Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Nikon Digital SLR guidance

Reply
Thread Tools

Nikon Digital SLR guidance

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2011
On 8/12/2011 5:45 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:31:55 -0400, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/2011 4:20 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:37:36 -0400, tony cooper<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>> : On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:18:12 +0100, Bruce<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> : wrote:
>>> :
>>> :>"Neil Harrington"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> :>>
>>> :>>No matter who called whom, Bruce did discuss it with the buyer after the
>>> :>>sale and made it clear that he didn't know about the in-body motor one way
>>> :>>or the other. He's been completely open and straightforward in his
>>> :>>discussion of the whole thing here, and there's not the slightest reason to
>>> :>>think he was any less so with the customer. I don't even know why it has
>>> :>>generated all this discussion.
>>> :>
>>> :>
>>> :>Because PeterN never misses an opportunity to express his malice?
>>> :>
>>> :>He appears as a bitter, twisted old man whose copious contributions
>>> :>here are almost entirely negative. Imagine what he could achieve if
>>> :>he concentrated on the positive, as most people do. He could
>>> :>potentially make a very strong contribution to constructive debate.
>>> :>
>>> :>But no, he chooses malice. A sad and pathetic man, which is why he is
>>> :>a permanent fixture in my kill file.
>>> :
>>> : I was defensive of you because I've seen nothing in your posts to
>>> : indicate the negative comments were deserved. And, I'll be defensive
>>> : of PeterN here because I've seen nothing in his posts that reflect
>>> : your comments above. Other than his comments to and about you, I've
>>> : seen nothing particularly negative about his posts.
>>>
>>> I've never understood why Bruce and Peter hate each other so much. I've always
>>> assumed that it dates back to something that happened before I came in. If I
>>> were interested enough, I might have asked somebody. But I'm not.
>>>

>>
>> No, I don't hatred Bruce. I don't even know him and at my age I have
>> little time for hate. I also have little patience for didactic posting,
>> whit no facts to back it up. So I call him on it. IIRC He stated if I
>> said something, whatever it as, again, he would killifle me.
>> Of course you know what I did.
>> Also, I don't believe Bruce killfiled me. Just recently, he made a
>> statement abut me, that was almost a verbatim about something I said
>> about the moth man. I guess claiming I am killfiled is a good way not to
>> answer my sometimes pointed questions. RichA tries avoidance, and Bruce
>> claims I am killfiled. Meanwhile life goes on hopefully for all of us,
>> in good health for a long time.
>> No I

>
> You do understand that if you have someone killfiled good and proper
> that you can still read and respond to what they say when someone you
> don't have killfiled responds to him?
>
> This exchange of "I don't hate him" makes me think of a possible
> future exchange when I write "I don't think nospam is a complete
> idiot".
>
>


Yup! I understand that. The words "hate him" are a very personal
statement about an individual. I have stated that I do not like his
arrogant, bombastic posting style. But I can't hate him as I do not know
him. For all I know he may very well be an affable, sharing and
knowledgeable person, or a self centered bastard. I do not know either
way. It's interesting that Bruce calls me malicious and bitter, yet
claims to have me killfiled, with the implication that he doesn't read
what I write. I see a logical inconsistency.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2011
On 8/12/2011 5:45 PM, tony cooper wrote:

<snip>

> This exchange of "I don't hate him" makes me think of a possible
> future exchange when I write "I don't think nospam is a complete
> idiot".


Nobody's perfect.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2011
tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>You do understand that if you have someone killfiled good and proper
>that you can still read and respond to what they say when someone you
>don't have killfiled responds to him?



No, he quite clearly doesn't understand that at all!

 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2011
On 8/13/2011 7:01 AM, Bruce wrote:
> tony cooper<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> You do understand that if you have someone killfiled good and proper
>> that you can still read and respond to what they say when someone you
>> don't have killfiled responds to him?

>
>
> No, he quite clearly doesn't understand that at all!
>


Except the phrase I was referring to was not repeated, AFAIK. Keep up
your pomposity, Brucie.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2011
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 8/8/2011 4:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


>> If you want to play, measure the resolving power of your lens&
>> sensor at, say, wide open (so the system is limited by the lens),
>> and at wide open with lots of extension tube in between.


> I blow up images to 12 x 18 and have not noticed any difference. Perhaps
> if I was doing scientific documentation, rather than abstracts, I would
> notice the difference.


Depending on the abstracts it might be hard to notice even a rather
low resolution of the image. Images that live from tiny details
resolved in a large image might be another matter --- and no,
"scientific documentation" doesn't necessarily fall under that.
(scientists tend to use longer lenses instead of higher
resolution.)

- The Mars Rovers have 1MP cameras.
- The Venus landers all had low resolution cameras, if they
had them.
- Huygens had 160x254 high resolution, 176x254 medium resolution
(shorter focal length) and 128x254 side-looking (even shorter
focal length) area (and some science data) on a single 488x254
pixel chip --- and the data was highly compressed.
- Gallileo had a 800x800 CCD.

Even Hubble has only 16MPix (on 2 chips) on it's WFC.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2011
On 8/13/2011 5:47 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 8/8/2011 4:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

>
>>> If you want to play, measure the resolving power of your lens&
>>> sensor at, say, wide open (so the system is limited by the lens),
>>> and at wide open with lots of extension tube in between.

>
>> I blow up images to 12 x 18 and have not noticed any difference. Perhaps
>> if I was doing scientific documentation, rather than abstracts, I would
>> notice the difference.

>
> Depending on the abstracts it might be hard to notice even a rather
> low resolution of the image. Images that live from tiny details
> resolved in a large image might be another matter --- and no,
> "scientific documentation" doesn't necessarily fall under that.
> (scientists tend to use longer lenses instead of higher
> resolution.)
>
> - The Mars Rovers have 1MP cameras.
> - The Venus landers all had low resolution cameras, if they
> had them.
> - Huygens had 160x254 high resolution, 176x254 medium resolution
> (shorter focal length) and 128x254 side-looking (even shorter
> focal length) area (and some science data) on a single 488x254
> pixel chip --- and the data was highly compressed.
> - Gallileo had a 800x800 CCD.
>
> Even Hubble has only 16MPix (on 2 chips) on it's WFC.
>

That may well be a battery life issue.

I know of few microscopes that are telephoto, or have low resolving power.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2011
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 8/13/2011 5:47 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


>> Depending on the abstracts it might be hard to notice even a rather
>> low resolution of the image. Images that live from tiny details
>> resolved in a large image might be another matter --- and no,
>> "scientific documentation" doesn't necessarily fall under that.
>> (scientists tend to use longer lenses instead of higher
>> resolution.)


>> - The Mars Rovers have 1MP cameras.
>> - The Venus landers all had low resolution cameras, if they
>> had them.
>> - Huygens had 160x254 high resolution, 176x254 medium resolution
>> (shorter focal length) and 128x254 side-looking (even shorter
>> focal length) area (and some science data) on a single 488x254
>> pixel chip --- and the data was highly compressed.
>> - Gallileo had a 800x800 CCD.


>> Even Hubble has only 16MPix (on 2 chips) on it's WFC.


> That may well be a battery life issue.


The Venus landers were not battery limited, but (once they
managed to land them without being crushed) limited by their
carrier satellite being in antenna view to relay the data.
Gallileo was nuclear powered, so battery life doesn't come into
the equation. The Mars rovers are limited by their solar panels,
but their power use is very much other things (heating, driving,
rock abrasing comes to mind).

Huygens was bandwidth limited.

Hubble has solar cells and I doubt it is battery life limited.

> I know of few microscopes that are telephoto, or have low resolving power.


How many megapixels do they have, then? OK, that's a trick
question: resolving power doesn't indicate a large image circle ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2011
On 08/08/2011 21:35, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 7/28/2011 3:25 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article<4e31b63e$0$12493$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN

>
>>>> If I want closer focus I use extension tubes.

>
>>> that also degrades things, since the lens was probably not designed for
>>> an extension (some lenses might be though).

>
>> It should have little noticeable effect on the resolution. If I am
>> wrong, I would like proof.

>
> Extension tubes increase the distance between the lens and the
> sensor. Unless you've got a telecentric lens (one where the
> rays already leave the lens perfectly parallel --- and where an
> extension tube therefore has zero effect) the rays are spreading
> out to the sensor. Increasing said distance causes the rays to
> spread more (and hit a wider area than the sensor covers).


If you are really serious about using the lens this way you have a
reversing ring to mount the lens back to front on the camera. That way
the side designed to be close to things with a flat field is facing the
subject and the long drift length is on the side designed for it.

Some lenses don't like to be used with light paths this way round.

There are dedicated macro lenses that will do a better job at seriously
close quarters. You tend to also need a ringflash as well.
>
> This does magnify some lens defects (say fringing). It also
> magnifies the image, which in turn means the lens has to deliver
> a higher resolution for the same resolution at the sensor.
>
> If your sensor can resolve enough to be worthy of the lens without
> extension tube, it'll now see a worse performance. If however the
> sensor is usually challenged to resolve what the lens delivers,
> extension tubes might have no effect (depending on how long
> they are).
>
>
> If you want to play, measure the resolving power of your lens&
> sensor at, say, wide open (so the system is limited by the lens),
> and at wide open with lots of extension tube in between.


I have an example actually pushing things to the limit with a
diffraction limited 10" SCT f6.3 scope in combination with both a 2x
teleconverter and a 0.6x focal reducer. The magnification range is
limited by the amount of backfocus adjustment that the main optics can
provide. Ordinary camera lenses have a lot less flexibility.

The images are scans of 35mm 100ASA slide film.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2011
PeterN wrote:

<heavily edited for brevity>

> At my rate of $250 per hour, up to 1995 when I ceased practice,
> fees added up fast.


<edited>

Does "1995" mean $1,995?

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2011
PeterN wrote:

<heavily edited for brevity>

> Used car dealers used to pack a faulty gear train with hamburger meat to
> muffle the clanking of missing teeth.


That >definitely< ain't kosher...in more ways than one!

> They also turned back the odometer.


Old hat.

> Either is clearly fraud, despite any exclusion to the contrary, unless
> the exclusion specifies the defect..


My late father was an auto mechanic and licensed used car dealer. He
never tried any of the grievous scams you've cited, though.

Just minor things, such as spraying black paint on tires, and under
the hood. These slight retouches didn't affect performance or safety,
of course.

(Sort of like airbrushing, if I may make an on-topic comment?)

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.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
January 2007 - The Nikon D80 digital slr is still Nikon's most popular camera george@dpmac.com Digital Photography 1 01-08-2007 10:06 AM
Film SLR Flash unit on a Digital SLR - Possible? alex Digital Photography 12 06-24-2006 09:51 PM
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n and DCS Pro SLR/c digital SLRs have been discontinued... Newsgroups Digital Photography 2 06-01-2005 03:08 PM
Digital Photography RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr vs rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? Lionel Digital Photography 16 09-17-2004 12:48 PM
Prosumer Digital SLR from Nikon ??? Raj Digital Photography 2 09-09-2003 10:59 PM



Advertisments