Prev: "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers" by Scott Kelby
Next: Brittany landscapes photoblog
From: Ray Fischer on 22 Nov 2009 13:43
Reality <reality(a)anyaddress.com> wrote:
>Plastic lens elements can be easily configured for less CA, more complex
>geometries, etc. Plastic lenses can easily out perform the most exotic
>fluorite designs.

That must explain why people keep using those expensive flourite lenses
instead of just casting plastic ones.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Eric Stevens on 22 Nov 2009 17:25
On 22 Nov 2009 18:43:43 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Reality <reality(a)anyaddress.com> wrote:
>>Plastic lens elements can be easily configured for less CA, more complex
>>geometries, etc. Plastic lenses can easily out perform the most exotic
>>fluorite designs.
>
>That must explain why people keep using those expensive flourite lenses
>instead of just casting plastic ones.

I didn't know they made lenses out of fish tank bottom material!
http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/FlouriteBlackSand.html



Eric Stevens
From: Reality on 22 Nov 2009 19:52
On 22 Nov 2009 18:43:43 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Reality <reality(a)anyaddress.com> wrote:
>>Plastic lens elements can be easily configured for less CA, more complex
>>geometries, etc. Plastic lenses can easily out perform the most exotic
>>fluorite designs.
>
>That must explain why people keep using those expensive flourite lenses
>instead of just casting plastic ones.

No, it's due to idiot brainless consumers like you who would belittle any
lenses made with superior optical plastics.

From: ransley on 22 Nov 2009 20:30
On Nov 22, 3:00 am, Reality <real...(a)anyaddress.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:22:28 +0000, Glen <glenne...(a)tiscali.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:09:16 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> >wrote this:
>
> >>On Nov 21, 4:34 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> What's your forecast of the pixel count level in five years
>
> >>> 1. of a compact camera (we've reached 15MP)
> >>> 2. APS-C DLSR (current level: 18MP)
> >>> 3. "full frame" DLSR (current level: 24MP)
>
> >>> I wouldn't expect too much increase in the compact sector, but APS-C and
> >>> especially full frame DSLRs should still increase a lot. Maybe we'll be
> >>> at 25-30MP with APS-C and 40MP with full frame DSLRs.
> >>> --
>
> >>> Alfred Molon
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo..com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photosharing site
>
> >>I think not much more.  Reason being that even if they develop sensor
> >>technologies to suppress noise sufficiently to permit more megapixels,
> >>the lens quality needed to support the sensors to get more resolution
> >>will be too expensive for the cameras.
>
> >Unless they are made of........plastic!!!
> >.
>
> Plastic lens elements can be easily configured for less CA, more complex
> geometries, etc. Plastic lenses can easily out perform the most exotic
> fluorite designs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Then why are the most expensive-best, glass.
From: Ray Fischer on 22 Nov 2009 20:34
Reality <reality(a)anyaddress.com> wrote:
> rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Reality <reality(a)anyaddress.com> wrote:
>>>Plastic lens elements can be easily configured for less CA, more complex
>>>geometries, etc. Plastic lenses can easily out perform the most exotic
>>>fluorite designs.
>>
>>That must explain why people keep using those expensive flourite lenses
>>instead of just casting plastic ones.
>
>No, it's due to idiot brainless consumers like you who would belittle any

Go away, dumbshit troll.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers" by Scott Kelby
Next: Brittany landscapes photoblog