Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Now, the next BIG contest is ON!

Reply
Thread Tools

Now, the next BIG contest is ON!

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On May 13, 2:55*pm, DanP <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 12 May, 21:48, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > WHO will be the company to release...a COMPACT FF camera??!

>
> What is the point? It would only make sense if they make the lenses
> small as well and that affect IQ.
>
> DanP


Slower lenses don't need to be the size of buses. Someone is going to
do it. Likely something about the size of a Pentax K7, at some point.
If Olympus had any sense, they'd do it and break the 4/3 straight
jacket that confines them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:50:11 -0500, BFD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>I do understand the need for control of DOF. The identical DOF effects can
>be obtained from a smaller sensor by just changing the focal-length used.



Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.
You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
talking about.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:50:11 -0500, BFD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I do understand the need for control of DOF. The identical DOF effects can
>> be obtained from a smaller sensor by just changing the focal-length used.

>
>
> Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.
> You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
> talking about.


But he does talk a lot to make up for it. And it's so reassuring to know
that he will:

> try to never cripple myself by stubbornly holding onto the past out of
> habit or learned ignorance.


Superb!

--
John McWilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Spanjaard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2010
On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:09:16 +0100, Bruce wrote:

>>I do understand the need for control of DOF. The identical DOF effects
>>can be obtained from a smaller sensor by just changing the focal-length
>>used.

>
>
> Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.
> You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
> talking about.


It's the P&S troll. What did you expect?



--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wilba
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2010
Bruce wrote:

> Some AF systems are even worse; Canon's being a
> case in point, with fundamental errors built in to the system.


Where can I find out more about this?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Spanjaard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2010
On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:57:51 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> On 10-05-13 18:47 , Robert Spanjaard wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:09:16 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>> I do understand the need for control of DOF. The identical DOF
>>>> effects can be obtained from a smaller sensor by just changing the
>>>> focal-length used.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.

>
> Changing focal-length does not change the angle of view at all Tony.
>
> >> You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
> >> talking about.

>
> Show us your photos that show what you're talking about Tony - your
> choo-choo shots certainly are not adequate at any angle.


Please replyto the right person. You did not reply to what _I_ said.



--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
BFD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2010
On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:09:16 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:50:11 -0500, BFD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>I do understand the need for control of DOF. The identical DOF effects can
>>be obtained from a smaller sensor by just changing the focal-length used.

>
>
>Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.
>You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
>talking about.


Every shot of every subject is relative--to itself only. It is you who are
the antiquated fool.

You see a patch of flowers. To you, with your very limited DOF using a 50mm
lens on a larger sensor camera, you will decide to get up close to that
flower. You will get dozens of other blossoms and probably part of the sky
in the background too with your wide FOV. How do you get rid of all those
other distracting blotches of bright colors detracting from your subject
and the blue of the sky which you don't even want? You can't. Put on 450mm
focal-length lens. Back up to get the exact same amount of useful DOF
around your subject. Position only one or two of those blurred background
flowers in the far corners to complement your main subject, which is now
nicely framed in a blur of greens with no distracting colors from
background flowers touching it. But that's right, you can't get a 450mm
lens with a wide enough aperture for that large-sensor piece of **** with
the DOF that you require at that focal-length. Oh well, too bad. They are
readily available on smaller sensor cameras though.

THERE IS NO SINGLE CORRECT FOV FOR ALL SUBJECTS.

You're a bona fide idiot with near-zero experience. Those that agree with
you, equally so. Thanks for proving that, of yourself, and them.


 
Reply With Quote
 
BFD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2010
On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:27:04 -0500, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>BFD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:09:16 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:50:11 -0500, BFD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I do understand the need for control of DOF. The identical DOF
>>>>effects can be obtained from a smaller sensor by just changing the
>>>>focal-length used.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.
>>>You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
>>>talking about.

>>
>> Every shot of every subject is relative--to itself only. It is you who
>> are the antiquated fool.
>>
>> You see a patch of flowers. To you, with your very limited DOF using a
>> 50mm lens on a larger sensor camera, you will decide to get up close
>> to that flower. You will get dozens of other blossoms and probably
>> part of the sky in the background too with your wide FOV. How do you
>> get rid of all those other distracting blotches of bright colors
>> detracting from your subject and the blue of the sky which you don't
>> even want? You can't. Put on 450mm focal-length lens. Back up to get
>> the exact same amount of useful DOF around your subject. Position only
>> one or two of those blurred background flowers in the far corners to
>> complement your main subject, which is now nicely framed in a blur of
>> greens with no distracting colors from background flowers touching it.
>> But that's right, you can't get a 450mm lens with a wide enough
>> aperture for that large-sensor piece of **** with the DOF that you
>> require at that focal-length. Oh well, too bad. They are readily
>> available on smaller sensor cameras though.
>>
>> THERE IS NO SINGLE CORRECT FOV FOR ALL SUBJECTS.
>>
>> You're a bona fide idiot with near-zero experience. Those that agree
>> with you, equally so. Thanks for proving that, of yourself, and them.
>>
>>
>>

>
>Depends if you want to preserve 3-dimensionality of the image. Using a
>450mm lens would basically flatten it.


What a load of crap. With the 50mm lens you'd be lucky to even get part of
the flower in focus. If that's what you mean by "preserving
3-dimensionality". 3-dimensions are perceived by lighting and shading in a
2D image. Show us another picture of a face where only the eye is in focus
but the nose, mouth, ears, and hair are all a blur. I love watching you
fools trying to brag about shots like that. The one posted of the two red
cardinals sitting on a branch was a real hoot. Only part of the intervening
branch was in focus and both cardinals were blurred to hell. What great
preservation of 3-dimensionality! Post another one like that, I need
another good laugh.

 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2010
Robert Spanjaard wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:57:51 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> On 10-05-13 18:47 , Robert Spanjaard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:09:16 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I do understand the need for control of DOF. The identical DOF
>>>>> effects can be obtained from a smaller sensor by just changing the
>>>>> focal-length used.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. Changing the angle of view would completely ruin the shot.

>> Changing focal-length does not change the angle of view at all Tony.
>>
>> >> You really are a fool - you have not the faintest idea what you are
>> >> talking about.

>>
>> Show us your photos that show what you're talking about Tony - your
>> choo-choo shots certainly are not adequate at any angle.

>
> Please reply to the right person. You did not reply to what _I_ said.


Alan can't resist stalking tony. But he'll say it ain't stalking.

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Spanjaard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2010
On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:47:09 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

>> Please replyto the right person. You did not reply to what _I_ said.

>
> Darn, I can't find the usenet rule book. Does it say I have to reply to
> what _U_ said?


It's in your logics rule book. But I don't expect you to find that either.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net 0 12-26-2008 09:29 AM
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net Web Controls 0 12-26-2008 06:11 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Python 0 12-24-2008 07:35 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Ruby 0 12-24-2008 05:07 AM
CurrentElement->next = CurrentElement->next->next (UNDEFINED?) Deniz Bahar C Programming 2 03-09-2005 12:45 AM



Advertisments