From: Russ D on
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:05:31 +0200, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:08:13 -0500, the more highly educated
>and vastly more experienced Russ D photographer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:26:52 +0200, Robert Spanjaard
>> <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:00:46 -0500, the P&S troll wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Or get any of the superzoom P&S cameras and you'll increase the
>>>> focal-length reach and enlarge the aperture by 3-fold
>>>...
>>>> Any difference in ISO performance is made up in 3 times more aperture
>>>
>>>Name _one_ superzoom with an aperture of 150mm (f/4 at 200mm x3)
>>>diameter.
>>
>> Your thinking is twisted--from trying to justify your poor choices in
>> life and from relentlessly parroting the same nonsense that all the
>> DSLR-Trolls do, just like the rest of you archaic DSLR-Dolts. Since the
>> sensor is smaller the light is spread over a smaller area for the same
>> amount of aperture. The exposures will be identical, f/stop for f/stop.
>> A smaller entrance pupil is required for smaller sensors. Since larger
>> f/stops are available on superzoom lens designs than DSLR lens designs,
>> they then get the full benefit of those larger apertures, overriding any
>> need for the higher ISOs as are required by DSLRs in order to obtain the
>> exact same exposures in the same light levels.
>
>So now, superzooms don't have a large aperture. Instead you now claim that
>they don't need it because of their small sensors.

They have larger f/ratios available at long focal-lengths. They don't need
larger apertures at long focal-lengths because they use smaller sensors.

We shall all await for that one remaining functioning neuron in your
gray-matter to locate a neighboring functioning neuron.

We won't hold our breath while waiting. It appears to be the sole survivor.

From: Russ D on
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:13:05 -0500, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/28/2010 11:08 AM, Russ D wrote:
>
>> Your thinking is twisted--from trying to justify your poor choices in life
>> and from relentlessly parroting the same nonsense that all the DSLR-Trolls
>> do, just like the rest of you archaic DSLR-Dolts. Since the sensor is
>> smaller the light is spread over a smaller area for the same amount of
>> aperture. The exposures will be identical, f/stop for f/stop. A smaller
>> entrance pupil is required for smaller sensors.
>
>
>UH, **NO**
>
>The number of photons ... which determines the S/N ratio ... depends
>on the actual aperture SIZE, not f/number.
>
>Doug McDonald

Correct, if the sensor is not efficient enough at a certain aperture then
there will be degradation from noise. Most smaller sensor cameras have no
problems shooting noise-free images in low-light conditions at ISO200-400,
even including light levels low enough to image dim aurora and 9th
magnitude stars. Which mine do quite well, thank you. The benefit from
small sensors is that larger f/ratio lens designs can be used at longer
focal lengths, so high ISO sensitivity is not required for the very same
exposures and focal-lengths that are needed by DSLR sized sensors wilth
their diminished f/ratios. If you have to use more than ISO400 for your
photography you've only managed to prove to the world that you're an inept
snapshooter with very little experience and zero talent.

High ISO is a merely a crutch for those those crippled by talent or
equipment design. No different than all those DSLR P&S snapshooters that
are dependent on auto-focusing and buy their cameras accordingly. They
can't do it manually so throw money at it. Maybe their camera will save
them from their own feeble attempts. Buy a camera with a "talent" button on
it. You sorely need one.

From: Robert Spanjaard on
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:12:12 -0500, Russ D wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:05:31 +0200, Robert Spanjaard
> <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:08:13 -0500, the P&S troll wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:26:52 +0200, Robert Spanjaard
>>> <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:00:46 -0500, the P&S troll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Or get any of the superzoom P&S cameras and you'll increase the
>>>>> focal-length reach and enlarge the aperture by 3-fold
>>>>...
>>>>> Any difference in ISO performance is made up in 3 times more
>>>>> aperture
>>>>
>>>>Name _one_ superzoom with an aperture of 150mm (f/4 at 200mm x3)
>>>>diameter.
>>>
>>> Your thinking is twisted--from trying to justify your poor choices in
>>> life and from relentlessly parroting the same nonsense that all the
>>> DSLR-Trolls do, just like the rest of you archaic DSLR-Dolts. Since
>>> the sensor is smaller the light is spread over a smaller area for the
>>> same amount of aperture. The exposures will be identical, f/stop for
>>> f/stop. A smaller entrance pupil is required for smaller sensors.
>>> Since larger f/stops are available on superzoom lens designs than DSLR
>>> lens designs, they then get the full benefit of those larger
>>> apertures, overriding any need for the higher ISOs as are required by
>>> DSLRs in order to obtain the exact same exposures in the same light
>>> levels.
>>
>>So now, superzooms don't have a large aperture. Instead you now claim
>>that they don't need it because of their small sensors.
>
> They have larger f/ratios available at long focal-lengths. They don't
> need larger apertures at long focal-lengths because they use smaller
> sensors.

That's just a repetition of your last claim. And saying that small sensors
compensate for small apertures is the worst lie you've posted in weeks.
Come on, I'm sure even you can be more convincing than that.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Robert Spanjaard on
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:25:59 -0500, the P&S troll wrote:

> No different than all those DSLR P&S snapshooters that
> are dependent on auto-focusing and buy their cameras accordingly. They
> can't do it manually so throw money at it. Maybe their camera will save
> them from their own feeble attempts.

You must be one of them, considering your previous statement.

"Luckily too, that smaller sensor cameras are often
combined with contrast-focusing methods, instead of phase-detection
methods. This ensures that all your images are in perfect focus, instead of
using the faster but hit and miss methods employed on DSLRs. I'd rather
walk away with 100 perfectly focused images for 100 shots, rather than 10
out of 1000."



--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: DanP on
On 28 Apr, 18:05, Robert Spanjaard <spamt...(a)arumes.com> wrote:
> So now, superzooms don't have a large aperture. Instead you now claim that
> they don't need it because of their small sensors.
>
> --
> Regards, Robert                                      http://www.arumes.com

Trolls never say sorry, I was wrong.


DanP