On 4/27/2018 5:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 20:32:25 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/26/2018 8:37 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 12:17:03 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/26/2018 5:01 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 18:45:31 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/25/2018 8:29 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
Which camera better represents the subject would be quite obvious when
looking at two prints of the same size.
That would depend on the subject.
OK, presuming anything other than shooting a still, gray object in
darkness...
and what use the image is to be used for.
We used to a photographic setup here with an 'enlarger' in reverse, it than enlarged the image it only ever reduced it in size. we also had a 20k per sec frame cine camera, we had oscilascope cameras based around the poloroid land camera 110B, sometimes people build cameras and other devices with specific uses which is also why there are more cameras avaiable than just the TG-4.
Just because you don't see a use for another other camera then perhaps that's the real problem.
The "real problem" is that you never comprehended my point.
That's because you haven't got one that can be comprehended.
Clearly not by you, but that's just another example of your thinking
that your personal limitations are generalizable to everyone else.
No that is yuo yuor the one claiming yuor TG-4 is the final word in what cameras should be brought, you seem to think that anyone buying that camera or using that camera should be able to use a TG-4 and get the same results.
I said no such thing, and stated the opposite more than once. The
question I asked has been the same from the start: it's resolution vs.
sensor cell noise. If your nose wasn't so high in the air about the
TG-4, perhaps you'd be able to grasp my point.
All I've said is I wouldn't be in the market for that camera and I can see a limited use for a 10X8 sensor, but yuo seem to think yuor TG-4 is better for every type of photography than any other camera.
What part of "my LEAST capable camera" is stumping you (see below)?
The TG-4 is
my *least capable* camera, yet it will outperform that $100k device in
just about every photographic task up to the 8x10's maximum practical
print size.
As long as you believe that fine, but unless you can prove the point I'm betting those that see a need for a 10x8 camera will buy it.
I would agree with you if you limited your statement to "those that see
a need for that particular implementation of an 8x10 camera". Those who
generally need an 8x10 camera will also need more than that is capable
of doing.
and I bet yuor TG-4 won't satisfy that need, even if you think it might.
Not hardly. What part of "...there are dozens of cameras at a fraction
of the cost of that 8x10 that will outperform it..." is stumping you?
The presentation of that unit as an "8x10" camera has
implications that it can't live up to, and it's those who refuse to see
that who are the ones with a problem.
There's a world of differnce between what you percieve as wanted and what someone else might want.
That's just another of your personal limitations.
It's yuor limitation not mine.
I'm not the one who
would walk into a camera store and wonder what people might want.
That makes as little sense as expected.
Of course it doesn't to one with your limited ability to comprehend
simple sentences.
Those in the market for an 8x10 camera would be
better served by a clue regarding image resolution and color capability.
Maybe they are more clued up than you or prhaps they donlt need or want colour.
Don't forget colour is an illusion anyway there really is NO such thing as colour. The illusion depends on your reciever and also the speed it travels at.
Yet another straw man.
No it isn't, it's a scientific fact. Animals that rely on hunting skills and speed of reaction mostly use monochrome imagary.
If color was unimportant,
unimportant to who ?
most cameras would be
limited to monochrome. That doesn't describe the real world of photography.
Not everyone is interested in the 'real world of photography'.
So what is your point... that some people prefer a bulky, low-resolution
monochrome contrivance? There are those on the Leica list that shoot
with their monochrome M cameras; 18mp and under $8k. So, that straw man
of yours is also DOA.
Strangley those working at the local post office, that do instant passports don;t have a TG-4 they have a poloriod with 4 lenes and if I want a passport photo immediatly then I'd go to them not you with a TG-4, certain camera have specific uses and it's best to leave those cameras with those that have those uses and know how to use them.
Yet another straw man. No one claimed that a TG-4 is the answer to all
photographic tasks. I don't even know why you're bothering to go in that
direction.
why do you compare your TG-4 with the 10x8 camera then ?
As I stated a number of times, now, it's because I'm sure I'd get better
photographic results in almost every situation other than shooting
still, gray objects in the dark.
If
I wanted to attach a bellows to the TG-4 for some odd reason, the task
would take less than an afternoon.
yeah sure it would.
Where is this bellows unit for your camera ?
There is nothing special about a bellows other than the mounts. I could
adapt any of the bellows that I have by changing the mounts in the way I
already described (and you snipped).
Is your TG-4 an interchangable lens camera ?
Could you not comprehend that from my earlier posts?
No, can you not answer a simple Q. It doesn't appear that you can.
When a question has already been answered, it's the person continuing to
ask the same question (you, in this case) with the problem.
It';s not been answered because you didnlt eben know your TG-4 had a non interchanagbe lens.
Non interchangeable? What are the wide-angle and telephoto TG-4 lenses
that I have, since they aren't permanently fixed to the camera? You just
don't comprehend how they work, and think that your limited notion of
"interchangeable" applies to all situations, which it clearly does not.
It's that communications thing biting your rear end again.
Do you know where bellows fit ?
I know where they fit on my 35mm, MF, and 4x5 cameras, as well as on the
24"x24" process camera I used to work with. So, what is your point?
Then why did you buy the TG-4 as it is yuor Quote :-
"The TG-4 is my *least capable* camera, yet"
Why buy it ?
can you fit them bellows to your TG-4 yes or No.
I already described the process in detail. What part of it did you not
understand?
the bit(s) where yuor lying.
I told you how I could adapt a bellows to the TG-4; I never said I
thought it necessary to do so. The details of the process were in
response to YOUR question about tilt and shift capability: all it
requires is a bellows and lens mounts.
which CAN NOT be fitted to the TG-4.
Have you ever used bellows in photography ?, I have.
It *really* doesn't sound like you have.
I remember using bellows for this short, I had them it mounted on a rifle grip with two small flashguns mirage 600 and a sunpak 134 IIRC . Think I had the 80-210mm tamron lens on at the time, as I didn;t want to get too close to a wasp.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...n/photostream/
whereas my LED watch I used extention tubes with a tripod, the watch was balanced on my bed.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...n/photostream/
Where as my transitor photo was through a microscope, I didn't have a proper adapter so I used tape and a cardboard tube.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/26588444057/
It's nice to see that you've "hacked" some solutions, too, but it's
puzzling that you think you're the only one capable of such things.
I've NOT hacked anything, it's not difficult puttign something between the lens and teh sensor of a camera that has interchangable lenses.
But you can;t do that with yuor TG-4 maybe that is why it is your *least capable* camera why do you call it that ?
What lens would you choose to go with this bellows setup ?
I have many to choose from, including Olympus, Leica, Zeiss, and
Schneider. Why do you ask?
Because you claim that you can get a baynet mount 3D printed that's why.
I didn't say anything about 3D printing (it's that comprehension thing
biting your behind again). I said that I would 3D SCAN the bayonet mount
and make one in a CNC machine. Surely, you don't think that's impossible
or even difficult?
I don't think you could do that for your TG-4 so what mount is your TG-4 ?
The TG-4 has a bayonet mount. I've told you that numerous times. Is it
that you think 3D scans and CAD files can't be sent to a CNC machine?
They can, and are every day. Is it that you think the resulting bayonet
mount wouldn't fit on the TG-4? That's idiotic. So, what *is* your issue
with using the bayonet mount to mount a bellows to the camera?
Are you using 42mm lenes or 39mm threaded ?
Neither. The TG-4 "converter lenses" use 40.5mm threads to attach to the
adapter that mounts to the camera via BAYONET mount. So, why would the
thread mount on those lenses matter if one was going to attach the
bellows TO THE BAYONET MOUNT ON THE CAMERA?
bellows units need to be placed between the rear element of the lens and before the sensor.
If you were right about that, then none of the lenses for the TG-4 would
work, but as they do, you are once again proven wrong. The fixed lens
simply becomes additional lens elements that project the light rays from
the adapter lenses on the sensor. So, the only requirement is that the
fixed lens can also focus on the light rays from the lens mounted on the
bellows, and I don't see that as much of a problem considering the focal
range of the fixed lens.
Does your TG-4 actually take interchgangable lenese I don;t see any for sale.
Why is that ?
I generalized about "cameras with interchangeable lenses" because they
can have a bellows attached.
Yes cameras with interchangable lenes can have bellows attached well done.
But in a sense, so does the TG-4;
No it doesn't.
they're
"converter lenses", but they can be interchanged to provide different
optical capabilities.
but NOT bellows.
You keep making that claim, with absolutely no basis for its veracity.
You claim to be so "scientific", yet fail to comprehend that we're
really talking about what happens to light rays in that configuration
without giving one reason why focus would be impossible. THE OPTICAL
ISSUES ARE THE SAME IN BOTH CASES.
I already described in detail how I could
make a compatible mount in a short time frame. Not that I would bother
to do so, but it is not a big deal.
you couldnl;t your TG-4 lens is NOT interchanagble.
Bellows attached to the camera's bayonet mount would function similarly
and have the same optical issues as the "converter lenses"
you're talking **** yet again.
since none of
them replace the built-in lens that functions as additional lens
elements when used in those configurations. For one who has "hacked"
other solutions you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty
grasping this concept:
1) the TG-4 has a bayonet mount
prove it.
Take a look at how the REQUIRED adapter attaches to the camera.
http://www.olympusimage.com.sg/product/compact/accessory/conversion_lens/clat01.html
2) the mount on the adapter can be 3D scanned
what adapter what mount .
See above. Are you really that dense?
3) a new adapter can be machined from the 3D file
4) the new adapter can be attached to a bellows
5) the bellows can then be attached to the TG-4 and used with existing
lenses.
6) Not that I think it's necessary or a good use of my time and resources.
--
best regards,
Neil