Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3"

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses.

Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not and
they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are
diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades an
image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this
diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not
pixel pitch.

The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is thus
diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can resolve no
more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades to
about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide web
image.

How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For APS-C,
such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a Canon 5D
Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and 5D2 are,
respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:29:00 -0600, "MikeWhy"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses.

Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not and
they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are
diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades an
image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this
diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not
pixel pitch.

The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is thus
diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can resolve no
more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades to
about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide web
image.

How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For APS-C,
such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a Canon 5D
Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and 5D2 are,
respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

How does it compare? It compares to prove that you're a moron. Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor. What's even more interesting
is that smaller lenses can be figured to diffraction-limited quality, the
best there is, much more easily and inexpensively than for larger lenses.
There is not one DSLR lens in existence that can claim true "diffraction
limited quality" because they aren't figured that precisely. If they could,
then they would be sharpest at full aperture, none of them are. The
converse is not true when using smaller lenses on smaller sensor. Many of
them are sharpest at widest aperture. The only thing that limits their
sharpness is diffraction at smaller apertures, this is what "diffraction
limited" means. Diffraction which doesn't even border more than 2
photosites at smallest apertures due to the shorter focal-lengths required.
But you go ahead, keep believing what you believe, That's what you get for
obtaining your education from trolls' posts like your own.

"Henry Olson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:29:00 -0600, "MikeWhy"
wrote:

The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is thus
diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can resolve
no
more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades to
about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide web
image.

How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For
APS-C,
such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a Canon 5D
Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and 5D2 are,
respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

How does it compare? It compares to prove that you're a moron. Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor. What's even more interesting
is that smaller lenses can be figured to diffraction-limited quality,
the best there is, much more easily and inexpensively than for larger
lenses.

Fine. Say the cheap lens really can resolve 413 lines/mm wide open. It
doesn't, but who can tell? The system is diffraction limited at f/3.9. Wide
open aperture at longest focal length is f/5.6. It can resolve as little as
290 lines/mm and no one would know the difference. At that point, that 10 MP
sensor is resolving no more than 4.8 MP of detail.

There is not one DSLR lens in existence that can claim true "diffraction
limited quality" because they aren't figured that precisely. If they
could,
then they would be sharpest at full aperture, none of them are.

*Very few* are, which is still more than none. The Canon 300mm f/2.8L is one
such lens. There are others. The fact of the matter is, it's sharper than my
sensor can discern. That's the difference between your tiny lens and the big
lens. The big lens goes in front of a large sensor that can make use of the
detail and sharpness. The pixels are too large to resolve the diffraction
rings, and so it's happy and I'm happy. The tiny lens sits in front of a
tiny sensor with tiny pixels, which do resolve the diffraction rings.
Magnifying the details enough to see them also magnifies the airy disks into
visible airy blobs. Blobby details; sad face.

The
converse is not true when using smaller lenses on smaller sensor. Many of
them are sharpest at widest aperture. The only thing that limits their
sharpness is diffraction at smaller apertures, this is what "diffraction
limited" means.

A minor correction: "Diffraction limited" applies to the system -- image,
lens, and sensor -- not just the lens.

Diffraction which doesn't even border more than 2
photosites at smallest apertures due to the shorter focal-lengths
required.

Focal length is already part of the f/N number, by definition. Unless you
have a different number to share, I'll hold with my calculation of f/3.9.

But you go ahead, keep believing what you believe, That's what you get for
obtaining your education from trolls' posts like your own.

I do my own thinking. You should do the same. From my point of view, you're
too smug in your belief to see that which you already know. You're saying
the exact same things I'm saying, and still refuse to accept the truth of
their meaning. Tiny sucks, not because tiny of itself is bad, but because
tiny has to be magnified to be useful. Magnifying the good also magnifies
the bad. Because of that magnification, diffraction becomes a problem for
tiny pixels well before it becomes a problem for bigger pixels. (The same
could be said of gain noise, but who wants to trawl that old song?)

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:06:17 -0800 (PST), Chrlz
wrote:

On Feb 26, 7:29*am, "MikeWhy" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

...

Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses.

Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not and
they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are
diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades an
image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this
diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not
pixel pitch.

The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is thus
diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can resolve no
more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades to
about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide web
image.

How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For APS-C,
such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a Canon 5D
Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and 5D2 are,
respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

It's wonderful to see there are those who understand this issue.
While being diffraction-limited is not the only determining factor, it
adds significantly to the burden that small sensors bear. Of course
if all you ever do is post to the web, or print at 4"x6", it's not a
biggie....

There's a rather nifty page he
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm
It discusses the topic in relatively simple terms that even Bruce/Tony
Polson, and NameHere/HenryOlson/Keoeeit/AntiDSLRTroll might be able to
understand.

Why it even has little interactive thingies where they can press
buttons and watch what happens, so even if they don't understand, they
can at least have fun. (O:

Specifically designed for simpletons like you so you *might* start to grasp
the issue, but nowhere advanced enough to encompass all the variables so as
to confuse your tiny little mind even more. Not only that, but it is
totally misleading and inaccurate. Yet because you are so pathetically
stupid you don't even realize that. Every time someone refers to that page
I can only think, "Wow, there's another idiot that isn't even bright enough
to know when they are being fed complete bull****."

Are you even aware that diffraction size is at a fixed spread, that is only
dependent on the distance from the diffracting edge? It does NOT happen as
represented in that page where they show large aperture dispersing the
diffracting light at shallow angles and small apertures causing wider
diffraction. That is total bull****. Even someone having taken Physics-101
would know this. Why anyone even allows them to keep up their page of
stupidity and inexperience astounds me.

Diffraction is in your images at all times at the same size for a given
focal-length lens. The same angle of dispersion, dependant only on distance
from edge to imaging plane. Provided of course that your optics are of high
enough quality to be diffraction-limited at its widest aperture. This rules
out all consumer-grade DSLR glass; which reveals it is not of
diffraction-limited quality because the images get softer, not sharper at
their widest apertures.

The ONLY reason diffraction is less visible at larger apertures (in
diffraction limited glass) is that the greater amount of light devoted to
the center of the airy-disk (the real information) overwhelms the dimmer
amount of light dispersed into the diffraction. That diffraction dispersal
width and intensity which never changes. Smaller apertures don't CAUSE more
diffraction, they only allow it to become more visible because there is
less light to focus into the center of the airy-disk. It is the exact same
width of dispersion no matter how large or small the aperture if the
distance is retained. Unfortunately the "Cambridge-in-Ignorance" idiots
don't even realize this, and are quite happy to confuse themselves and
fools like you by using f-ratios as their way of trying to visualize and
understand how diffraction is related to distance in optics. They put the
cart before the horse and had a severe brain accident.

This is what you all get for having an internet education, where you glean
your knowledge from pages that don't even know what the hell they are
talking about. Worse of all are you fool trolls who keep spewing those
pages of misinformation to others. Making everyone else just as ignorant as
yourself. Garbage in, garbage out. That be you.

Is any of this sinking into that pile of **** that you have been
erroneously taught to call your mind?

No sense trying to educate something as amazingly stupid as you any
further. With something as ignorant, stupid, and astoundingly confused as
you are, this situation is the standard "pearls before swine", "can't make
a silk-purse out of a sow's ear", and "never wrastle with a pig, you only
get dirty and the pig has all the fun".

You also need to edit your name-list that you use for your one and only
career in life, that of being a psychotic net-stalking-troll. There's 3
wrong in even your condensed list this time. 50% wrong, that's standard
chance. You're not even a decent psychotic net-stalker. Can't you do
anything right?! Judging by your understanding of what diffraction means in
optics, that's a clear and resounding "no".

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:57:00 -0600, "MikeWhy"
wrote:

"Henry Olson" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:29:00 -0600, "MikeWhy"
wrote:

The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is thus
diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can resolve
no
more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades to
about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide web
image.

How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For
APS-C,
such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a Canon 5D
Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and 5D2 are,
respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

How does it compare? It compares to prove that you're a moron. Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor. What's even more interesting
is that smaller lenses can be figured to diffraction-limited quality,
the best there is, much more easily and inexpensively than for larger
lenses.

Fine. Say the cheap lens really can resolve 413 lines/mm wide open. It
doesn't, but who can tell? The system is diffraction limited at f/3.9. Wide
open aperture at longest focal length is f/5.6. It can resolve as little as
290 lines/mm and no one would know the difference. At that point, that 10 MP
sensor is resolving no more than 4.8 MP of detail.

There is not one DSLR lens in existence that can claim true "diffraction
limited quality" because they aren't figured that precisely. If they
could,
then they would be sharpest at full aperture, none of them are.

*Very few* are, which is still more than none. The Canon 300mm f/2.8L is one
such lens. There are others. The fact of the matter is, it's sharper than my
sensor can discern. That's the difference between your tiny lens and the big
lens. The big lens goes in front of a large sensor that can make use of the
detail and sharpness. The pixels are too large to resolve the diffraction
rings, and so it's happy and I'm happy. The tiny lens sits in front of a
tiny sensor with tiny pixels, which do resolve the diffraction rings.
Magnifying the details enough to see them also magnifies the airy disks into
visible airy blobs. Blobby details; sad face.

The
converse is not true when using smaller lenses on smaller sensor. Many of
them are sharpest at widest aperture. The only thing that limits their
sharpness is diffraction at smaller apertures, this is what "diffraction
limited" means.

A minor correction: "Diffraction limited" applies to the system -- image,
lens, and sensor -- not just the lens.

No, diffraction-limited applies to the optics only. Your whole system
applies to the principle of "the weakest link". Changing the photosite size
does not change the diffraction. It only shows that you're trying to
measure 1 centimeter with either a 2cm rule with only 1 tic-mark on it or a
2cm rule with 4 tic-marks on it. Your only available unit of measure has no
effect on the diffraction coming from the optics. And it has absolutely
nothing to do at all with the image itself. The same rules will apply no
matter what you are trying to image. From stars to a building, they will
all be affected by the diffraction the same. Just because you can't see it
in one or the other doesn't mean it isn't there the same in both images.


Diffraction which doesn't even border more than 2
photosites at smallest apertures due to the shorter focal-lengths
required.

Focal length is already part of the f/N number, by definition. Unless you
have a different number to share, I'll hold with my calculation of f/3.9.

But you go ahead, keep believing what you believe, That's what you get for
obtaining your education from trolls' posts like your own.

I do my own thinking. You should do the same. From my point of view, you're
too smug in your belief to see that which you already know. You're saying
the exact same things I'm saying, and still refuse to accept the truth of
their meaning. Tiny sucks, not because tiny of itself is bad, but because
tiny has to be magnified to be useful. Magnifying the good also magnifies
the bad. Because of that magnification, diffraction becomes a problem for
tiny pixels well before it becomes a problem for bigger pixels. (The same
could be said of gain noise, but who wants to trawl that old song?)

No, we're not saying the same things. And "tiny" does not mean poor optics.
Tell that to my diffraction-limited quality plan-apochromatic 100x
oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective; which delivers nice
images even when pushed to 1200x. According to your rudimentary way of
thinking about diffraction I should see nothing but diffraction through
that objective lens. Educate yourself. The free tutor you're getting on the
internet doesn't seem to be working in your favor. You have to at least
know enough to know what resources on the net are misinformation
fabrications or genuine information.

MikeWhy wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses.

Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not
and they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are
diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades
an image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this
diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not
pixel pitch.

The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is thus
diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can resolve
no more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades
to about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide
web image.

How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For
APS-C, such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a
Canon 5D Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and
5D2 are, respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

Thanks Mike. It took me years of learning and experiments to fully
understand your illustrations. I conclude from some replies that Airy and
Rayleigh were both hopelessly lost in their understanding of the behaviour
of light in optical systems.

Pete

"Pete" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses.

Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not
and they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors
are diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction
degrades an image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than
this diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size,
not pixel pitch.

The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is
thus diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction
limited at wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the
wide open aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor
can resolve no more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited
resolution degrades to about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP,
roughly a 1024px wide web image.

How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For
APS-C, such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a
Canon 5D Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and
5D2 are, respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

Thanks Mike. It took me years of learning and experiments to fully
understand your illustrations. I conclude from some replies that Airy and
Rayleigh were both hopelessly lost in their understanding of the behaviour
of light in optical systems.

Pete

You're welcome, Pete. Close down that aperture ring and have at it. That's
why it's there!

Henry Olson wrote:
Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor.

I won't even ask what this was supposed mean 'cause it's nonsense. If
anything vaguely the opposite of reality but too jumbled to make sense of.

On 10-02-26 18:04 , Paul Furman wrote:
Henry Olson wrote:
Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much
diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor.

I won't even ask what this was supposed mean 'cause it's nonsense. If
anything vaguely the opposite of reality but too jumbled to make sense of.

Don't you realize that ending a sentence with a preposition makes his
whole argument right?


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:04:07 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote:

Henry Olson wrote:
Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor.

I won't even ask what this was supposed mean 'cause it's nonsense. If
anything vaguely the opposite of reality but too jumbled to make sense of.

Yes, it would appear as nonsense to something as amazingly incognizant as
you are. You seem to forget that we've all seen your snapshooter's results
to prove every bit of that. Do continue on, just as you always have.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves
up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill



Oh, just for the hell of it, let's see if we can drag this moron up out of
its gutter of supreme ignorance and stupidity that it just loves to
flounder and flop around in, just one more time. I'm getting so tired of
laughing at its online antics.


You have one light-ray that hits the target dead center. You have another
light ray differing from the first path by 0.001 degrees angle of
divergence.

Using both light-rays you shoot at a target 10 meters away. How far apart
from each other do those two light-rays hit on the target?

Using both light-rays you shoot at a target 100 meters away. How far apart
from each other do those two light-rays hit on the target?

Now, can you bend your teeny tiny mind around the concept that target
distance is the lens focal-length? I bet you can't!