Prev: I bet no one knows enough to answer THIS question... !
Next: I've read about "adaptive optics" as used by the US military,intelligence agencies, etc in satellite imagery, but what about using opticsto correct out of focus pictures? Is this possible?
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 17 Jul 2010 17:43
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 05:50:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:

>On 16/07/10 3:45 PM, Rich wrote:
>
>> Then why stay in the field at all? Why keep making hulking plastic
>> superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off?
>
>The superzooms are highly profitable. The manufacturing cost is very
>low. For D-SLRs they're making big money on lenses and accessories, but
>the cameras are more costly to manufacturer with the larger sensors,
>lens mounts, mirrors, optical viewfinders, and shutters.
>
>The person who chooses a relatively large superzoom over a relatively
>lard D-SLR typically does not understand anything about the physics of
>sensors,

Like you don't. Sensors are more dependent on newer forms of technology
than size. Newer technology is always used in compact and superzoom cameras
3-4 years before they ever make it to larger sensor cameras.


> optics,

Like you don't. Due to the smaller sensor in these cameras they excel at
macrophotography for their longer DOF available. Due to the smaller sensor
size much larger apertures are available at longer focal lengths (precisely
what the professional wildlife photographer requires) than any that can
ever be made available for DSLR glass. Due to the smaller optics sizes,
they are and must be figured to diffraction-limited precision. The very
best optics that can exist. Unlike DSLR glass that is only sharp at one
aperture, and rarely if ever will DSLR glass afford pixel-level detail
resolution, which is common on smaller sensors matched to finer optics.

> focusing systems,

We are all too aware of focusing systems and the benefits of each. Phase
focusing might be faster, but it's highly inaccurate. Contrast detection is
precise. I'd much rather walk away with 90 out of 100 images properly
focused than 10 out of 1000.

>dynamic range,

See above about sensor technology. One of my smaller sensor cameras has a
dynamic range of 10.3 EV steps. That's 3-4 more EV steps of dynamic range
than film. That's more than anyone needs.

> viewfinders,

Yes, you don't realize that electronic viewfinders are much more reliable,
versatile, and useful. They can display a real-time shutter-speed preview.
You can zoom into the pixels for accurate focusing. You can tell in
real-time if your image has the proper white-balance and exposure, BEFORE
you press the shutter, not after. The uses for an EVF and LCD are immense.
They can also be used to frame and focus in light levels so low that an
optical viewfinder has become totally useless long ago. There's so much you
don't know about them because YOU'VE NEVER USED THEM.

> or photography in general,

Like you don't. Because you don't even own ONE camera. We've proved that
time and time again.

>and they don't want to learn either.

Like you don't. Being the incessant pretend photographer troll that you
are, you won't even buy a camera to find out just how wrong you've been all
your life.

> They may be
>disappointed with their equipment in terms of lag times

Lag times in compact and superzoom cameras are now even shorter than in
DSLRs because they don't have to move those cumbersome mirrors and loudly
slapping, image jarring, mechanical contraptions out of the way.

> and low light
>performance,

My superzoom cameras can image stars down to magnitude 9.2. The human eye,
on a good night of seeing, can only detect stars down to magnitude 6.0, 6.5
if in the mountains away from all light pollution.

> but they don't understand the reasons that they're
>disappointed, and they've spent a lot less money than a D-SLR buyer. Our
>favorite troll is ample proof of this.

You being the main demented role-playing pretend photographer troll around
here.

How's that computer controlled geyser that you helped to install in
Yellowstone? Been back there yet to work on it?

<http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>

If anyone wants to see just how fuckingly psychotic that you are and how
much you like to role-play online in your imaginary world, that's a fun
read.

LOL!


From: SMS on 18 Jul 2010 18:59
On 17/07/10 6:51 AM, Rich wrote:

> We don't know about how profitable they are. Assembly is probably the
> single most costly part of a camera today (aside from perhaps the
> sensor and prism in a DSLR) and it seems to be a superzoom P&S might
> cost even more than a DSLR to assemble.

I doubt it. You do have the additional assembly time of the lens, but
you don't have the mechanical assembly of viewfinders or shutters (if
they lack a mechanical shutter). The cameras are all assembled in very
low wage countries.
From: Rich on 18 Jul 2010 23:58
On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote:
> On 17/07/10 6:51 AM, Rich wrote:
>
> > We don't know about how profitable they are.  Assembly is probably the
> > single most costly part of a camera today (aside from perhaps the
> > sensor and prism in a DSLR) and it seems to be a superzoom P&S might
> > cost even more than a DSLR to assemble.
>
> I doubt it. You do have the additional assembly time of the lens, but
> you don't have the mechanical assembly of viewfinders or shutters (if
> they lack a mechanical shutter). The cameras are all assembled in very
> low wage countries.

Fuji is infuriating. Their top superzoom P&S is bigger than entry
level DSLRs. Couple it with the TINY sensor, and it screams, "waste
of space, weight and dollars."
From: SMS on 19 Jul 2010 04:41
On 18/07/10 8:58 PM, Rich wrote:
> On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, SMS<scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/07/10 6:51 AM, Rich wrote:
>>
>>> We don't know about how profitable they are. Assembly is probably the
>>> single most costly part of a camera today (aside from perhaps the
>>> sensor and prism in a DSLR) and it seems to be a superzoom P&S might
>>> cost even more than a DSLR to assemble.
>>
>> I doubt it. You do have the additional assembly time of the lens, but
>> you don't have the mechanical assembly of viewfinders or shutters (if
>> they lack a mechanical shutter). The cameras are all assembled in very
>> low wage countries.
>
> Fuji is infuriating. Their top superzoom P&S is bigger than entry
> level DSLRs. Couple it with the TINY sensor, and it screams, "waste
> of space, weight and dollars."

No, you get a larger quantity of camera for your money. There are buyers
that believe that bigger is always better.
From: zulu on 19 Jul 2010 13:08
> You being the main demented role-playing pretend photographer troll around
> here.

have to take pictures to be photographer troll. you just troll part
not photographer part. read lots talk lots anger lots pictures none.

where LOL! Outing Trolls is FUN! Better Info Truman photos?
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: I bet no one knows enough to answer THIS question... !
Next: I've read about "adaptive optics" as used by the US military,intelligence agencies, etc in satellite imagery, but what about using opticsto correct out of focus pictures? Is this possible?