And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors

In article ,
Whiskers wrote:

Try telling a Leica fan that his favourite lens isn't as good as the
Zeiss equivalent (or vice versa). Then mention Swarovski Optik and
ask why they don't make camera lenses ...

leica fans rank right up there with audiophiles in believing things
that are not physically or mathematically possible.

I don't know about that, but there are certainly some parameters that
can be measured and designed, for which Zeiss and Leica traditionally
took different decisions.

different decisions are just that, different. one is not necessarily
better or worse than the other. everything is a compromise.

the problem is when fanatics claim things that are not possible, such
as the leica m8 omitting an infrared filter because it affects the
purity, making the camera much *worse*.

Some photographers prefer one, some the
other, even to the extent of having lenses of one make converted to fit
onto cameras of the other make - hard-headed press photographers, not
technophiles with more money than sense. Nikon and Canon and other
makers also have their own particular differences and fans.

usually without any credible evidence.

there is no way anyone can tell whether a nikon, canon, pentax, sony,
etc. took a photo just by looking at it. even the exif data can be
faked.

In article ,
Whiskers wrote:

Try telling a Leica fan that his favourite lens isn't as good as the
Zeiss equivalent (or vice versa). Then mention Swarovski Optik and ask
why they don't make camera lenses ...

leica fans rank right up there with audiophiles in believing things
that are not physically or mathematically possible.

I don't think there's nearly as much nonsense in the photo world. The
crap in audioland is never ending. I'm glad I didn't have more money
starting out, or I'd be the proud owner of about 20K in speaker
wire...

The sort with arrows on the insulators to tell the electrons (or is it
the data bits?) which way to go?

the denon $500 ethernet cable had arrows:
http://www.wired.com/2008/06/snake-oil-alert/all/1

In article , Bill W
wrote:

The
crap in audioland is never ending. I'm glad I didn't have more money
starting out, or I'd be the proud owner of about 20K in speaker
wire...

be sure to use an 'audio grade' sd card:
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/20...ce-us160-low-n
oise-sr-64hxa-microsd-card/

I'm sure I'm one of those exceptional "Golden Ears" people, so I gotta
have one.

Seriously, though, it seems that most of the claims in photography can
be easily proven or disproven.

same for audio. there is no magic.

however, facts do not matter to these lunatics.

the memory card above stores digital data. the bits are either on or
off. there is no benefit to low noise cards. it's meaningless. it's
possible that there can be a bit error in reading or writing but the
controller will detect that and remap the block automatically.

Things tend to be more measurable,
whereas in audio, it's always, "it sounds better". The closest thing
I've seen in photography are the new claims about higher resolution
with the single pixel sensor shift. It's like someone else here
mentioned, you'd have to bolt the camera (along with the subject?) to
a block of concrete for that to make much, if any, difference.

resolution can also be measured.

despite hard numbers, there are still the lunatics who claim things not
possible, such as detail beyond nyquist, or that a digital image is
"film-like", as if that's supposed to be better and never mentioning
*which* film.

if it was 'film-like', it would be a step *backwards*, much like the
'warmth' (aka distortion) of a vinyl record. you can always add grain
back to a digital image or the scratches and pops to digital audio, if
that's what you really want.

they also claim a '3d look' for a 2d image and 'plastic colours'.

Foveon
sensors might belong in this discussion, but the claims are mostly
true, if misleading, or off-point.

foveon is without question at the top of the list.

just about everything they claim is anywhere from simply bogus to flat
out impossible.

the really amusing thing is that although foveon's chroma resolution is
higher than bayer, it doesn't actually matter since the human eye can't
see the difference.

in fact, bayer actually has *far* more chroma detail than the eye can
see (roughly 5x as much).

On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:45:55 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Whiskers wrote:

Try telling a Leica fan that his favourite lens isn't as good as the
Zeiss equivalent (or vice versa). Then mention Swarovski Optik and ask
why they don't make camera lenses ...

leica fans rank right up there with audiophiles in believing things
that are not physically or mathematically possible.

I don't think there's nearly as much nonsense in the photo world. The
crap in audioland is never ending. I'm glad I didn't have more money
starting out, or I'd be the proud owner of about 20K in speaker
wire...

The sort with arrows on the insulators to tell the electrons (or is it
the data bits?) which way to go?

the denon $500 ethernet cable had arrows:
http://www.wired.com/2008/06/snake-oil-alert/all/1

We really, really, need this sort of thing, if only because it can
make me *literally* lol.

I wonder if anyone sells audiophile air for wifi connections.

On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:45:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

even the exif data can be faked.

Is there a simple explanation/method for how to do this? DXO can't
find the right lens info sometimes, I think mostly after I process
something in other software.

On 26/05/2015 9:31 a.m., Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:45:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

even the exif data can be faked.

Is there a simple explanation/method for how to do this? DXO can't
find the right lens info sometimes, I think mostly after I process
something in other software.

Even the "properties" dialog ("details" tab) in Windows Explorer will
allow you to edit many exif fields, including adding lens model/maker etc.
There are plenty of other options, image editors which allow exif
modification, and programs designed specifically to do this.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

even the exif data can be faked.

Is there a simple explanation/method for how to do this? DXO can't
find the right lens info sometimes, I think mostly after I process
something in other software.

exif data are just tags in the file, which can be edited to whatever
you want them to be or removed entirely.

the best tool for the job is exiftool:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

keep in mind sigma lenses can give the wrong data because they reuse
the same chips in multiple lenses. only one lens will be correct. the
others won't be.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

The sort with arrows on the insulators to tell the electrons (or is it
the data bits?) which way to go?

the denon $500 ethernet cable had arrows:
http://www.wired.com/2008/06/snake-oil-alert/all/1

We really, really, need this sort of thing, if only because it can
make me *literally* lol.

I wonder if anyone sells audiophile air for wifi connections.

wonder no more.

although not specifically for wifi connections, they affect the ambient
air and reflections, so therefore it will likely improve wifi:
http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html
http://www.stereotimes.com/comm040510.shtml
http://meniscusaudio.com/acoustosphere-p-972.html

don't forget to get an audiophile power cable for your computer:
http://www.piaudiogroup.com/MPC_Power_Cable.html
http://www.nordost.com/leif/purple-flare/purple-flare-power-cord.php

which would be wasted without an audiophile grade wall outlet:
http://www.parts-express.com/wattgat...ex-receptacle-
outlet--110-439
and cover it with an audiophile grade wall outlet cover (which can even
be used for non-audio wall outlets). don't overtighten the screw
though.
http://machinadynamica.com/machina44.htm

what they neglect to mention is that the cabling in the walls, out to
the street and back to the power grid are nowhere near as good, so why
would the 6 feet from the wall to the computer make any difference?

also, be sure to demagnetize your vinyl records and audio cds.
fortunately, someone makes a device that does both:
http://www.soundstage.com/vinyl/vinyl200702.htm

you know it's legitimate because it's been patented:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6058078

lastly, be sure get a shatki stone, as it helps not just audio and
video, but also cars:
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/

On 26/05/2015 10:37 a.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Bill W
wrote:

The sort with arrows on the insulators to tell the electrons (or is it
the data bits?) which way to go?

the denon $500 ethernet cable had arrows:
http://www.wired.com/2008/06/snake-oil-alert/all/1

We really, really, need this sort of thing, if only because it can
make me *literally* lol.

I wonder if anyone sells audiophile air for wifi connections.

wonder no more.

although not specifically for wifi connections, they affect the ambient
air and reflections, so therefore it will likely improve wifi:
http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html
http://www.stereotimes.com/comm040510.shtml
http://meniscusaudio.com/acoustosphere-p-972.html

don't forget to get an audiophile power cable for your computer:
http://www.piaudiogroup.com/MPC_Power_Cable.html
http://www.nordost.com/leif/purple-flare/purple-flare-power-cord.php

which would be wasted without an audiophile grade wall outlet:
http://www.parts-express.com/wattgat...ex-receptacle-
outlet--110-439
and cover it with an audiophile grade wall outlet cover (which can even
be used for non-audio wall outlets). don't overtighten the screw
though.
http://machinadynamica.com/machina44.htm

what they neglect to mention is that the cabling in the walls, out to
the street and back to the power grid are nowhere near as good, so why
would the 6 feet from the wall to the computer make any difference?

also, be sure to demagnetize your vinyl records and audio cds.
fortunately, someone makes a device that does both:
http://www.soundstage.com/vinyl/vinyl200702.htm

you know it's legitimate because it's been patented:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6058078

lastly, be sure get a shatki stone, as it helps not just audio and
video, but also cars:
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/

You forgot to mention the "NOS" vacuum tubes for your hand-wired amp:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gold-Lion-N7...em3f198f 9543

On Mon, 25 May 2015 18:37:45 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:

even the exif data can be faked.

Is there a simple explanation/method for how to do this? DXO can't
find the right lens info sometimes, I think mostly after I process
something in other software.

exif data are just tags in the file, which can be edited to whatever
you want them to be or removed entirely.

the best tool for the job is exiftool:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

Right - I downloaded that months ago, but the instructions are longer
than 10 words, so I never did get time for it. I was hoping for a much
dumber version. I'll try again at some point.

keep in mind sigma lenses can give the wrong data because they reuse
the same chips in multiple lenses. only one lens will be correct. the
others won't be.

That's a separate problem, and DXO has asked me to pick one. I can
live with that.