Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11

P.Garnet wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Curt R wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Collin Barger wrote:
(Dave Martindale)

And diffraction blur does *not* scale down like the aberrations do. If
you keep the f/number the same during the focal length shrink, the
diffration blur remains the same absolute size - which is 5X larger
relative to the image dimensions on the small sensor, and 5X as bad when
enlarged.

Exactly, but P&S lenses are ground to diffraction-limited tolerances,

They most certainly are not.

Uh huh, sure, ... that's why they only show signs of minor image softness when
smallest apertures are used.

No, it's because already-poor lenses and sensors don't degrade much
more because of diffraction.

The tell-tale sign of optics that are
diffraction-limited.

No, it isn't. It's a sign that the effects of diffraction are
overwhelmed by the much-greater flaws elsewhere in the system.

High-quality lenses are expensive. If you tell me that expensive
lenses are being used in cheap cameras then I'm going to tell you
that you're stupid.

You haven't a clue.

Do YOU think that expensive lenses are put into cheap cameras?

You do realize that I hope. You will someday, if you ever

Spare us the bull****, idiot. You obviously don't have any
intelligent response.

--
Ray Fischer

On 27 Nov 2008 23:50:48 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

P.Garnet wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Curt R wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Collin Barger wrote:
(Dave Martindale)

And diffraction blur does *not* scale down like the aberrations do. If
you keep the f/number the same during the focal length shrink, the
diffration blur remains the same absolute size - which is 5X larger
relative to the image dimensions on the small sensor, and 5X as bad when
enlarged.

Exactly, but P&S lenses are ground to diffraction-limited tolerances,

They most certainly are not.

Uh huh, sure, ... that's why they only show signs of minor image softness when
smallest apertures are used.

No, it's because already-poor lenses and sensors don't degrade much
more because of diffraction.

The tell-tale sign of optics that are
diffraction-limited.

No, it isn't. It's a sign that the effects of diffraction are
overwhelmed by the much-greater flaws elsewhere in the system.

High-quality lenses are expensive. If you tell me that expensive
lenses are being used in cheap cameras then I'm going to tell you
that you're stupid.

You haven't a clue.

Do YOU think that expensive lenses are put into cheap cameras?

You do realize that I hope. You will someday, if you ever

Spare us the bull****, idiot. You obviously don't have any
intelligent response.

Let's see if you can follow this simple grade-school level logic:

Smaller lenses are in P&S cameras.

P&S cameras have diffraction-limited quality. (The very best that glass, light,
and the physics of the universe will allow for.)

Larger lenses, if they are even going to hope to approach the same quality as
diffraction-limited lenses are going to cost proportionately much much more.

Do you have the math capabilities? Perhaps you can figure out the
price/performance curve based on the price of a 2.4m dia. lens that cost
$450,000,000 to bring it to diffraction-quality.

Going from 1" to 4" diameter lens and keeping the quality the same might mean
the difference between $100 and $1000.

Did you follow any of that?

No?!?

But I already knew that would happen.

Others much brighter than you will understand it though. That's why I bothered
to type it. You can't be the only one as stupid as you online who has lost the
capability to learn something new. Learning--something which you have repeatedly
shown to be impossible for you. I only use you now as an excuse to educate those
with more promise than you.

You can't make a silk-purse (education) out of a sow's-ear (Ray Fischer's
ignorance). But you can certainly teach others by showing them why it is
impossible. The sow's-ear (Ray Fischer's ignorance) becoming nothing more than a
prop in an important lesson for those more evolved than the dried-up cells in a
sow's-ear.

***Underestimate Correction***

On 27 Nov 2008 23:50:48 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

P.Garnet wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Curt R wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Collin Barger wrote:
(Dave Martindale)

And diffraction blur does *not* scale down like the aberrations do. If
you keep the f/number the same during the focal length shrink, the
diffration blur remains the same absolute size - which is 5X larger
relative to the image dimensions on the small sensor, and 5X as bad when
enlarged.

Exactly, but P&S lenses are ground to diffraction-limited tolerances,

They most certainly are not.

Uh huh, sure, ... that's why they only show signs of minor image softness when
smallest apertures are used.

No, it's because already-poor lenses and sensors don't degrade much
more because of diffraction.

The tell-tale sign of optics that are
diffraction-limited.

No, it isn't. It's a sign that the effects of diffraction are
overwhelmed by the much-greater flaws elsewhere in the system.

High-quality lenses are expensive. If you tell me that expensive
lenses are being used in cheap cameras then I'm going to tell you
that you're stupid.

You haven't a clue.

Do YOU think that expensive lenses are put into cheap cameras?

You do realize that I hope. You will someday, if you ever

Spare us the bull****, idiot. You obviously don't have any
intelligent response.

Let's see if you can follow this simple grade-school level logic:

Smaller lenses are in P&S cameras.

P&S cameras have diffraction-limited quality. (The very best that glass, light,
and the physics of the universe will allow for.)

Larger lenses, if they are even going to hope to approach the same quality as
diffraction-limited lenses are going to cost proportionately much much more.

Do you have the math capabilities? Perhaps you can figure out the
price/performance curve based on the price of a 2.4m dia. lens that cost
$450,000,000 to bring it to diffraction-quality.

Going from 1" to 4" diameter lens and keeping the quality the same might mean
the difference between $100 and ***$10,000. Check telescope optics prices if you
don't believe that. Telescope optics, the very best, must be polished to
diffraction-limited quality.*** denotes correction from previous post

Did you follow any of that?

No?!?

But I already knew that would happen.

Others much brighter than you will understand it though. That's why I bothered
to type it. You can't be the only one as stupid as you online who has lost the
capability to learn something new. Learning--something which you have repeatedly
shown to be impossible for you. I only use you now as an excuse to educate those
with more promise than you.

You can't make a silk-purse (education) out of a sow's-ear (Ray Fischer's
ignorance). But you can certainly teach others by showing them why it is
impossible. The sow's-ear (Ray Fischer's ignorance) becoming nothing more than a
prop in an important lesson for those more evolved than the dried-up cells in a
sow's-ear.

Ray Fischer wrote:
P.Garnet wrote:


Do YOU think that expensive lenses are put into cheap cameras?

You do realize that I hope. You will someday, if you ever

Spare us the bull****, idiot. You obviously don't have any
intelligent response.

Say, aren't you the same guy who posts ascii signs admonishing others to
not feed the troll?

--
lsmft

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems stephen clangston wrote:
P&S cameras have diffraction-limited quality. (The very best that
glass, light, and the physics of the universe will allow for.)

On what are you basing this rather tall assertion? Do you have test
data for every P&S camera/lens ever made? (Heck, I can supply half a
dozen P&S models off the top of my head that have lenses that are
demonstrably *not* diffraction-limited, but only one is enough to
falsify your assertion)

Oh, and what wavelength is diffraction-limited on all of these mythical
camera lenses?

Larger lenses, if they are even going to hope to approach the same quality as
diffraction-limited lenses are going to cost proportionately much much more.

If it's made to the same tolerances, of course a larger lens will cost
more to manufacture. However, you completely ignore the basic fact that
by virtue of being larger, it doesn't have to be manufactured (and
mounted) to the same tolerances in order to achieve the same effective
result. (After all, even if the lens is perfect, the sensor sure as
hell isn't!)

....and that's also ignoring the other benefits that a larger input
aperture brings. Such as greater light-gathering capabilities, allowing
a shorter exposure time and/or a shallower depth-of-field?

After all, if a thumbnail-sized mirror is so much cheaper and better
than one that's a couple meters in diamater by virtue of it being
diffraction-limited, why exactly does anyone bother with large mirrors
in telescopes?

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:21:28 +0000 (UTC), Stuffed Crust
wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems stephen clangston wrote:
P&S cameras have diffraction-limited quality. (The very best that
glass, light, and the physics of the universe will allow for.)

On what are you basing this rather tall assertion? Do you have test
data for every P&S camera/lens ever made? (Heck, I can supply half a
dozen P&S models off the top of my head that have lenses that are
demonstrably *not* diffraction-limited, but only one is enough to
falsify your assertion)

Oh, and what wavelength is diffraction-limited on all of these mythical
camera lenses?

Just as all plan-apochromatic lenses. If they hope to reduce CA, which many many
of them do excellently, then they optimize the achromats to handle all of them
as much as possible to match the planar surface of a sensor. Don't you know
basic optics?


Larger lenses, if they are even going to hope to approach the same quality as
diffraction-limited lenses are going to cost proportionately much much more.

If it's made to the same tolerances, of course a larger lens will cost
more to manufacture. However, you completely ignore the basic fact that
by virtue of being larger, it doesn't have to be manufactured (and
mounted) to the same tolerances in order to achieve the same effective
result. (After all, even if the lens is perfect, the sensor sure as
hell isn't!)

Exactly my point. Larger lenses of DSLR's aren't polished to diffraction-limited
specs. Due to the very nature of the less precise unit of measure of their
larger photo-sites. Haven't you been paying attention? (No, you're one of those
who can't afford what you don't have.)


...and that's also ignoring the other benefits that a larger input
aperture brings. Such as greater light-gathering capabilities, allowing
a shorter exposure time and/or a shallower depth-of-field?

Why do you let idiots drum these foolish ideas into your head? I'll never
understand that.

Shallower DOF can be a detriment in many instances to many subjects. DOF
variability is all relative to the world of photography. On some subjects
shallow DOF is helpful, on others it's an amazingly huge detriment.
(Macro-photography much? I thought not, you're limited to being a snapshooter.)

As has been previously proved (in a gazillion primers on photography), you can
just as easily get the same shallow DOF on a smaller sensor by increasing the
focal-length. There is no absolutely no difference in going from 30mm f.l.
/10mm-dia. lens and increasing the DOF by going to a 90mm f.l./10mm-dia. lens,
as it would be going from f/9.0 to f/3.0 aperture, where DOF is concerned.

Unfortunately, like most DSLR idiots, they are locked into thinking that only
aperture can alter DOF. Such is their linear, non-creative thinking. They can't
retrain their minds to do things in new ways, think in new ways. They'll forever
be taking pictures of their cat and wondering why nobody wants to look at their
photos. Because if you've seen just one photo from that uncreative
linear-thinking fool with a DSLR camera you've seen them all.

Again you display lack of basic optics principles in your mention of
light-gathering differences. Just because a lens is smaller doesn't mean it has
less light-gathering ability for digital cameras with different sensor sizes.
f/2.0 on a DSLR lens is no different than f/2.0 on a P&S lens (only in DOF
effects). The reason being that the larger lens MUST have more light to spread
over a larger area of a larger (less accurate, larger units of measure) sensor
to be equivalent to the more efficient smaller design. The aperture value is
equivalent between both lenses on both cameras where light-gathering is
concerned (not DOF, which in that case a focal-length change can then make them
equivalent again).


After all, if a thumbnail-sized mirror is so much cheaper and better
than one that's a couple meters in diamater by virtue of it being
diffraction-limited, why exactly does anyone bother with large mirrors
in telescopes?

- Solomon

Because you don't know basic principles of astronomy. Nobody ever said that a
1-inch mirror was better, cheaper yes--astronomically cheaper. Better? No. Not
for astronomy anyway (unless it is used in part of the light-path away from the
objective lens). All mirrors (and good refractive optics) are polished to
diffraction limits if they are of the best quality, so a 1-inch mirror-lens
might have the same quality as a 100-inch lens. That is the base highest-quality
rating in the world of astronomy.

In telescopes they strive for diffraction-limits in all optics because that is
the only thing (in reflective optics) that will create more resolution in their
images. The larger the lens that's figured to diffraction-limits, the smaller
the airy-disk. Consider the airy-disk one perfect pixel in astronomy. The larger
the mirror the smaller the pixels (units of information) on their resulting
image. The more units of measure containing clearly-defined information for a
given space, the greater the resolution. The larger the optics (if
diffraction-limited) the more information. (Are you also one of those idiots
that can follow these most basic principles of optics and light?)

I know it is difficult to wrap your miniscule mind around these most basic of
concepts in optics and photography, but perhaps, in time, you might go educate
yourself instead of depending on someone on usenet to enlighten you. It gets
tedious trying to educate all these complete and total DSLR-morons.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems PlayingWithIdiotTrolls wrote:
Just as all plan-apochromatic lenses. If they hope to reduce CA, which
many many of them do excellently, then they optimize the achromats to
handle all of them as much as possible to match the planar surface of
a sensor. Don't you know basic optics?

My college transcript says I know a lot more about optics than the
"basics", and both my resume and portfolio show that I have adapted
that theoretical knowledge into something practical.

Why do you let idiots drum these foolish ideas into your head? I'll never
understand that.

I apoligize that I can't dumb things down enough for you to understand;
but even the best teacher in the world can't educate a Lenny.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:48:24 +0000 (UTC), Stuffed Crust
wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems PlayingWithIdiotTrolls wrote:
Just as all plan-apochromatic lenses. If they hope to reduce CA, which
many many of them do excellently, then they optimize the achromats to
handle all of them as much as possible to match the planar surface of
a sensor. Don't you know basic optics?

My college transcript says I know a lot more about optics than the
"basics", and both my resume and portfolio show that I have adapted
that theoretical knowledge into something practical.


That's rich. Someone claiming to have a college background on these subjects to
continuously make such grade-school errors in THE MOST BASIC of photography and
optics related concepts.

LOL!!

Oh you silly trolls, you don't realize how easily you betray your own selves.

How can an idiot like Stuffed Crust tell when he's being an idiot? He can't,
that's why he's called an idiot.

"P.Garnet" wrote in message
...
On 27 Nov 2008 22:08:52 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Curt R wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Collin Barger wrote:
(Dave Martindale)

And diffraction blur does *not* scale down like the aberrations do.
If
you keep the f/number the same during the focal length shrink, the
diffration blur remains the same absolute size - which is 5X larger
relative to the image dimensions on the small sensor, and 5X as bad
when
enlarged.

Exactly, but P&S lenses are ground to diffraction-limited tolerances,

They most certainly are not.

Uh huh, sure, ... that's why they only show signs of minor image softness
when
smallest apertures are used.

No, it's because already-poor lenses and sensors don't degrade much
more because of diffraction.

The tell-tale sign of optics that are
diffraction-limited.

No, it isn't. It's a sign that the effects of diffraction are
overwhelmed by the much-greater flaws elsewhere in the system.

High-quality lenses are expensive. If you tell me that expensive
lenses are being used in cheap cameras then I'm going to tell you
that you're stupid.

You haven't a clue. You do realize that I hope. You will someday, if you
ever
educate yourself.

Just when I thought the average photographer knew next to nothing about
optics, you go and prove there are even more clueless dolts out there.

stephen clangston wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
P.Garnet wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Curt R wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Collin Barger wrote:
(Dave Martindale)

And diffraction blur does *not* scale down like the aberrations do. If
you keep the f/number the same during the focal length shrink, the
diffration blur remains the same absolute size - which is 5X larger
relative to the image dimensions on the small sensor, and 5X as bad when
enlarged.

Exactly, but P&S lenses are ground to diffraction-limited tolerances,

They most certainly are not.

Uh huh, sure, ... that's why they only show signs of minor image softness when
smallest apertures are used.

No, it's because already-poor lenses and sensors don't degrade much
more because of diffraction.

The tell-tale sign of optics that are
diffraction-limited.

No, it isn't. It's a sign that the effects of diffraction are
overwhelmed by the much-greater flaws elsewhere in the system.

High-quality lenses are expensive. If you tell me that expensive
lenses are being used in cheap cameras then I'm going to tell you
that you're stupid.

You haven't a clue.

Do YOU think that expensive lenses are put into cheap cameras?

You do realize that I hope. You will someday, if you ever

Spare us the bull****, idiot. You obviously don't have any
intelligent response.

Let's see if you can follow this simple grade-school level logic:

You're not smart enough to be condescending, asshole.

Smaller lenses are in P&S cameras.

P&S cameras have diffraction-limited quality.

Bull****.

--
Ray Fischer