Drowning in photos

In article , TRoss says...

It is certainly less of a problem than your solution to the
problem,viz. that the lens should have a diameter of 112mm. That's
more than the diameter of my Meade ETX105, ffs. I can't imagine how
much a beast like that would weigh.

Also, your "solution" would exacerbate another problem with wide angle
lenses: flare. And the damned thing would weigh a ton and cost a
fortune..

You could use a camera with a smaller sensor. That would drive down the
lens diameter.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
By the way Hans, this image
http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/image/66422763

Very nice, but why did you go up to ISO1600, with F2.8 and 1/15s? If me,
I would have shot this with a tripod at ISO 100 and F8.
--
After this long discussion, I now see that the only reason you went though
my photos was to find one that had vignetting so that you could have your
discussion about vingetting and small sensors. What a waste of time.....

--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskruse.com, http://hans-kruse.blogspot.com/

In article , Hans Kruse
says...

After this long discussion, I now see that the only reason you went though
my photos was to find one that had vignetting so that you could have your
discussion about vingetting and small sensors. What a waste of time.....

No that wasn't the reason. Please don't making false accusations - it
gives a bad impression of yourself.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...

No that wasn't the reason. Please don't making false accusations - it
gives a bad impression of yourself.

So what was the reason?

--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskruse.com, http://hans-kruse.blogspot.com/

Paul Furman wrote:
lid wrote:
lid wrote:


Yes.

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/I2200a-I2200b.jpg

and

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/IMG_2222_BigRoom.jpg


OK, I see a problem in my Usenet client. The first URL has
no underscores. The second one has underscores on either side of the
2222

The underscores are fine, just lost in the underlined link.
**VERY** slow loading though.


Of course they are VERY VERY slow loading! That's the point.
These are gigantic images. There is no point in posting
reduced size versions, as size is the "feature".

Doug McDonald

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:57:19 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , TRoss says...

It is certainly less of a problem than your solution to the
problem,viz. that the lens should have a diameter of 112mm. That's
more than the diameter of my Meade ETX105, ffs. I can't imagine how
much a beast like that would weigh.

Also, your "solution" would exacerbate another problem with wide angle
lenses: flare. And the damned thing would weigh a ton and cost a
fortune..

You could use a camera with a smaller sensor. That would drive down the
lens diameter.

Smaller than what? Smaller than the sensor used in "full-frame" DSLRs
like the Canon 1DS and 5D, the Nikon D3 and D700? Or smaller than the
"APS-C" sensor used in DSLRs like everything else from Canon or Nikon?
Or smaller than the 4:3 sensor in the DSLRs from Olympus?


It wasn't that long ago when you suggested the only way to get an
accurate preview of DOF in a DSLR would be to replace the optical
viewfinder with an electronic viewfinder. Now you're suggesting using
a smaller sensor to cure vignetting in wide angle and ultra-fast
lenses.

You have a knack for finding "solutions" that create bigger problems
than the one you're trying to address.

I can't decide whether you suffer from cluelessness or trollishness.
If you're the Alex Molon whose pictures are at http://www.molon.de,
I'm leaning towards trollishness.


TR