Back-illumination doesn't seem very effective

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 6, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Aug 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >Small sensors still seem to be terrible at higher ISO's.


    RichA's trolling doesn't seem to be very effective. *REAL* PRO
    photographers have shot all their photos for the last century at ISO25 to
    ISO64 all their lives. Noise-free ISO 100 or 200 of any camera today is
    just icing on the cake. Anything more is gluttonous unneeded comforter and
    a crutch for crapshooters that don't know how to use any camera properly.

    Did you forget to mention that for low-light wildlife photography that the
    superzooom cameras give you about a 3-5 EV stop advantage in optical
    aperture? No need for high ISOs. Did you forget to mention that smaller
    sensor cameras give you the DOF *required* for *all* macrophotography at
    wide-open apertures? Allowing for handheld macrophotography in any
    available light conditions.

    Trolls rarely cover ALL the facets of importance. They've never used any
    cameras under any circumstances, so how would they know. They only know how
    to troll with misinformation, deceptions, and lies in their tool-belt.
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 6, 2:34 pm, Superzooms Still Win <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Small sensors still seem to be terrible at higher ISO's.

    >
    > RichA's trolling doesn't seem to be very effective. *REAL* PRO
    > photographers have shot all their photos for the last century at ISO25 to
    > ISO64 all their lives. Noise-free ISO 100 or 200 of any camera today is
    > just icing on the cake


    Tell it to sports and wildlife photogs. Pros who won't and never will
    use cheap superzooms with crappy little sensors and who routinely use
    ISOs from 400-3200.
    RichA, Aug 6, 2010
    #3
  4. On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:00:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Aug 6, 2:34 pm, Superzooms Still Win <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Small sensors still seem to be terrible at higher ISO's.

    >>
    >> RichA's trolling doesn't seem to be very effective. *REAL* PRO
    >> photographers have shot all their photos for the last century at ISO25 to
    >> ISO64 all their lives. Noise-free ISO 100 or 200 of any camera today is
    >> just icing on the cake

    >
    >Tell it to sports and wildlife photogs. Pros who won't and never will
    >use cheap superzooms with crappy little sensors and who routinely use
    >ISOs from 400-3200.


    I'm living proof that you are a consummate liar and a troll.
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 6, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:19:17 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:00:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Aug 6, 2:34 pm, Superzooms Still Win <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >Small sensors still seem to be terrible at higher ISO's.
    >>>
    >>> RichA's trolling doesn't seem to be very effective. *REAL* PRO
    >>> photographers have shot all their photos for the last century at ISO25 to
    >>> ISO64 all their lives. Noise-free ISO 100 or 200 of any camera today is
    >>> just icing on the cake

    >>
    >>Tell it to sports and wildlife photogs. Pros who won't and never will
    >>use cheap superzooms with crappy little sensors and who routinely use
    >>ISOs from 400-3200.

    >
    >I'm living proof that you are a consummate liar and a troll.


    Thanks. I think I know which of the two of you to ask which door has
    the tiger behind it.
    John A., Aug 6, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:00:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Aug 6, 2:34 pm, Superzooms Still Win <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Small sensors still seem to be terrible at higher ISO's.

    >>
    >> RichA's trolling doesn't seem to be very effective. *REAL* PRO
    >> photographers have shot all their photos for the last century at ISO25 to
    >> ISO64 all their lives. Noise-free ISO 100 or 200 of any camera today is
    >> just icing on the cake

    >
    >Tell it to sports and wildlife photogs. Pros who won't and never will
    >use cheap superzooms with crappy little sensors and who routinely use
    >ISOs from 400-3200.



    Troll on troll action! Really turns me on ...

    .... NOT.
    Bruce, Aug 6, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Sander Guest

    On 6-8-2010 23:49, John A. wrote:

    > Thanks. I think I know which of the two of you to ask which door has
    > the tiger behind it.


    Neither.

    One of them sees tigers behind every door.
    The other thinks a little pussycat is a better tiger than an actual tiger.
    Sander, Aug 7, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:48:13 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:00:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Aug 6, 2:34 pm, Superzooms Still Win <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >Small sensors still seem to be terrible at higher ISO's.
    >>>
    >>> RichA's trolling doesn't seem to be very effective. *REAL* PRO
    >>> photographers have shot all their photos for the last century at ISO25 to
    >>> ISO64 all their lives. Noise-free ISO 100 or 200 of any camera today is
    >>> just icing on the cake

    >>
    >>Tell it to sports and wildlife photogs. Pros who won't and never will
    >>use cheap superzooms with crappy little sensors and who routinely use
    >>ISOs from 400-3200.

    >
    >
    >Troll on troll action! Really turns me on ...
    >
    >... NOT.


    Yeah, but throw in a cup...
    John A., Aug 7, 2010
    #8
  9. On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:56:58 -0500, Doug McDonald wrote:

    >> Did you forget to mention that for low-light wildlife photography that
    >> the superzooom cameras give you about a 3-5 EV stop advantage in
    >> optical aperture? No need for high ISOs.

    >
    >
    > I really HATE to reply to you.
    >
    > But sometimes its NECESSARY!


    No, it's not. In fact, it's useless, because facts will never stop him
    from telling the same lies over and over again.

    > What matters I NOT THE f/number ... its the ACTUAL APPARENT DIAMETER OF
    > THE LENS IRIS. That's assuming you use two cameras at the exact same
    > spot with the same field of view.
    >
    > A small-sensor camera with say a 1/2 inch sensor needs an f/number
    > numerically THREE TIMES SMALLER than a 1.5 inch sensor that gets the
    > same picture, to get the same amount of light, the same numbers of
    > photons, in the same time. ITS THE NUMBER OF PHOTONS THAT DETERMINES
    > IMAGE NOISE. That's since all the sensors, large or small, are all
    > reasonably close to photon limited.
    >
    > In other words, your teensy sensor camera needs an f/1 lens where a
    > full-frame camera needs only an f/2.8 lens.


    Only if the relative amount of light-capturing surface is the same.
    Smaller sensors tend to have relatively small pixels, because the
    circuitry between them can't be scaled down very effectively.
    That's why BI-technology makes more sense on small sensors. Large
    sensors, which already have a relatively small amount of circuitry,
    hardly benefit at all from back illumination.

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
    Robert Spanjaard, Aug 7, 2010
    #9
  10. On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:56:58 -0500, Doug McDonald
    <> wrote:

    >On 8/6/2010 1:34 PM, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
    >
    >> Did you forget to mention that for low-light wildlife photography that the
    >> superzooom cameras give you about a 3-5 EV stop advantage in optical
    >> aperture? No need for high ISOs.

    >
    >
    >I really HATE to reply to you.
    >
    >But sometimes its NECESSARY!
    >


    I HATE TO HAVE TO CORRECT YOUR STUPIDITY, BUT IT'S *ALWAYS* NECESSARY.

    YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON AND YOU DON'T HAVE ONE CLUE ABOUT HOW IMAGING OPTICS
    NOR DIGITAL CAMERA SENSORS WORK.


    >What matters I NOT THE f/number ...


    YES, WHAT MATTERS *IS* THE F/NUMBER.

    > its the ACTUAL APPARENT DIAMETER
    >OF THE LENS IRIS. That's assuming you use two cameras at the
    >exact same spot with the same field of view.


    WRONG.

    >
    >A small-sensor camera with say a 1/2 inch sensor needs an f/number
    >numerically THREE TIMES SMALLER


    WRONG.

    > than a 1.5 inch sensor that gets
    >the same picture, to get the same amount of light, the same
    >numbers of photons, in the same time.


    WRONG.

    >ITS THE NUMBER OF PHOTONS
    >THAT DETERMINES IMAGE NOISE.


    WRONG.

    THAT DEPENDS MORE ON TECHNOLOGY THAN THE NUMBER OF PHOTONS.

    YOU LOUSY FUCKING MORON **** OF A DSLR-TROLL.

    >That's since all the sensors,
    >large or small, are all reasonably close to photon limited.


    AND ON A LARGER SENSOR THOSE PHOTONS ARE SPREAD OVER A LARGER AREA. THIS
    ONLY ALLOWS FOR HIGHER ISOs (on present technology). *ALL* EXPOSURES,
    F/STOPS, ISOs, AND SHUTTER SPEEDS WILL BE IDENTICAL UNDER IDENTICAL
    LIGHTING CONDITIONS FOR BOTH LARGER AND SMALLER CAMERAS. THE DSLR CANNOT
    GET AN F/3.5 1250MM EFL LENS CONFIGURATION. BUT A SMALLER SENSOR CAMERA
    *CAN* AND THEY DO. I USE MY CAMERA WITH AN OPTICAL EFL OF 1250MM AT F/3.5
    QUITE REGULARLY. ISN'T IT A LOUSY CRYING SHAME THAT YOU CAN'T GET THAT KIND
    OF PERFORMANCE FROM *ANY* DSLR GLASS IN EXISTENCE. BOO-FUCKING-HOO, YOU
    LOUSY MISINFORMATION-SPEWING **** OF A DSLR-TROLL.

    SO YOU LOSE, YOU LOUSY FUCKING MORON. BOO-HOO.

    >
    >In other words, your teensy sensor camera needs an f/1 lens where
    >a full-frame camera needs only an f/2.8 lens.
    >


    WRONG. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE A MORON.

    AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH *ALL* MORONS IS THAT THEY ARE
    TOO FUCKING STUPID TO EVEN REALIZE THEY ARE MORONS.

    GOT IT?

    NO. OF COURSE, NOT.

    *BECAUSE* YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON!
    Superzooms Still Win, Aug 7, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Aug 7, 9:24 am, Allen <> wrote:
    > SneakyP wrote:
    > > Bruce <> wrote in
    > >news::

    >
    > >> Troll on troll action!  Really turns me on ...

    >
    > >> ... NOT.

    >
    > > I've wondered why RichA and Anti-RichA don't anhilliate each other and
    > > leave a nice peaceful group.  Speaking of which...

    >
    > > Another Hamster rule on the way...

    >
    > > <teehee>

    >
    > Do you have a spell checker? If so, PLEASE USE IT!


    He misspelled "anthillate": To turn something or someone into an ant
    hill.
    Nervous Nick, Aug 8, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "Nervous Nick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Aug 7, 9:24 am, Allen <> wrote:
    > SneakyP wrote:
    > > Bruce <> wrote in
    > >news::

    >
    > >> Troll on troll action! Really turns me on ...

    >
    > >> ... NOT.

    >
    > > I've wondered why RichA and Anti-RichA don't anhilliate each other and
    > > leave a nice peaceful group. Speaking of which...

    >
    > > Another Hamster rule on the way...

    >
    > > <teehee>

    >
    > Do you have a spell checker? If so, PLEASE USE IT!


    He misspelled "anthillate": To turn something or someone into an ant
    hill.


    That's an ant hill that is not on time.

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 8, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Aug 6, 11:28 pm, SneakyP <>
    wrote:
    > Bruce <> wrote innews::
    >
    >
    >
    > > Troll on troll action!  Really turns me on ...

    >
    > > ... NOT.

    >
    > I've wondered why RichA and Anti-RichA don't anhilliate each other and
    > leave a nice peaceful group.  Speaking of which...
    >
    > Another Hamster rule on the way...
    >


    Leave it to you and the Chinese spammers.
    Rich, Aug 8, 2010
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sweb

    Infra-red illumination

    Sweb, Nov 25, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    450
    Gary G. Taylor
    Nov 26, 2003
  2. Thomas Reed

    Quick Book file access very very very slow

    Thomas Reed, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    734
    Palindrome
    Apr 9, 2004
  3. secheese

    Illumination Needed On Luminance!

    secheese, Jan 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    334
    secheese
    Jan 27, 2005
  4. Light and Illumination in Photography

    , Dec 28, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    344
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    259
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Oct 16, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page