From: DanP on
On 15 May, 12:41, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:16:34 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I am still scratching my head and thinking smaller lens diameter means
> >less light captured.
> >So the FF sensor has to struggle and compensate for the small lens.
>
> The trouble is, your mindset is based around retrofocus lens designs
> that need to clear the reflex mirror in a DSLR.

No, I do not think of camera design at all.
Instead I think of binoculars and telescopes where the bigger lens
diameter gives a better IQ.

>
> Don't you mean a D3X?  The D3s is only 12 MP.  D3X has 24 MP.

My Canon 500D has 15 MP but I use it at 8 most of the time.

D3s has far less noise at high ISO and 9 fps vs 5 fps for D3X.
I know it loses on dynamic range and colour depth but I consider that
less important.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/341%7C0/(appareil2)/287%7C0/(appareil3)/346%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Leica


DanP
From: DanP on
On 15 May, 13:14, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:18:38 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 14 May, 22:09, Rich <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> Go look up the term, "telephoto compression"then come back.
>
> >Being the troll he is, talking to him about anything is pointless.
>
> Is he a troll or just someone with particularly strong opinions who
> repeats it whenever an opportunity arises?  

He is extremely rude, dishonest and enjoys other people's misfortunes.


DanP
From: Bruce on
On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:04:56 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On 15 May, 13:14, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is he a troll or just someone with particularly strong opinions who
>> repeats it whenever an opportunity arises? �
>
>He is extremely rude, dishonest and enjoys other people's misfortunes.


True. But that is equally true of many others who regularly post
here, notably including the people who accuse him of being a troll.

If you are seeking somewhere on the Internet where you can discuss
photography with genteel people in a polite atmosphere, photo
newsgroups are not where you should be looking.

From: Bruce on
On Sat, 15 May 2010 06:59:27 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 15 May, 12:41, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:16:34 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I am still scratching my head and thinking smaller lens diameter means
>> >less light captured.
>> >So the FF sensor has to struggle and compensate for the small lens.
>>
>> The trouble is, your mindset is based around retrofocus lens designs
>> that need to clear the reflex mirror in a DSLR.
>
>No, I do not think of camera design at all.
>Instead I think of binoculars and telescopes where the bigger lens
>diameter gives a better IQ.


Does it really? Do binoculars and telescopes really offer better IQ
than camera lenses?

Can you recommend a reference where I can look at like-for-like
comparisons?


>> Don't you mean a D3X? �The D3s is only 12 MP. �D3X has 24 MP.
>
>My Canon 500D has 15 MP but I use it at 8 most of the time.


Why?


>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/341%7C0/(appareil2)/287%7C0/(appareil3)/346%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Leica


An interesting comparison, thanks for the link.

From: Paul Furman on
Bruce wrote:
>
> It does no harm to remind DSLR users that their choice of equipment
> brings with it several drawbacks. In particular, macro work with an
> APS-C or full frame DSLR can be difficult because of the extreme lack
> of depth of field.
>
> In macro work, a smaller sensor offers genuine advantages because of
> the greater of field that is available.

The only advantage is smaller size and cost. The DSLR can always stop
down for the same DOF. If you always want to be stopped down like that,
no need for the larger camera.


> And while small sensors don't
> offer the same image quality as APS-C and full frame digital, they are
> not so far behind - they are much improved over the small sensors of
> only 3 or 4 years ago.
>
> The same guy also had a useful contribution to make recently when we
> were discussing cleaning DSLR sensors. Putting aside his perfectly
> valid point that compact P&S and bridge cameras don't need their
> sensors cleaned, he pointed out that some methods of cleaning DSLR
> sensors could induce a static charge on the sensor causing it to
> attract dust.

That was BS. It's probably possible some combination of materials could
create troublesome static but I tried the masking tape idea the other
day and it worked fine.

> I found his contribution useful and constructive.

The intent was destructive, as usual. That would be fine to say: "watch
out, tape might cause static" but he said: "it won't work, you're an idiot".


> It caused me to consider different methods of sensor cleaning for the
> Kodak DCS Pro 14n I recently bought, whose sensor is a dust magnet.

What methods?


> Unfortunately, his defensive approach often precludes a more detailed
> discussion, but calling him a troll is not strictly accurate, because
> he does have a contribution to make.

Negativity isn't a contribution, it drains energy from the discussion.
Very much the opposite of a contribution.


> He is far more useful to the newsgroup(s) he posts to than some people
> who relentlessly accuse him of trolling, but themselves have very
> little useful information to offer.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: Nikon Raw 64 bit codec
Next: Good news for shills...