If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" username@qwest.
net wrote: Dudley Hanks wrote: Before all you purists post your kindly admonishments that I am confusing diffraction and refraction, let me just poinht out that the two concepts are, shall we say, at worst rather inter-related... Dudley, They are related in that both processes change the direction that light travels. If the resolving power of a circular lens were only impacted by the "diffraction" effect of waves passing around / by obstacles, how would polishing it to a micro level make any difference? I view refraction as, more or less, an extension / subset of diffraction; I'm not sure how well that goes over with the more academic scientific community. It really is two different processes, and they generally work in the opposite direction with glass lenses over the visible spectrum. Shorter wavelengths are bent more as the light passes through a glass lens. Diffraction affects longer wavelengths more (red light). But the role of polishing has little to do with diffraction performance of a lens over the visible spectrum. Good polishing generally reduces flare, but doesn't make the lens diffraction limited. The figure of the polished lens has more to do with that, along with a multi-element design to reduce chromatic and other aberrations. So we all know who is wrong again. Roger. As I've said in the past, my background in photography has sorely lacked in academics, so I'll take advantage of this thread to gain a bit of a foothold in optics... I've tried looking up info on diffraction limited lens configurations in the past, but the mathematics are a bit tricky for me as I can't see the math symbols, myself. Instead, I rely on my screen reader to tell me what's there. Unfortunately, most screen readers don't do a good job with special symbols, leaving me to wonder a bit about what the math actually is, respecting diffraction limiting. To my reader, the Wikipedia article about the subject comes across looking (sounding) like this: The ability of an imaging system to resolve detail is ultimately limited by diffraction. This is because a plane wave incident on a circular lens or mirror is diffracted as described above. The light is not focused to a point but forms an Airy disk having a central spot in the focal plane with radius to first null of d = 1.22 \lambda N,\, where ? is the wavelength of the light and N is the f-number (focal length divided by diameter) of the imaging optics. In object space, the corresponding angular resolution is \sin \theta = 1.22 \ frac{\lambda}{D},\, where D is the diameter of the entrance pupil of the imaging lens (e.g., of a telescope's main mirror) .. Two point sources will each produce an Airy pattern – see the photo of a binary star. As the point sources move closer together, the patterns will start to overlap, and ultimately they will merge to form a single pattern, in which case the two point sources cannot be resolved in the image. The Rayleigh criterion specifies that two point sources can be considered to be resolvable if the separation of the two images is at least the radius of the Airy disk, i.e. if the first minimum of one coincides with the maximum of the other. Thus, the larger the aperture of the lens, and the smaller the wavelength, the finer the resolution of an imaging system. This is why telescopes have very large lenses or mirrors, and why optical microscopes are limited in the detail which they can see. [ Now, I think my translation is lacking a bit, so I'm wondering if you might be able to point me towards a description of the math which does not rely on symbols, but rather describes it verbally? It is interesting to note that this description, even if one cannot follow the math, pretty clearly states that size is of primary importance. Would appreciate any advice you can pass my way, Roger. Take Care, Dudley |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 01:06:43 -0800, bobwilliams wrote: I admire Roger's contributions to this newsgroup and take all his data, images and conclusions very seriously. Bob Then you are a fool. He poses BAD SCIENCE as a way to get controversy so people visit his website where he then tries to sell his ****-poor tourists crapshots. He's that desperate for anyone to see his photography because nobody wants to. It's his only motive and method. His calculations have been proved wrong so many times in the past that people just stopped bothering to correct all his errors. Then idiots like you fall for his bull**** song and dance. If am a fool, then I am in good company in this NG. Roger posts a lot of Quantitative data that are not available anywhere else. I use them a lot. Some of his photos are awesome. This shot of an egret won first prize against International competition in NATURE'S BEST Magazine. This magazine is the premier Nature Photography Magazine in the world. I have been a subscriber for many years and you will not find any touristy snapshots in this Magazine. See: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...ght.f-600.html Hey! We can all agree to disagree on some topics and still stay friends. Actually, life would be pretty dull if we all agreed on everything. But disagreeing with someone does not, de facto, make them a fool, idiot or moron. To fracture Shakespeare a little, "Methinks thou doth protest too much". Bob Williams |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
On 12/18/2010 4:12 AM, bobwilliams wrote:
snip Some of his photos are awesome. This shot of an egret won first prize against International competition in NATURE'S BEST Magazine. This magazine is the premier Nature Photography Magazine in the world. I have been a subscriber for many years and you will not find any touristy snapshots in this Magazine. See: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...ght.f-600.html Hey! We can all agree to disagree on some topics and still stay friends. Actually, life would be pretty dull if we all agreed on everything. But disagreeing with someone does not, de facto, make them a fool, idiot or moron. To fracture Shakespeare a little, "Methinks thou doth protest too much". Bob Williams Bob, thanks for posting the link to Roger's awesome photo. Obviously he knows something about photography. Does SSW? Allen |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
Ofnuts wrote:
Superzooms Still Win wrote: As for your physics proving everything, it FAILS because it does NOT take into account the figure of the lenses. The lenses on the superzoom camera can and ARE polished to diffraction-limited quality. Yes, they are polished to diffraction-limited quality at the top of a high moutain by virgin girls under the full moon. They are then laid on silk cushions and brought back in the valley using buffalo carts, and the tiny moves of the lenses on the cushions caused by the gentle rocking of the cart finishes the polishing to perfection. Panasonic's Leica lenses are finished off wrapped in silk between Swiss virgin's breasts trotting on horseback down the mountain as they sing the praises of their fine accuracy and innovative engineering; instilling emotional warmth, impact, and subtlety. http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...tGroupId=24999 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
Dudley Hanks wrote:
As I've said in the past, my background in photography has sorely lacked in academics, so I'll take advantage of this thread to gain a bit of a foothold in optics... I've tried looking up info on diffraction limited lens configurations in the past, but the mathematics are a bit tricky for me as I can't see the math symbols, myself. Instead, I rely on my screen reader to tell me what's there. I don't think the math matters that much or the intricate details of diffraction patterns for the purposes of this discussion it's fine to just think of it as the smallest detail that can be resolved for a given aperture. Refraction just means bending light through glass versus a reflecting mirror lens or telescope. Mirror lenses avoid chromatic aberrations because there is no refracting through the glass, so no rainbow color fringing. Aberrations are what matters in this discussion; like color fringes, corner softness, barrel, pincushion, vignetting and the like. Those are determined by the design of the lens (figure/shape) and how multiple elements combine to correct for these aberrations. Smooth sub-micron tolerance is just how precisely the final product matches the design. If quality control isn't up to snuff, you'll get random blurry splotches across the frame, or just overall softness. SZ claims the smaller size of lens elements allows being more precise since you don't have a huge hunk of glass to work on... I'm not sure there's much to that argument. There are a few specialty 35mm lenses with large aspherical shaped elements, meaning it's parabolic and can't just be ground in a simple round jig but needs more hand holding. These can show more variation in the hand work and are a lot of money because it takes more time and care. But those are rare, I believe modern lenses tend to use smaller aspheric plastic elements or moulded vs ground. Computers allow designing more complex solutions. Anyways, back to the point here. Diffraction limited I think generally refers to the optical design's control of aberrations such that the aberrations are so slight that the diffraction degrades the image before the aberrations do. If a lens is not diffraction limited, stopping down will improve image quality because those refraction aberrations mostly improve when stopping down. That effect is complex to explain but it generally works that way. Faster lenses are harder to design because of these aberrations, slow lenses easier. The sub-micron tolerance thing wouldn't be effected by stopping down. Now some more abstract comparisons, I suspect the reason you don't see super fast P&S lenses with shallow DOF is the exact same reason they cost a lot in 35mm format. P&S are designed for economy and it would be too expensive to grind lenses that small to such tolerance; unmarketable. Now I'm talking '35mm equivalent aperture' which is a concept with little acceptance but it's valid if you want shallow DOF. If you just scale down a 50mm f/1.4 lens to fit a P&S, it would still be f/1.4 but there would be more DOF which means you'd need to redesign it as something like 10mm f/0.7, and that is going to be a very difficult thing to design; the faster the lens, the worse the aberrations get. There are microscope objectives in that category of performance which are a pretty good estimation of what you'd need to make a nice fast P&S lens. A really nice fast apochromatic microscope objective costs about $5000. Apochromatic means not just the red green chromatic aberration is corrected in the design but another level or more like blue/yellow or specific attention to UV, etc. That's the kind of design needed for 'diffraction limited' and I never heard of such a thing in a super zoom compact. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
Dudley Hanks wrote:
To my reader, the Wikipedia article about the subject comes across looking (sounding) like this: The ability of an imaging system to resolve detail is ultimately limited by diffraction. This is because a plane wave incident on a circular lens or mirror is diffracted as described above. The light is not focused to a point but forms an Airy disk having a central spot in the focal plane with radius to first null of d = 1.22 \lambda N,\, where ? is the wavelength of the light and N is the f-number (focal length divided by diameter) of the imaging optics. In object space, the corresponding angular resolution is \sin \theta = 1.22 \ frac{\lambda}{D},\, where D is the diameter of the entrance pupil of the imaging lens (e.g., of a telescope's main mirror) . Two point sources will each produce an Airy pattern – see the photo of a binary star. As the point sources move closer together, the patterns will start to overlap, and ultimately they will merge to form a single pattern, in which case the two point sources cannot be resolved in the image. The Rayleigh criterion specifies that two point sources can be considered to be resolvable if the separation of the two images is at least the radius of the Airy disk, i.e. if the first minimum of one coincides with the maximum of the other. Dudley, The relevant equation above is Diffraction spot diameter = 2 * 1.22 w * f / D = 2.44 * w * f_ratio, where w = wavelength, f = focal length, D = aperture diameter, and f_ratio is the f/ratio of the optical system. So if you specify wavelength of light in microns, the diffraction spot diameter is in microns. The diffraction spot size for green light of 0.53 microns (5300 angstroms) is: f/2: 2.6 microns, f/4: 5.2 microns, f/8: 10.3 microns. The above from: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ml#diffraction So you see that cameras with small pixels (P&S cameras typically have pixels under 2 microns, and superzoom cameras with f/4 and slower lenses thus have pixels much smaller than the diffraction diameter. But more important is resolution on the subject. With more real focal length, the diffraction spot becomes a smaller angular diameter if you keep f/ratio the same. That is because the diameter of the aperture is getting larger. So the longer focal lengths found in DSLR telephotos provides proportionally greater resolution on a subject. Resolution on a subject is given by: resolution = constant / lens diameter, where the constant is determined by the wavelength. The Dawes limit is the limit at which no more detail on a subject can be resolved, or in other words, zero contrast on closely spaced detail, like line pairs in a test target, or hairs on an animal. e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes'_limit resolution in arc-seconds = 4.56 /D where D is the clear aperture in inches and the 4.56 is for a particular wavelength (green light). With D on the bottom of the equation, the finest detail one can resolve goes down as the lens aperture goes up. That dictates the fundamental difference between P&S superzoom cameras and DSLRs, and the field of view lens multiplier is now a great confusing factor among photographers selecting digital cameras. Roger Thus, the larger the aperture of the lens, and the smaller the wavelength, the finer the resolution of an imaging system. This is why telescopes have very large lenses or mirrors, and why optical microscopes are limited in the detail which they can see. [ Now, I think my translation is lacking a bit, so I'm wondering if you might be able to point me towards a description of the math which does not rely on symbols, but rather describes it verbally? It is interesting to note that this description, even if one cannot follow the math, pretty clearly states that size is of primary importance. Would appreciate any advice you can pass my way, Roger. Take Care, Dudley |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
Paul Furman wrote:
Now some more abstract comparisons, I suspect the reason you don't see super fast P&S lenses with shallow DOF is the exact same reason they cost a lot in 35mm format. P&S are designed for economy and it would be too expensive to grind lenses that small to such tolerance; unmarketable. Now I'm talking '35mm equivalent aperture' which is a concept with little acceptance but it's valid if you want shallow DOF. If you just scale down a 50mm f/1.4 lens to fit a P&S, it would still be f/1.4 but there would be more DOF which means you'd need to redesign it as something like 10mm f/0.7, Paul, If the crop multiplier is 5x, so the 10mm lens on the P&S is the same as the 50 mm lens on the 35mm sized sensor, the aperture diameter must be maintained for the same depth of field. Thus the 50 mm f/1.4 becomes 1.4/5 = f/0.28 on the 10 mm lens, which is pretty much impossible to build. Roger |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:00:05 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" c wrote: Superzooms Still Win wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:39:38 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to wrote: Superzooms Still Win wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 01:25:07 -0600, Dudley Hanks wrote: Now that Roger has debunked your claims about detail, LOL, perhaps we should run an analysis of the number of colour shades captured in those DSLR and P&S pics? Or, are you still smarting from the butterfly drubbing you took ... ? But but DUDley! Didn't you compare that other image I posted that showed many many thousands of more color shades in its data so therefore it MUST be a better image according to your reasoning? What? Didn't you show it to your sighted friends so they could laugh out loud at your absurdity and failed reasoning? Didn't you even show them how your "editing skills" totally trashes every photo you put through your "enhancing" routines? We've all seen it, that's why they were all remaining so silent, you were making such a total fool of yourself, AGAIN. You are not getting it. Simple physics proves you are wrong. Regarding image detail, the super zoom P&S cameras have clear apertures on the order of an inch or less. Diffraction from such a small lens means poor subject resolution. A DSLR with even a lower end fixed telephoto like 300 f/4 has about a 3-inch clear aperture, thus on the order of 3x higher resolution on a subject. The 3x larger diameter lens delivers 9x more light. More light = finer gradations due to better signal-to-noise ratio. Again, this is simple physics. There is no contest between a DSLR versus P&S whether telephoto resolution on a subject or color tonality, or signal-to-noise ratio. Simple physics, the DSLR wins. Anyone who can do simple physics can prove this. Dudley is correct. Roger Hey MORON, this has nothing to do with lens physics, DUDley is throwing in another situation that he created which proved himself too to be a total moron. You are wrong. It has to do with both lens physics and sensor physics. Conisder two cameras, one with double the sensor size, double the lens focal length, and double the pixel size, and the same f/ratio lens. The lens has 4 times the area so collects 4 times the light. The sensors have the same spatial resolution, but the larger pixels collect 4 times the light from the lens delivering 4 times the light. The signal-to-noise ratio is double on the large sensor camera. The higher signal-to-noise ratio delivers finer tonality and greater dynamic range. This is well proven and simple physics. Again, you prove yourself to be a total MORON. DUDley was NOT referring to your optics bull****, he was referring to his OWN bull**** where he believes that more individual colors in an image file means its a better image (wha' what?!? yep, he's that ****ingly stupid). Something that is totally unrelated to the crap that you are spewing. Thus proving yet again, just how ****ingly blind and ignorant that you are as well. LOL. This is priceless, the main person in support of you is a blind-man who doesn't even comprehend the main concepts of optics and photography. This says so much about you. Truly a case of the blind leading the blind. ROFLMAO! As for your physics proving everything, it FAILS because it does NOT take into account the figure of the lenses. The lenses on the superzoom camera can and ARE polished to diffraction-limited quality. They have to be in order to allow the photosites resolve individual details. Otherwise nobody would buy them. Thereby allowing them to have more resolution at larger apertures. DSLR glass is NEVER ground to diffraction-limited quality, because the cost to do so puts them outside the reach of every consumer, therefore they can never attain diffraction-limited resolutions at ANY useful aperture. What a laugh! Physics does very well. Again it is simple physics that shows that the big lenses with DSLRs doesn't even need to be close to diffraction limited in other to deliver better resolution on a subject compared to the tiny lenses on P&S super zoom cameras. Simple physics proves it. But then you already knew this, or you wouldn't have blatantly biased your fools' tests again by choosing aperture and exposure settings and resolutions and JPG compressions which would give an advantage to your PIECE OF **** DSLR CRAP. Shove that "physics" up your useless asshole full of relentless BAD-SCIENCE bull****. Now, go ahead, spend three more years of your useless life trying to outdo more P&S cameras that have already surpassed anything you have ever accomplished in your miserable existence. Simple equation: Dawes limit = 5.45/D where D=lens clear aperture diameter. You can try shoving the physics wherever you want to but it won't change the basic and well understood laws of physics. Simple physics proves you wrong. QED Roger What a shame, that I have more important things to do than correct all your bull**** for you again. When you start paying me to be your teacher perhaps I'll bother. But here's a freebie for you anyway: Diffraction artifacts are also a function of distance. I bet you can't figure out why that too can so easily prove you completely wrong yet again. As if your glaring omission of lens figures wasn't enough, and still you refuse to see your crippled reasoning. But don't let me stop you from being the #1 fool of the photography and science communities. You do it so well on your own. Without idiots like you spewing your laughable results from your botched and blatantly biased tests there'd be so fewer laughs in the world. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 02:12:50 -0800, bobwilliams wrote:
Superzooms Still Win wrote: On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 01:06:43 -0800, bobwilliams wrote: I admire Roger's contributions to this newsgroup and take all his data, images and conclusions very seriously. Bob Then you are a fool. He poses BAD SCIENCE as a way to get controversy so people visit his website where he then tries to sell his ****-poor tourists crapshots. He's that desperate for anyone to see his photography because nobody wants to. It's his only motive and method. His calculations have been proved wrong so many times in the past that people just stopped bothering to correct all his errors. Then idiots like you fall for his bull**** song and dance. If am a fool, then I am in good company in this NG. Roger posts a lot of Quantitative data that are not available anywhere else. I use them a lot. Some of his photos are awesome. This shot of an egret won first prize against International competition in NATURE'S BEST Magazine. This magazine is the premier Nature Photography Magazine in the world. I have been a subscriber for many years and you will not find any touristy snapshots in this Magazine. See: http://www.spamvision.com/galleries/...ght.f-600.html BFD, even a stopped-clock is right twice a day. Quite frankly I'm suspect of whoever judged that improperly exposed and poorly composed zoo snapshot. I've posted ones better than that as throw-aways here just for examples to prove all these trolls wrong on issues unrelated to marketable photography. I stopped entering international competitions when I found out how easy they were to win. There's no challenge in winning awards. One time I entered a purposely crappy photo just as a joke, to show all my photographer friends just what kind of crap-photography will win an award. They bet me it would never win. I said, "Wait and watch. They'll actually vote on this crap." It won. It was a good laugh. This says so much more about the viewer and voter than it does any photographer. One need only see the praises handed out on Flickr to comprehend the folly of it all. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:20:03 -0600, Superzooms Still Win
wrote: BFD, even a stopped-clock is right twice a day. Quite frankly I'm suspect of whoever judged that improperly exposed and poorly composed zoo snapshot. I've posted ones better than that as throw-aways here just for examples to prove all these trolls wrong on issues unrelated to marketable photography. You've never posted a link to one of your images that would be accepted by one of those neighborhood free papers, let alone a real publication. Unless, of course, there's a magazine called "The Rare Moth Review" that prints fuzzy, poorly-composed, images that could be of a moth or could be of a moldy head of broccoli. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Comparison shop for digital cameras | robert | Digital Photography | 1 | March 13th 07 06:18 PM |
FA: Leitz 500 mm mirror telephoto lens for Leica R cameras | Collector | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:45 PM |
Good comparison reviews of digital cameras | D | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 1 | May 4th 04 05:22 PM |
FS: Two Rolleicord V(b) cameras, eyelevel prism finder, telephoto lens, close up lens, etc. | Otto Fajen | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 17th 04 07:58 AM |
FS: Two Rolleicord V(b) cameras, eyelevel prism finder, telephoto lens, close up lens, etc. | Otto Fajen | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 17th 04 07:58 AM |