original definitions and etymologies before ignorant and
insecure christians conned OED's editing seats. ("conn" pun intentional))

From: LOL! on
On 12 Mar 2010 13:39:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> My point was that pixel pitch below a certain level with most MF glass
>> is pointless other than for marketing reasons. And is likely to have a
>> threshold different from what could be useful with 35mm based Dslrs.
>
>My point is that you're mistaken in thinking there is a threshold. At
>one extreme of a very good lens and a small resolution sensor all the
>image resolution comes from the sensor. At the other extreme of a very
>large MP sensor and a poor lens all the resolution comes from the
>lens. There's a point in the middle where the contributions of sensor
>and lens to image resolution are equal. At that point improving lens
>resolution is subject to ever diminishing returns because the sensor
>exerts an increasingly larger effect on the combined resolution. Vice
>versa for increasing sensor resolution.
>
>So around what is usually taken to be the "threshold" there is an area
>of wiggle room where although you get diminishing returns from
>improving either lens or sensor resolution there still are returns.
>If it can be done cheaply enough they're worth pursuing. And
>because it's the square root of MP which is proportional to linear
>resolution that gives quite a large amount of MP wiggle room around
>the so-called "threshold".
>
>What is currently considered the threshold is also in part dependent
>on costs. When increasing MP keep diminishing in their contribution to
>resolution (and other aspects of image quality) there comes a point
>where it's simply not worth the money to push MP any higher even
>though there are still some gains to be made. But as higher resolution
>sensors get cheaper that point shifts.
>
>So yesterday's MP "threshold" for APS-C, or for 35mm full frame, or
>MF, will tend to keep drifting up as technology improves because
>there's still some extra image quality to be got. Also sensor
>technology in terms of noise, of exposure bleeding, and so on, keeps
>improving. So some of the increasing MPs at each format is actually
>delivering improved quality. Not all of it is pure marketing nonsense.
>
>Words are good at arguing about logical relationships. They're rubbish
>at arguing about numerical relationships. That's why we had to invent
>mathematics. The much bruited "thresholds" of image quality with
>respect to sensor and lens parameters are artefacts of the inevitably
>Procrustean translation of the mathematics of resolution to words.

TA-DA! We have a WINNER! Of pretend-photographer trolls and bit-head
tech-head uselessness.

I have yet to see any of you address the properties of image content
itself. Where a misty scene can be captured with far less pixels than one
defined by myriad and complex sharp edges. Even then, the content will
determine the amount of pixels needed to capture that detail. An image of
bold geographic man-made patterns will vary in its pixel needs greatly
compared to a natural scene of complex foliage.

But you go ahead. Keep on living in that theoretical tiny space between
your mental-masturbation ears and relaying its ignorant findings to those
that live in and photograph the real world. The humor you provide seems
limitless.


LOL!
From: LOL! on
On 12 Mar 2010 13:39:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> My point was that pixel pitch below a certain level with most MF glass
>> is pointless other than for marketing reasons. And is likely to have a
>> threshold different from what could be useful with 35mm based Dslrs.
>
>My point is that you're mistaken in thinking there is a threshold. At
>one extreme of a very good lens and a small resolution sensor all the
>image resolution comes from the sensor. At the other extreme of a very
>large MP sensor and a poor lens all the resolution comes from the
>lens. There's a point in the middle where the contributions of sensor
>and lens to image resolution are equal. At that point improving lens
>resolution is subject to ever diminishing returns because the sensor
>exerts an increasingly larger effect on the combined resolution. Vice
>versa for increasing sensor resolution.
>
>So around what is usually taken to be the "threshold" there is an area
>of wiggle room where although you get diminishing returns from
>improving either lens or sensor resolution there still are returns.
>If it can be done cheaply enough they're worth pursuing. And
>because it's the square root of MP which is proportional to linear
>resolution that gives quite a large amount of MP wiggle room around
>the so-called "threshold".
>
>What is currently considered the threshold is also in part dependent
>on costs. When increasing MP keep diminishing in their contribution to
>resolution (and other aspects of image quality) there comes a point
>where it's simply not worth the money to push MP any higher even
>though there are still some gains to be made. But as higher resolution
>sensors get cheaper that point shifts.
>
>So yesterday's MP "threshold" for APS-C, or for 35mm full frame, or
>MF, will tend to keep drifting up as technology improves because
>there's still some extra image quality to be got. Also sensor
>technology in terms of noise, of exposure bleeding, and so on, keeps
>improving. So some of the increasing MPs at each format is actually
>delivering improved quality. Not all of it is pure marketing nonsense.
>
>Words are good at arguing about logical relationships. They're rubbish
>at arguing about numerical relationships. That's why we had to invent
>mathematics. The much bruited "thresholds" of image quality with
>respect to sensor and lens parameters are artefacts of the inevitably
>Procrustean translation of the mathematics of resolution to words.

TA-DA! We have a WINNER! Of pretend-photographer trolls and bit-head
tech-head uselessness.

I have yet to see any of you address the properties of image content
itself. Where a misty scene can be captured with far less pixels than one
defined by myriad and complex sharp edges. Even then, the content will
determine the amount of pixels needed to capture that detail. An image of
bold geometric man-made patterns will vary in its pixel needs greatly
compared to a natural scene of complex foliage.

But you go ahead. Keep on living in that theoretical tiny space between
your mental-masturbation ears and relaying its ignorant findings to those
that live in and photograph the real world. The humor you provide seems
limitless.


LOL!
From: Robert Spanjaard on
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:28:14 -0600, NameHere wrote:

>>>> Who are 'they'? Pentax or Kodak? Why do you consider degraded image
>>>> quality to be an improvement?
>>>
>>> I don't think they need to degrade image quality to provide live view.
>>> There are so many high end DSLRs around with live view.
>>
>>And how many of them use full frame CCD's? How do you switch from full
>>frame CCD to CMOS without losing image quality?
>
> Give it a rest, you fuckingly ignorant troll. You were revealed to be
> the know-nothing troll that you are just from your assumption that all
> large sensors must be slow for an EVF display.

As I never posted such an assumption, the only thing being revealed here
is your stupidity. Again.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com