Prev: Why is Raw better than jpeg
Next: Verrazano-Narrows bridge
From: SneakyP on 6 Aug 2010 23:28
Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in
news:b84p56l7dr9fqif4nmual3ul4fe9li8msu(a)4ax.com:


>
>
> 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>


--
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

From: SneakyP on 6 Aug 2010 23:33
John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in
news:vo0p56tuiat00fn6s5ke6rn73ro96r89uh(a)4ax.com:

Sybil squealed:
>>
>>I'm living proof that I am a consummate liar and a troll.
>
> Thanks. I think I know which of the 'many' you's to ask which door has
> the tiger behind it.
>

[Posts changed to reflect reality]


--
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

From: Allen on 7 Aug 2010 10:24
SneakyP wrote:
> Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in
> news:b84p56l7dr9fqif4nmual3ul4fe9li8msu(a)4ax.com:
>
>
>>
>> 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!
From: Doug McDonald on 7 Aug 2010 13:56
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!

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.


Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald
From: Robert Spanjaard on 7 Aug 2010 14:08
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
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Why is Raw better than jpeg
Next: Verrazano-Narrows bridge