How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: John Navas on 28 Jun 2010 15:47 On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:27:49 -0700, in <4c28f7b3$0$22089$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 23/06/10 5:12 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: >> "SMS"<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >> news:4c211bae$0$1638$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> The seasoned amateur does not own a 4:3 or micro 4:3 camera. >> >> That will come as a surprise to the seasoned amateurs I know who have a 4/3 >> system. > >You're obviously using a different definition of "seasoned amateur." Well, duh! He's using a real world dictionary, and you're using the Steven Scharf Dictionary. -- Best regards, John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
From: Doug McDonald on 29 Jun 2010 09:24 On 6/28/2010 12:44 PM, John Navas wrote: > If it were true that smaller photosites inevitably resulted in worse > images, then newer dSLR cameras with much smaller photosites than older > dSLR cameras would produce much worse images, when in fact they produce > much better images. The reason is that it's not that simple -- image > quality depends on many complex factors and tradeoffs. > That's true. But ... the basic sensor technology has now run up against the laws of physics, in most areas. The main remaining problem is the one that has plagued electronics since the mid-50s: 1/f noise in the amplifiers. There are other problems, of course, of which by far the worst is the poor spectral transmission properties of the dyes used in the Bayer filters. If you would look at the low light performance of a raw sensor with only an IR cutoff filter, the results would stun you. Doug McDonald
From: John Navas on 29 Jun 2010 11:16 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:24:44 -0500, in <i0cs1k$tsr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu> wrote: >On 6/28/2010 12:44 PM, John Navas wrote: > >> If it were true that smaller photosites inevitably resulted in worse >> images, then newer dSLR cameras with much smaller photosites than older >> dSLR cameras would produce much worse images, when in fact they produce >> much better images. The reason is that it's not that simple -- image >> quality depends on many complex factors and tradeoffs. > >That's true. But ... the basic sensor technology has now >run up against the laws of physics, in most areas. That's what naysayers have been saying all along, yet progress continues to be made, much like past declarations that science has learned all there is to know. >The main >remaining problem is the one that has plagued electronics since >the mid-50s: 1/f noise in the amplifiers. > >There are other problems, of course, of which by far the worst >is the poor spectral transmission properties of the dyes used >in the Bayer filters. If you would look at the low light >performance of a raw sensor with only an IR cutoff filter, the >results would stun you. I've seen them. There are other problems as well, all of which are subject to continued technological progress. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Neil Harrington on 29 Jun 2010 15:23 "John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:egnh26h3da0cr50ksslqujvuf0d5etg2qd(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:20:41 -0700, in > <4c209c9e$0$1638$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS > <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >>Rich wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> Go shoot a close-in sports even and say that. All equipment has >>> limitations, some a lot more than others and the photographer (no matter >>> how good) is at a disadvantage because of it. >> >>That's the bottom line. There are certainly situations where excellent >>results can be obtained with equipment that has limitations that don't >>matter much for the specific situation. But there are many times when >>the equipment makes a huge difference, and without the proper equipment >>you would not even bother to try to get the shot because you know that >>it's just not possible. > > Assuming good equipment, such situations are actually few and far > between (for most of the rest of us at least). Such exaggeration tends > to come from those who claim great equipment will somehow make up for > their lack of great technique. > >>... Since I use it >>extensively, and since I contributed to the documentation for it, I try >>to spread the word about it. ... > > LLPOF > Leaping lily pads of France? Lidless latrines putrid odor factories? I give up, John. What's LLPOF?
From: nospam on 29 Jun 2010 15:41
In article <LMOdnU1pFdWq1bfRnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > > LLPOF > > Leaping lily pads of France? > > Lidless latrines putrid odor factories? > > I give up, John. What's LLPOF? <http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/LLPOF> |