small aperture test

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:21:45 -0800, wrote:

>I found a site w/ ISO 12233 photos. You can see how various lenses perform.
>
>http://www.the-digital-picture.com
>
>Look at this and shut up.

One minor problem, that won't help at all with individual lenses. Ever hear
of "The Lemon Law" concerning cars?

Lens figures between any two lenses of the same model number can differ
wildly. This is why pros will take home 4 or more lenses of the same model
number to pick out one that might be better. (For the same reason that pros
that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but
for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the
same camera model.) The surest and simplest way for the novice to find out
if their lens is NOT of diffraction-limited quality is if the details
become softer at widest apertures. If that is true, then all tests for
diffraction problems at any f-stop become pointless. Diffraction artifacts
only reveal themselves with diffraction-limited quality optics. That is why
they call it that. The image resolution is now only limited by the physics
of light and diffraction itself because the lens figures are that precise.

Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task

Trolls Is An Endless Task <> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:21:45 -0800, wrote:
>
>>I found a site w/ ISO 12233 photos. You can see how various lenses perform.
>>
>>http://www.the-digital-picture.com
>>
>>Look at this and shut up.
>
>One minor problem,

A big problem is that you're an asshole troll who ignores facts.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless
Task <> wrote:

>For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but
>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.

A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as
skis.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless
>Task <> wrote:
>
>>For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but
>>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.
>
>A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as
>skis.

Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the
hands of a pro.

Those who think it's the camera that makes or breaks a photo is nothing but
a hardware worshipping snapshooter or pretend-photographer troll. They have
proved themselves no sort of photographer by claiming just so.

Outing Trolls is FUN!

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:21:45 -0800, wrote:
>
>>I found a site w/ ISO 12233 photos. You can see how various lenses perform.
>>
>>http://www.the-digital-picture.com
>>
>>Look at this and shut up.
>
>One minor problem, that won't help at all with individual lenses. Ever hear
>of "The Lemon Law" concerning cars?

Here's a thought: buy a lens based on the ISO12233 chart and if it does not measure up, send it back.
You pay good money for something, now get off your ass and get what you paid for.


>Lens figures between any two lenses of the same model number can differ
>wildly. This is why pros will take home 4 or more lenses of the same model
>number to pick out one that might be better. (For the same reason that pros
>that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but
>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the
>same camera model.) The surest and simplest way for the novice to find out
>if their lens is NOT of diffraction-limited quality is if the details
>become softer at widest apertures. If that is true, then all tests for
>diffraction problems at any f-stop become pointless. Diffraction artifacts
>only reveal themselves with diffraction-limited quality optics. That is why
>they call it that. The image resolution is now only limited by the physics
>of light and diffraction itself because the lens figures are that precise.

Frank@Zappa.com

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:21:45 -0800, wrote:
>
>>I found a site w/ ISO 12233 photos. You can see how various lenses perform.
>>
>>http://www.the-digital-picture.com
>>
>>Look at this and shut up.

Lemon Laws are really for early Hyundai and a lot of GM cars. Not toyota. Get it?




>One minor problem, that won't help at all with individual lenses. Ever hear
>of "The Lemon Law" concerning cars?
>
>Lens figures between any two lenses of the same model number can differ
>wildly. This is why pros will take home 4 or more lenses of the same model
>number to pick out one that might be better. (For the same reason that pros
>that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but
>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the
>same camera model.) The surest and simplest way for the novice to find out
>if their lens is NOT of diffraction-limited quality is if the details
>become softer at widest apertures. If that is true, then all tests for
>diffraction problems at any f-stop become pointless. Diffraction artifacts
>only reveal themselves with diffraction-limited quality optics. That is why
>they call it that. The image resolution is now only limited by the physics
>of light and diffraction itself because the lens figures are that precise.

Frank@Zappa.com

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN!
<> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless
>>Task <> wrote:
>>
>>>For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but
>>>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.
>>
>>A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as
>>skis.
>
>Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the
>hands of a pro.

Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking
photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of
taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a
charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:200911071653298930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-11-07 16:16:23 -0800, tony cooper <>
> said:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN!
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless
>>>> Task <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the
>>>>> same, not only for the lens, but
>>>>> for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for
>>>>> the same camera model.
>>>>
>>>> A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as
>>>> skis.
>>>
>>> Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the
>>> hands of a pro.
>>
>> Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking
>> photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of
>> taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a
>> charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
>
> I think we have somebody close at hand who would be able to stop that
> charging lion with a pointed stick, and capture the "tack sharp, frozen in
> mid-stride" image of the event at the same time.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>
Claiming all the while a pin-hole camera was used to capture the shot...

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:16:23 -0500, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN!
><> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless
>>>Task <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but
>>>>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.
>>>
>>>A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as
>>>skis.
>>
>>Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the
>>hands of a pro.
>
>Probably true.

Not probably. It *IS* true.

> However a pro - a person who makes a living taking
>photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of
>taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a
>charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.

Yes, arm them with a $798,000 heat-seeking automatic scud-missile launcher
that can be fired at 30 MPS (missiles per second) by any fool that points
it in the general direction of any Serengeti plain. That should take some
hunting skill to kill that lion. Maybe it'll leave part of a paw to mount
for their collection.

Are you snapshooting DSLR-Trolls this seriously inept, insecure, desperate,
and stupid to come up with such inane analogies? But of course you are, you
prove it with every post you make.

Oy! The Snapshooting Idiots!

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:53:29 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-11-07 16:16:23 -0800, tony cooper <> said:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN!
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless
>>>> Task <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the
>>>>> same, not only for the lens, but
>>>>> for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for
>>>>> the same camera model.
>>>>
>>>> A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as
>>>> skis.
>>>
>>> Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the
>>> hands of a pro.
>>
>> Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking
>> photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of
>> taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a
>> charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
>
>I think we have somebody close at hand who would be able to stop that
>charging lion with a pointed stick, and capture the "tack sharp, frozen
>in mid-stride" image of the event at the same time.

The ****er could *talk* the lion to death.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper