in [SLR Cameras]

Prev: Nikon Raw 64 bit codec
Next: Good news for shills...
From: DanP on 1 Jun 2010 08:04 On 31 May, 02:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt... (a)sneakemail.com>wrote: > We are talking about stars ... you know, as good as > infinitely far away point sources as there are? With > perfectly parallel rays? To talk about sorces of perfecly parallel rays is to talk about points size zero. For that the focal length has no meaning. a point of size 0 is focused by all lens to a size zero image. You have brought focal lengths to discussion though you did not express that clearly. I was talking about lens diameters. > > > And that means the amount of light let in depends only of exposure > > time and f number. If bigger lenses would let more light in at the > > same f number then the film would have been over exposed. > > We are not talking about areas, we are talking point sources. But the above is my answer to the other question. You have snipped "In case you were referring to lens diameter this is my answer: " > > >> >> EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM: 82.4mm x 99.9mm > >> >> EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM: 82.4mm x 99.9mm > >> >> Care to explain why the bigger (larger diameter) DO lens is shorter > >> >> and thus obviously less "light gets astray"? If your theory was > >> >> right, shouldn't the DO lens be brighter (it's actually darker > >> >> at the short end!) and/or longer? > > Still waiting for your explanation. You have started this by questioned my statement "To close the subject, after some reading and thinking lens diameter does not affect the amount of light captured. " Then I said the only thing that matters is the f number. I think your comparision between EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM: 82.4mm x 99.9mm and EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM: 82.4mm x 99.9mm proves my point. And the answer to that is internal optics, the image gets cropped by internal optics at the lower end of zoom range. > > Which now that you have pointed out my mistake (I should have looked > > for 70mm) now have to be compared to 5.6 at 300mm > > And to come back with the proper results the DO at 70 has a > > theoretical maximum f number of .85 vs .91 for the non DO. > > Formula used is f=Focal length/Diameter of entrance pupil > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Notation > > Nice formula, misplaced identification of the entrance pupil. I can accept your objection if you to tell me what is the entrance pupil for lenses. I say it is the size of the diaphragm. For widest aperture you can take the diaphragm out of the lenses if you want, it won't matter. What matters then is only the diameter of the lenses. > >> > So the DO is less brighter that what it should be (internal optics > >> > should explain why). > >> Come on, same focal length, you replace a thinner, longer lens > >> with a fatter shorter one and all you can say is "internal optics > >> should explain why"? If that's the case your theory of light > >> going astray is bogus. > > If you do that then you lose aperture. > > Explain why. "you replace a thinner, longer lens with a > fatter shorter one" and "then you lose aperture."? Because a smaller lense will not be able to use a wide diaphragm. > > See the Sigma 120mm-300mm f/2.8http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-apo-hsm-sigma > > It has a size of 112.8 x 268.5 mm giving a theoretical f number of > > 2.65. Good fast lens but expensive. > > So what's your point? If you want low f numbers you must have big lenses. But big lenses in itself does not guarantee more light. Lenses are advertised by their f number, not lens diameter. > > To prove me wrong show me a 300mm f/2.8 with a lens size smaller than > > 107mm or 300mm f/5.6 with a lens size smaller than 53.5mm. > > Or any size that has a theoretical f number bigger than the real one. > > Anyone can make a big diameter slow lens. > > And that proves that a "fatter shorter" lens loses aperture? I give up. Can YOU prove anything? So far I have seen no arguments, only questions. > >> And ... if you change the non-DO lens for the fatter DO lens, > >> "the size of the aperture measured in mm/inch will be smaller > >> (but f number is the same, f/16) ... because bigger lenses will > >> be further away from the sensor and more light gets astray, > >> therefore requiring a smaller aperture size (in mm or inch) > >> for same f number" is completely wrong. > > You are right. The diaphragm size is the same for all lenses a given > > focal length and f number so I was completely wrong about that. > > Actually, you are wrong again: the diaphragm is not next to > the single element of your theoretical lens. It is internal. I did not say is external. A 35mm lens at f/8 will have a aperture of 35mm/8=4.375mm for any lens diameter. See the photo on the right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphragm_(optics). I have just said you were right. What is the point in arguig with THAT? DanP
From: J. Caldwell on 1 Jun 2010 08:24 On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 05:04:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre (a)gmail.com> wrote:> >If you want low f numbers you must have big lenses. But big lenses in >itself does not guarantee more light. Study the design of microscope objectives. Many of them having f-ratios (NA: numerical apertures) far exceeding any large camera lenses. You really don't know enough about optics to even be arguing these things. You can't even formulate a proper question concerning the issues that you are attempting to preach about. IOW: Stop making a fool of yourself on a worldwide platform.
From: DanP on 1 Jun 2010 09:09 On 1 June, 13:24, J. Caldwell <nos... (a)anyserver.net> wrote:> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 05:04:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe... (a)gmail.com> wrote:> > >If you want low f numbers you must have big lenses. But big lenses in > >itself does not guarantee more light. > > Study the design of microscope objectives. Many of them having f-ratios > (NA: numerical apertures) far exceeding any large camera lenses. I have no interest in microscopes and do not know anything about them. How will that help me to understand camera optics? Microscope lenses are huge compared to the size of the image being observed. Do you find anything wrong with my statement "If you want low f numbers you must have big lenses. But big lenses in itself does not guarantee more light." to which you are replying? > You really don't know enough about optics to even be arguing these things. > You can't even formulate a proper question concerning the issues that you > are attempting to preach about. Where did you get this idea I am preaching something? I have started with one question, now that Sony has managed to make such a small camera, can they miniaturise the lenses as well? And my conclusion is if they do they will have slower lenses. > IOW: Stop making a fool of yourself on a worldwide platform. I was never at any time rude or pompous or patronising, I have listened to other arguments and answered questions. A lot better that to tell people to go away. DanP
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 1 Jun 2010 21:00 DanP <dan.petre (a)gmail.com> wrote:> On 31 May, 02:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt... (a)sneakemail.com>> wrote: >> We are talking about stars ... you know, as good as >> infinitely far away point sources as there are? With >> perfectly parallel rays? > To talk about sorces of perfecly parallel rays is to talk about points > size zero. > For that the focal length has no meaning. a point of size 0 is focused > by all lens to a size zero image. Lenses are imperfect, there's diffraction (and air for us down here) and stars are definitively larger than 0, just very far away. Stop waffling and try it. > You have brought focal lengths to discussion though you did not > express that clearly. > I was talking about lens diameters. So, talk about lens diameter. Will a lens diameter of 10.000km result in a darker star image than one of 0.0001mm? Speak! >> > And that means the amount of light let in depends only of exposure >> > time and f number. If bigger lenses would let more light in at the >> > same f number then the film would have been over exposed. >> We are not talking about areas, we are talking point sources. > But the above is my answer to the other question. It's wrong. That's what I tried to point out, but you must do the thinking. >> >> >> EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM: 82.4mm x 99.9mm >> >> >> EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM: 82.4mm x 99.9mm >> >> >> Care to explain why the bigger (larger diameter) DO lens is shorter >> >> >> and thus obviously less "light gets astray"? If your theory was >> >> >> right, shouldn't the DO lens be brighter (it's actually darker >> >> >> at the short end!) and/or longer? >> Still waiting for your explanation. > You have started this by questioned my statement "To close the > subject, after some reading and thinking lens diameter does not affect > the amount of light captured. " > Then I said the only thing that matters is the f number. And you are wrong. T-stop and stars. > I think your comparision between EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM: > 82.4mm x 99.9mm and EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM: 82.4mm x > 99.9mm proves my point. That light gets astray? Suuure. > And the answer to that is internal optics, the image gets cropped by > internal optics at the lower end of zoom range. The answer to that is that you abandoned your theory. >> > Which now that you have pointed out my mistake (I should have looked >> > for 70mm) now have to be compared to 5.6 at 300mm >> > And to come back with the proper results the DO at 70 has a >> > theoretical maximum f number of .85 vs .91 for the non DO. >> > Formula used is f=Focal length/Diameter of entrance pupil >> > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Notation >> Nice formula, misplaced identification of the entrance pupil. > I can accept your objection if you to tell me what is the entrance > pupil for lenses. That depends on the optical formula and isn't necessarily inside the lens. > I say it is the size of the diaphragm. You are approximately right for single element lenses. > For widest aperture you can > take the diaphragm out of the lenses if you want, it won't matter. > What matters then is only the diameter of the lenses. But not necessarily directly. >> >> > So the DO is less brighter that what it should be (internal optics >> >> > should explain why). >> >> Come on, same focal length, you replace a thinner, longer lens >> >> with a fatter shorter one and all you can say is "internal optics >> >> should explain why"? If that's the case your theory of light >> >> going astray is bogus. >> > If you do that then you lose aperture. >> Explain why. "you replace a thinner, longer lens with a >> fatter shorter one" and "then you lose aperture."? > Because a smaller lense will not be able to use a wide diaphragm. But the fatter shorter lens is WIDER. Hello? >> > See the Sigma 120mm-300mm f/2.8http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-apo-hsm-sigma >> > It has a size of 112.8 x 268.5 mm giving a theoretical f number of >> > 2.65. Good fast lens but expensive. >> So what's your point? > If you want low f numbers you must have big lenses. Nope. Simple 1-element 10mm lens, just 1 cm across. Small lens, low f/stop. > But big lenses in > itself does not guarantee more light. > Lenses are advertised by their f number, not lens diameter. Lower "f numbers" do not necessarily mean more light. Take a f/2.8 lens and add a ND-filter to the design. >> > To prove me wrong show me a 300mm f/2.8 with a lens size smaller than >> > 107mm or 300mm f/5.6 with a lens size smaller than 53.5mm. >> > Or any size that has a theoretical f number bigger than the real one. >> > Anyone can make a big diameter slow lens. >> And that proves that a "fatter shorter" lens loses aperture? > I give up. Can YOU prove anything? So far I have seen no arguments, > only questions. I can prove lots of things, but I let YOU do the thinking. It works better that way. >> >> And ... if you change the non-DO lens for the fatter DO lens, >> >> "the size of the aperture measured in mm/inch will be smaller >> >> (but f number is the same, f/16) ... because bigger lenses will >> >> be further away from the sensor and more light gets astray, >> >> therefore requiring a smaller aperture size (in mm or inch) >> >> for same f number" is completely wrong. >> > You are right. The diaphragm size is the same for all lenses a given >> > focal length and f number so I was completely wrong about that. >> Actually, you are wrong again: the diaphragm is not next to >> the single element of your theoretical lens. It is internal. > I did not say is external. > A 35mm lens at f/8 will have a aperture of 35mm/8=4.375mm for any lens > diameter. But it will not have a diaphragm opening of 4.x mm in *all* cases. That depends on the placement of the diaphragm. -Wolfgang
From: DanP on 2 Jun 2010 05:42
On 2 June, 02:00, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt... (a)sneakemail.com>wrote: > DanP <dan.pe... (a)gmail.com> wrote:> > On 31 May, 02:47, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt... (a)sneakemail.com>> > wrote: > >> We are talking about stars ... you know, as good as > >> infinitely far away point sources as there are? With > >> perfectly parallel rays? > > To talk about sorces of perfecly parallel rays is to talk about points > > size zero. > > For that the focal length has no meaning. a point of size 0 is focused > > by all lens to a size zero image. > > Lenses are imperfect, there's diffraction (and air for us down > here) and stars are definitively larger than 0, just very far away. > Stop waffling and try it. So there is no source of light with perfect parallel rays. > > You have brought focal lengths to discussion though you did not > > express that clearly. > > I was talking about lens diameters. > > So, talk about lens diameter. Will a lens diameter of 10.000km > result in a darker star image than one of 0.0001mm? At maximum aperture the 10.000 km will give a brighter picture. But set at the maximum aperurte of the .00001mm the results will be the same. To do that the diaphragm used for the 10.000km has to be set really small. I would like to have the big one because it can give me a lower f number. But do not think that bigger lenses give lower f numbers all the time, your 2 examples show that. > Speak! > > >> > And that means the amount of light let in depends only of exposure > >> > time and f number. If bigger lenses would let more light in at the > >> > same f number then the film would have been over exposed. > >> We are not talking about areas, we are talking point sources. > > But the above is my answer to the other question. > > It's wrong. That's what I tried to point out, but you must > do the thinking. As far as getting the right exposure time (that depends on the amount of light hitting the sensor) no one takes notice of lens diameter or focal length, only f number. Modern DSLR and SLR have a light sensor incorporated but before that it was a separate universal light meter which worked with all camera formats and lens sizes. > > You have started this by questioned my statement "To close the > > subject, after some reading and thinking lens diameter does not affect > > the amount of light captured. " > > Then I said the only thing that matters is the f number. > > And you are wrong. T-stop and stars. > > > I think your comparision between EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM: > > 82.4mm x 99.9mm and EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM: 82.4mm x > > 99.9mm proves my point. > > That light gets astray? Suuure. It is OK and you notice it in the shallower DOF at low f numbers for out of focus area. But to get the same results having the same DOF you have to close the aperture. > > > And the answer to that is internal optics, the image gets cropped by > > internal optics at the lower end of zoom range. > > The answer to that is that you abandoned your theory. I do not have a theory, it is common knowledge that when you buy a new lens you don't care about the lens diameter, only f number. > >> > Which now that you have pointed out my mistake (I should have looked > >> > for 70mm) now have to be compared to 5.6 at 300mm > >> > And to come back with the proper results the DO at 70 has a > >> > theoretical maximum f number of .85 vs .91 for the non DO. > >> > Formula used is f=Focal length/Diameter of entrance pupil > >> > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Notation > >> Nice formula, misplaced identification of the entrance pupil. > > I can accept your objection if you to tell me what is the entrance > > pupil for lenses. > > That depends on the optical formula and isn't necessarily > inside the lens. > > > I say it is the size of the diaphragm. > > You are approximately right for single element lenses. You talk like you know more yhan I do. Just tell me where is that the entrance pupil and how to measure it. > > For widest aperture you can > > take the diaphragm out of the lenses if you want, it won't matter. > > What matters then is only the diameter of the lenses. > > But not necessarily directly. > > >> >> > So the DO is less brighter that what it should be (internal optics > >> >> > should explain why). > >> >> Come on, same focal length, you replace a thinner, longer lens > >> >> with a fatter shorter one and all you can say is "internal optics > >> >> should explain why"? If that's the case your theory of light > >> >> going astray is bogus. > >> > If you do that then you lose aperture. > >> Explain why. "you replace a thinner, longer lens with a > >> fatter shorter one" and "then you lose aperture."? > > Because a smaller lense will not be able to use a wide diaphragm. > > But the fatter shorter lens is WIDER. Hello? You are mixing things too much, keep focal length the same to compare lenses. > >> > See the Sigma 120mm-300mm f/2.8http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-apo-hsm-sigma > >> > It has a size of 112.8 x 268.5 mm giving a theoretical f number of > >> > 2.65. Good fast lens but expensive. > >> So what's your point? > > If you want low f numbers you must have big lenses. > > Nope. Simple 1-element 10mm lens, just 1 cm across. Small > lens, low f/stop. Yeah, that is for a small sensor. To compare lenses keep things equal, same sensor size. > > But big lenses in > > itself does not guarantee more light. > > Lenses are advertised by their f number, not lens diameter. > > Lower "f numbers" do not necessarily mean more light. Take a > f/2.8 lens and add a ND-filter to the design. Fine, put your hand in front of the lenses and you get even less light. > >> > To prove me wrong show me a 300mm f/2.8 with a lens size smaller than > >> > 107mm or 300mm f/5.6 with a lens size smaller than 53.5mm. > >> > Or any size that has a theoretical f number bigger than the real one.. > >> > Anyone can make a big diameter slow lens. > >> And that proves that a "fatter shorter" lens loses aperture? > > I give up. Can YOU prove anything? So far I have seen no arguments, > > only questions. > > I can prove lots of things, but I let YOU do the thinking. > It works better that way. > > >> >> And ... if you change the non-DO lens for the fatter DO lens, > >> >> "the size of the aperture measured in mm/inch will be smaller > >> >> (but f number is the same, f/16) ... because bigger lenses will > >> >> be further away from the sensor and more light gets astray, > >> >> therefore requiring a smaller aperture size (in mm or inch) > >> >> for same f number" is completely wrong. > >> > You are right. The diaphragm size is the same for all lenses a given > >> > focal length and f number so I was completely wrong about that. > >> Actually, you are wrong again: the diaphragm is not next to > >> the single element of your theoretical lens. It is internal. > > I did not say is external. > > A 35mm lens at f/8 will have a aperture of 35mm/8=4.375mm for any lens > > diameter. > > But it will not have a diaphragm opening of 4.x mm in *all* > cases. That depends on the placement of the diaphragm. Can you find me an example? DanP |