Prev: P & S Raw?
Next: How to determine if you can properly choose a camera
From: Chrlz on 1 Mar 2010 04:33
Off Topic. Just a little challenge for Keoeeit...

On Feb 26, 8:04 pm, Bill W D <billwd971...(a)apopularisp.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:06:17 -0800 (PST), Chrlz <mark.thoma...(a)gmail.com>
> > ... even Bruce/Tony Polson, and
> > NameHere/HenryOlson/Keoeeit/AntiDSLRTroll...
>
> You also need to edit your name-list ...
> There's 3 wrong in even your condensed list this time. 50% wrong, that's standard
> chance.

3 wrong? In the post to which you seem to be replying to, I only
listed NameHere, HenryOlson, Keoeeit and AntiDSLRTroll.

That's 4 names. FOUR. Now, 3 out of 4 would be 75%, dearie. And as
you WELL know, they are all names associated with you. The first
three are most certainly you (I've proven that before and am happy to
do so again), and the last is simply the name that a lot of folks on
these forums use to refer to you trolling, abysmal lack of knowledge,
and pretentious bullshit.

So, is it perhaps that you don't understand grammar? There was a very
clear delineation of my reference to the other semi-troll 'Bruce', who
we all know is Tony Polson. If you got a little mixed up, feel free
to verify that your reading skills are a bit limited, or that you
think that every word on the forums is about you.
From: Ken Walls on 1 Mar 2010 04:57
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:17:58 -0800 (PST), Chrlz <mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>or ... those who understand that the larger the sensor, the better the
>image.

All of these comparisons prove you to be exactly what you are. A
know-nothing pretend-photographer troll.


<http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>

<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>

<http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>


From: MikeWhy on 1 Mar 2010 15:11
"Ken Walls" <kwalls(a)spamblocked.com> wrote in message
news:en3no5dvifj1v88qbiaqvc7m93ttg2ghk5(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:17:58 -0800 (PST), Chrlz <mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>or ... those who understand that the larger the sensor, the better the
>>image.
>
> All of these comparisons prove you to be exactly what you are. A
> know-nothing pretend-photographer troll.
>
>
> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>
>
> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>
>
> <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>

I had not wanted to resort to physical comedy earlier to make my point. ALL
the 7D samples at the wiggett blog were shot at f/16, much smaller than the
diffraction limited aperture of f/6.9. Below DLA, resolution depends only on
sensor size and aperture, not sensor resolution. The DLA resolution for
APS-C at f/16 is 3.3 MP, which looks unremarkably like what wiggett posted.
I'm all but certain that it was completely intentional and committed with
malice aforethought. What a jokester. Eh? Theory does match practice enough
of the time to compell one to study and understand the theory.

The Luminous Landscape G10 shots were all at (relatively) large apertures --
f/3.5, f/4, and f/4.5 --on the 1/1.7" sensor. Diffraction is not an issue at
those apertures, and the article is not of interest in this discussion
except as a control. So noted; theory still matches practice.

I only glanced at the SX10 page, not having any current interest in another
P&S. Is there anything there relevant to the sensor size versus diffraction
discussion?

From: Ken Walls on 1 Mar 2010 18:25
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:11:16 -0600, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Ken Walls" <kwalls(a)spamblocked.com> wrote in message
>news:en3no5dvifj1v88qbiaqvc7m93ttg2ghk5(a)4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:17:58 -0800 (PST), Chrlz <mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>or ... those who understand that the larger the sensor, the better the
>>>image.
>>
>> All of these comparisons prove you to be exactly what you are. A
>> know-nothing pretend-photographer troll.
>>
>>
>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>
>>
>> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>
>>
>> <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>
>
>I had not wanted to resort to physical comedy earlier to make my point. ALL
>the 7D samples at the wiggett blog were shot at f/16, much smaller than the
>diffraction limited aperture of f/6.9. Below DLA, resolution depends only on
>sensor size and aperture, not sensor resolution. The DLA resolution for
>APS-C at f/16 is 3.3 MP, which looks unremarkably like what wiggett posted.
>I'm all but certain that it was completely intentional and committed with
>malice aforethought. What a jokester. Eh? Theory does match practice enough
>of the time to compell one to study and understand the theory.
>
>The Luminous Landscape G10 shots were all at (relatively) large apertures --
>f/3.5, f/4, and f/4.5 --on the 1/1.7" sensor. Diffraction is not an issue at
>those apertures, and the article is not of interest in this discussion
>except as a control. So noted; theory still matches practice.
>
>I only glanced at the SX10 page, not having any current interest in another
>P&S. Is there anything there relevant to the sensor size versus diffraction
>discussion?

.... and there was a rock in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, your
tennis racket was missing a string, the sun was in your eyes, you lost your
glasses that day, your self-inducing ignorance and biased
justification-blinders prevented you from seeing better carrots while you
trotted around your decades old manure-filled endless loop ... yadda yadda
yadda....

<major yawn>

From: ColinD on 2 Mar 2010 00:34
Ken Walls wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:11:16 -0600, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Ken Walls" <kwalls(a)spamblocked.com> wrote in message
>> news:en3no5dvifj1v88qbiaqvc7m93ttg2ghk5(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:17:58 -0800 (PST), Chrlz <mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> or ... those who understand that the larger the sensor, the better the
>>>> image.
>>> All of these comparisons prove you to be exactly what you are. A
>>> know-nothing pretend-photographer troll.
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>
>>>
>>> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>
>>>
>>> <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>
>> I had not wanted to resort to physical comedy earlier to make my point. ALL
>> the 7D samples at the wiggett blog were shot at f/16, much smaller than the
>> diffraction limited aperture of f/6.9. Below DLA, resolution depends only on
>> sensor size and aperture, not sensor resolution. The DLA resolution for
>> APS-C at f/16 is 3.3 MP, which looks unremarkably like what wiggett posted.
>> I'm all but certain that it was completely intentional and committed with
>> malice aforethought. What a jokester. Eh? Theory does match practice enough
>> of the time to compell one to study and understand the theory.
>>
>> The Luminous Landscape G10 shots were all at (relatively) large apertures --
>> f/3.5, f/4, and f/4.5 --on the 1/1.7" sensor. Diffraction is not an issue at
>> those apertures, and the article is not of interest in this discussion
>> except as a control. So noted; theory still matches practice.
>>
>> I only glanced at the SX10 page, not having any current interest in another
>> P&S. Is there anything there relevant to the sensor size versus diffraction
>> discussion?
>
> ... and there was a rock in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, your
> tennis racket was missing a string, the sun was in your eyes, you lost your
> glasses that day, your self-inducing ignorance and biased
> justification-blinders prevented you from seeing better carrots while you
> trotted around your decades old manure-filled endless loop ... yadda yadda
> yadda....
>
> <major yawn>
>
Jesus. If P&S cameras do that to your mind, I'd be wary of them.

Colin D.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: P & S Raw?
Next: How to determine if you can properly choose a camera