[OT] eBay: Another Unbelievable Item Description

In article ,
Jim Phelps wrote:
Gentlemen, Please!

You have missed the point! The post is talking about the LENS, not the
FILM [sensor]! He states the bigger the front element the faster the rate
of absorbtion! Lenses DON'T ABSORB LIGHT in sufficent quantities

Indeed they don't, but something does, namely the film. One of the great
things about English, and other natural languages, is that you're allowed to
leave certain things implicit, because they're obvious by context. This
does, of course, present an opportunity for those with nothing better to do
to pretend they're some sort of Mr Spock-like space alien, ignore the
implicit context, and pretend some sort of ambiguity exists where in reality
there is none. Presumably this is done because people think this has some
sort of humour value, but in this case, the joke appears to have fallen flat.

Larger apertures allow a faster rate of light absorption. This being stated
by someone in a slightly clumsy manner would not seem to be a great source
of comedic value, but if it floats your boat...

All your examples are destination oriented. This is not about the
destination, but rather the transfer mechanism (in this case a lens).

I tend to put my lenses in front of some sort of light sensing material,
e.g. photopgraphic film, but then I read this group because I have a
photography hobby, not because I have a newsgroup pedantry hobby. YMMV.

In article ,
Jim Phelps wrote:
Gentlemen, Please!

You have missed the point! The post is talking about the LENS, not the
FILM [sensor]! He states the bigger the front element the faster the rate
of absorbtion! Lenses DON'T ABSORB LIGHT in sufficent quantities

Indeed they don't, but something does, namely the film. One of the great
things about English, and other natural languages, is that you're allowed to
leave certain things implicit, because they're obvious by context. This
does, of course, present an opportunity for those with nothing better to do
to pretend they're some sort of Mr Spock-like space alien, ignore the
implicit context, and pretend some sort of ambiguity exists where in reality
there is none. Presumably this is done because people think this has some
sort of humour value, but in this case, the joke appears to have fallen flat.

Larger apertures allow a faster rate of light absorption. This being stated
by someone in a slightly clumsy manner would not seem to be a great source
of comedic value, but if it floats your boat...

All your examples are destination oriented. This is not about the
destination, but rather the transfer mechanism (in this case a lens).

I tend to put my lenses in front of some sort of light sensing material,
e.g. photopgraphic film, but then I read this group because I have a
photography hobby, not because I have a newsgroup pedantry hobby. YMMV.

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...

No it's not, it's like saying that a car with 4 people in delivers people
to
their destination at a faster rate than a car with 2 people in, and it's
perfectly accurate.

Perhaps the eBay seller has made some mistakes, but this isn't one of
them.


Read it again. The seller says "...more light at a faster rate..." This
equates to saying more people at a faster speed. I contend he cannot have
more people at a faster speed as the speed of the movement of the people has
already max'ed out (speed of light). You can't have it both ways. More
light, yes, but at a faster rate - no!

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...

No it's not, it's like saying that a car with 4 people in delivers people
to
their destination at a faster rate than a car with 2 people in, and it's
perfectly accurate.

Perhaps the eBay seller has made some mistakes, but this isn't one of
them.


Read it again. The seller says "...more light at a faster rate..." This
equates to saying more people at a faster speed. I contend he cannot have
more people at a faster speed as the speed of the movement of the people has
already max'ed out (speed of light). You can't have it both ways. More
light, yes, but at a faster rate - no!

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...

No it's not, it's like saying that a car with 4 people in delivers people
to
their destination at a faster rate than a car with 2 people in, and it's
perfectly accurate.

Perhaps the eBay seller has made some mistakes, but this isn't one of
them.


Read it again. The seller says "...more light at a faster rate..." This
equates to saying more people at a faster speed. I contend he cannot have
more people at a faster speed as the speed of the movement of the people has
already max'ed out (speed of light). You can't have it both ways. More
light, yes, but at a faster rate - no!

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
Jim Phelps wrote:

How about this one. I especially like the technical discussion on "fast
lens". Just how does that lens make the light be _absorbed_ at a _faster
rate_? Was Einstein wrong and light can be accelerated beyond the speed
of

While the wording in the post is clumsy and ill informed, rate in this
case means "how much in how much time", so it is true that an f/2.8
aperture takes in more light than an f/4.0 lens in a given time.
Reciprocity refers.


Alan,

In the description the seller says "... more light ... at a faster
rate..." While I agree a larger lens opening will allow more light to
transit the lens (volume - what everyone is saying), it will not do so at a
faster rate (velocity - what I am saying). The rate is fixed at the speed
of light and the photons do not transit the lens and accelerate. As far as
I know, you cannot accelerate light beyond the speed of light (Warp Factor
1+ only exists in a certain TV programs).

Jim

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
Jim Phelps wrote:

How about this one. I especially like the technical discussion on "fast
lens". Just how does that lens make the light be _absorbed_ at a _faster
rate_? Was Einstein wrong and light can be accelerated beyond the speed
of

While the wording in the post is clumsy and ill informed, rate in this
case means "how much in how much time", so it is true that an f/2.8
aperture takes in more light than an f/4.0 lens in a given time.
Reciprocity refers.


Alan,

In the description the seller says "... more light ... at a faster
rate..." While I agree a larger lens opening will allow more light to
transit the lens (volume - what everyone is saying), it will not do so at a
faster rate (velocity - what I am saying). The rate is fixed at the speed
of light and the photons do not transit the lens and accelerate. As far as
I know, you cannot accelerate light beyond the speed of light (Warp Factor
1+ only exists in a certain TV programs).

Jim

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...

I tend to put my lenses in front of some sort of light sensing material,
e.g. photopgraphic film, but then I read this group because I have a
photography hobby, not because I have a newsgroup pedantry hobby. YMMV.

I don't understand why you have chosen to reduce this to belittling levels,
but so be it.

I too, have a photography hobby, we have something in common. We both use
the newgroups to exchange ideas and thoughts, more in common. I have never
belittled or attacked you. Now, why do you choose to belittle me? Strange.

Read my post back to Alan Browne (addressed to Alan and not Gentlemen) and
maybe you can explain to me why I was incorrect, and you are correct.

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...

I tend to put my lenses in front of some sort of light sensing material,
e.g. photopgraphic film, but then I read this group because I have a
photography hobby, not because I have a newsgroup pedantry hobby. YMMV.

I don't understand why you have chosen to reduce this to belittling levels,
but so be it.

I too, have a photography hobby, we have something in common. We both use
the newgroups to exchange ideas and thoughts, more in common. I have never
belittled or attacked you. Now, why do you choose to belittle me? Strange.

Read my post back to Alan Browne (addressed to Alan and not Gentlemen) and
maybe you can explain to me why I was incorrect, and you are correct.

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...

I tend to put my lenses in front of some sort of light sensing material,
e.g. photopgraphic film, but then I read this group because I have a
photography hobby, not because I have a newsgroup pedantry hobby. YMMV.

I don't understand why you have chosen to reduce this to belittling levels,
but so be it.

I too, have a photography hobby, we have something in common. We both use
the newgroups to exchange ideas and thoughts, more in common. I have never
belittled or attacked you. Now, why do you choose to belittle me? Strange.

Read my post back to Alan Browne (addressed to Alan and not Gentlemen) and
maybe you can explain to me why I was incorrect, and you are correct.