Time to chuck the P&S's into the garbage

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, RichA wrote:

Check out prices for used DSLRs.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667


Hey, I got my DSLR for free.

It really uses batteries fast. It's bulky, and then there are the add on
lenses. I'm not sure my cardreader can even read the cards, so old they
are. And I don't have a spare serial port on my computer to make use of
the serial interface on the camera (and later computers don't even have
serial ports).

It's a massive 1.6MP camera. Must have cost a fortune when bought new,
it has little value now other than history (and likely some time down the
road it may carry value as "antique").

I was given a 2MP non-SLR camera about the same time, and I used that for
five years, gave me the portability that I wanted in a camera (like that
time I bought the 35mm viewfinder camera in 1980, I could go anywhere with
that in my pocket and nobody knew I had a camera until I took it out).

There's a reason SLRs aren't as common place as simpler cameras. Most
people don't want or need something better.

Michael

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 23:35:48 -0400, Michael Black wrote:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, RichA wrote:

Check out prices for used DSLRs.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667


Hey, I got my DSLR for free.

It really uses batteries fast. It's bulky, and then there are the add on
lenses. I'm not sure my cardreader can even read the cards, so old they
are. And I don't have a spare serial port on my computer to make use of
the serial interface on the camera (and later computers don't even have
serial ports).

It's a massive 1.6MP camera. Must have cost a fortune when bought new,
it has little value now other than history (and likely some time down the
road it may carry value as "antique").

I was given a 2MP non-SLR camera about the same time, and I used that for
five years, gave me the portability that I wanted in a camera (like that
time I bought the 35mm viewfinder camera in 1980, I could go anywhere with
that in my pocket and nobody knew I had a camera until I took it out).

There's a reason SLRs aren't as common place as simpler cameras. Most
people don't want or need something better.

Michael

Correction: NOT better, just different. DSLRs have a couple hundred
last-century's drawbacks and setbacks compared to smaller and lighter
compact and superzoom cameras. I do a lot of nature and macro photography.
For these styles of photography no DSLR can even remotely come close to the
superior images that I can obtain with compact and superzoom cameras. Any
talented photographer doesn't need ISOs above 400 so noise isn't even an
issue. And superzoom cameras can have far larger apertures at longer
focal-lengths than will ever be made available for ANY DSLR. Making them
far superior for fast action photography of distant subjects in low-light
conditions. Image-quality too is no longer the domain of the DSLR. There
are many compacts and superzoom cameras that easily rival and beat them in
image quality these days.

It's time to stop associating DSLR with the word "better". In most cases
DSLRs are WORSE.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 23:35:48 -0400, Michael Black wrote:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, RichA wrote:

Check out prices for used DSLRs.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667


Hey, I got my DSLR for free.

It really uses batteries fast. It's bulky, and then there are the add on
lenses. I'm not sure my cardreader can even read the cards, so old they
are. And I don't have a spare serial port on my computer to make use of
the serial interface on the camera (and later computers don't even have
serial ports).

For that matter, neither do most cameras.

It's a massive 1.6MP camera. Must have cost a fortune when bought new,
it has little value now other than history (and likely some time down the
road it may carry value as "antique").

I was given a 2MP non-SLR camera about the same time, and I used that for
five years, gave me the portability that I wanted in a camera (like that
time I bought the 35mm viewfinder camera in 1980, I could go anywhere with
that in my pocket and nobody knew I had a camera until I took it out).

There's a reason SLRs aren't as common place as simpler cameras. Most
people don't want or need something better.

Michael

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 07:32:44 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Now, about those long lens apertures -- cite some numbers. What do
the superzooms have to rival a 400/2.8 or 600/4? (It's entirely
possible I'm out of date on what exists; just point it out to me, and
I'll be enlightened.) Or is your "can" a theoretical claim which
hasn't yet been fulfilled in the real world?

Here's some reprints of previous posts in the distant past to try to
explain it to people far less intelligent than you. Don't take the rhetoric
personally. If you catch on fast, then just skip to the last portion with
further proof.


1248mm f/3.5 lens? The world's first P&S that you need to drive
around in a pick-up truck.

Say you're shooting at 2000 yards. Then you'd also need a small
concrete mixer to give you a place to set up whatever equipment you
have for holding it steady. Plus you'd need the micro-control setup.
A small portable wall would also be nice -- to cut down on the wind.

The big question is, of course, how do you get your gaffers to get out
there and set up your soft-boxes?

proper

Oh look, another idiot usenet-troll that knows nothing about cameras, lenses,
optics, nor any of the subjects and situations that might be captured with them.
What are the odds of that happening in this newsgroup. About 199 out of every
200 seems to be the going rate.

Try a 432mm f/3.5 zoom lens with a top-quality 2.89x telextender setup. All fits
in one pocket. Altogether it's probably lighter and costs less than just one of
your lenses alone. No aperture loss because the large diameter of the
telextender's primary lens' aperture compensates for it. You are working with
smaller sensors so you don't need as much diameter to get the same
light-gathering ability as would be needed to spread the same amount of light
over a larger sensor. What? You say dynamic range will suffer greatly from such
a small sensor? Not true. That camera's sensor has a full 10.3 EV dynamic range
at ISO80, beating out even APS-C sized sensors' lowly 7EV to 8EV dynamic range
at the same ISO. It still has an 8.93EV dynamic range even at ISO800. Still
surpassing anything that an APS-C sensor can do at that ISO.

But back to disproving your idiot's imaginary idea of what a camera with these
capabilities must be like.

The true focal-length in this instance (not 35mm equivalent) is 208.08mm for
that sensor, 72mm x 2.89. You only need a primary lens diameter of 59.45mm to
equal the light-grasp of an effective f/3.5 aperture at that focal-length with
that sensor. 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.45mm. The extremely high-quality telextender
setup that I use has a full effective aperture of 80mm. This is enough to allow
for an f-stop as large as f/2.6 on the same sensor at that focal length,
208.08mm / 80mm = f/2.6. Would that the camera's OEM lens would open that wide.
Now wouldn't that be something, a pocketable high-quality camera and 1248mm
f/2.6 lens. Completely doable only if the camera mfg. didn't limit their OEM
lens to f/3.5 in the first place.


And ...



Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. A 432mm lense
with an aperture of f3.5 has a diameter of 123mm (quite a lump of
glass for a P&S). A lens assembly with an effective focal length of
2.89 x 432 = 1248mm and a diameter of 123mm has an f number of
1248/123 = 10.15.



On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:53:02 -0500, Si Taylor wrote:

The true focal-length in this instance (not 35mm equivalent) is 208.08mm for
that sensor, 72mm x 2.89. You only need a primary lens diameter of 59.45mm to
equal the light-grasp of an effective f/3.5 aperture at that focal-length with
that sensor. 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.45mm. The extremely high-quality telextender
setup that I use has a full effective aperture of 80mm. This is enough to allow
for an f-stop as large as f/2.6 on the same sensor at that focal length,
208.08mm / 80mm = f/2.6.

You jumble numbers. You talk sh*t. Why should I take you seriously?



Eric Stevens

If you think those grade-school calculations are "jumbled", no wonder that other
idiots and DSLR camera manufacturers can so easily pull the wool over your
ignorant-consumer's eyes.

Follow close:

The camera has a 432mm f/3.5 lens, as advertised. That's the 35MM CAMERA
EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH. That number is only to give you an idea what "reach" it
has, what FOV it's going to provide when shooting, because everyone grew up on
full-frame 35mm cameras. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL FOCAL-LENGTH OF
THE P&S's CAMERA LENS. The ONLY reason it acts as the same FOV and zoom-reach as
that 432mm f.l. 35mm-camera's full-frame lens is that the sensor is much smaller
than a 35mm full-frame size. This is no different than why you use the 1.6x crop
factor when figuring out the 35mm eq. focal length of DSLR lenses on the most
common DSLR bodies. This camera has a 6x crop factor. (What an amazingly stupid
name to give it, "crop factor", but then look at the vast majority of idiots
that are ignorantly perpetuating info about cameras online and why that stupid
term has become popular.)

The TRUE focal length of this lens is 72mm when zoomed to that setting. Its
actual, true, in reality, front lens element is only 32mm in diameter (just
measured it for this post). This allows it to have an f/ratio going from f/2.7
to f/3.5 throughout its whole zoom range. (72mm/3.5 = 20.5mm dia. 20.5mm dia. is
all that's really necessary for an aperture of f/3.5 if this was a fixed 72mm
focal-length lens, and if there were no internal stops to ensure full resolution
and sharpness at the full aperture.)

If this lens really was a 432mm focal-length lens then its OEM lens would have
to be at LEAST 123.5mm in dia. (432mm/3.5=123.5mm) That is not going to happen.
The whole camera is only 75mm tall, including the bump in the body for the
built-in flash.

Now we add a high-quality 2.89x, 80mm dia. telextender optical assembly on the
front. This OPTICALLY multiplies its _REAL_ focal length by that amount. (In
practice this is NO different than if you hooked up that camera and lens to the
Keck telescope and obtained images at high-resolution with an enormous
light-grasp. Or practiced the art of "digiscoping" where you might add your
camera to a 6" dia. f/4.5 Newtonian telescope where it might afford a 60x
telextender quotient (eyepiece dependent). But then your aperture would be
limited to the weakest link. In that case it would lower your camera's
performance to an f/4.5 aperture, the same as the telescope's.)

For all intents and purposes, with that 80mm dia. 2.89x telextender, it is now
giving us the 35MM EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH reach of a 35MM CAMERA'S 1248mm lens.
2.89 x 432mm (35mm eq.)

This is not the TRUE focal length of this lens. In reality it is now behaving as
a 2.89 x 72mm focal length = 208.08mm. Its TRUE focal-length. One only needs a
59.45mm diameter lens to give that TRUE focal-length an f/ratio of f/3.5.
(208.08mmx3.5=59.45mm)

I'm using a telextender with a full 80mm diameter. Far more diameter than is
needed to afford an f/ratio of f/3.5. Zero light-loss (except for minor
air-to-glass transitions), zero f/ratio lost. Would that the original camera
manufacturer had originally built-in more aperture into their own lens affixed
to the camera, then that telextender lens could provide enough light gathering
ability for an f/2.6 aperture at a 35MM EQUIVALENT FOCAL-LENGTH 1248mm zoom lens
(2.89x432mm).

You have to figure the f/ratio from its TRUE focal-length and TRUE lens
diameters, not its imaginary 35mm equivalent focal length. You must use the
actual physical dimensions, not its advertised human-perception 35mm eq. value
which only give you a familiar idea its performance.

Got it? Did you follow any of that at all? Probably not. I explained it by
approaching it from every way that you might possibly misinterpret things again,
in the hopes that it might get through that pea-brain of yours and others'
similarly sized brains, but I still I feel it was just more wasted typing.

And ...


I've seen better image quality coming from a P&S camera and using two
stacked 1.7x teleconverters, along with using 1.76x digital-zoom (to take
advantage of the sensor's RAW resolution in-camera). Creating a full f/3.5
aperture (with no CA) for hand-held photography, now with an effective
focal-length of 2197mm (35mm-equivalent). 1249mm - f/3.5 without the
digital-zoom. All accomplished at 1/5th to 1/10th the price, weight, and
size of a DSLR + spotting scope. The two teleconverters less than the price
of that garbage Opteka lens too. The whole kit, two teleconverters plus
camera, all fitting in one roomy windbreaker pocket.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg

1/640s @ f3.5

Of course to get an image like that at those focal-lengths without a tripod
you'd better have good hand-held skills and use OIS in your camera. Do any
of those long zoom lenses or spotting scopes when used with a DSLR come
with OIS in them? Let alone auto-focusing. The P&S camera with two stacked
teleconverters provides for both. By looking at that hand-held image above
it seems to work fairly well.


Or even more funny, how they can't wrap their pea-brains around the fact
that an 80mm dia. teleconverter's entrance-pupil can't provide enough
aperture for a 208mm true focal-length, now allowing for a full f/3.5
aperture (true focal-length x 6 sensor-crop for the 35mm equivalent). When
in fact that much teleconverter aperture is enough to provide for a full
f/2.4 on another P&S camera I own that already has that aperture available
on its own lens at full zoom. (48.5mm true focal-length x 1.7 x 1.7 =
140mm) With another 1.76 digital-zoom that provides for a full f/2.4
aperture at an apparent 968mm 35mm-equivalent zoom lens' focal-length.
(247mm true focal-length x sensor crop of 3.92) Even without the
digital-zoom on that other P&S camera, that creates an f/2.4 - 549mm
(35mm-equivalent) lens by optics alone. I'd love to see them carry a DSLR
lens of that focal-length and aperture in their coat pocket, it'd have to
be 9 inches in diameter, weigh a ton, and cost a king's ransom.

And ...


Now that's funny. By using an excellent high-resolution P&S camera's own
super-zoom, with an excellent 2.7x 80mm dia. telextender, I obtain a 35mm e.q.
focal length of 549mm f/2.4 on one camera and 1248mm f/3.5 on another camera.
Total cost for either camera and lens under $600. And it all fits in one roomy
pocket.


And ...


1248/3.5 = 356mm (that's what "f/3.5" means, in case you didn't know).
(fourteen inches across for the metrically-challenged)
That's a mighty big front element.
Care to explain?

Deep.

Trying again (for those that don't know and are mathematically, optically, and
camera-challenged):

That's a P&S's 72mm (true focal length) x 2.89X Zeiss-designed tel-converter
(80mm aperture, prime optics, no CA) with 6X small-sensor "crop factor" to
convert it to a 35mm equivalent focal-length.

72mm x 2.89 x 6 = 1248.48mm (35mm equivalent)

Apparent new focal length of native lens is 72mm x 2.89 = 208.1mm

208.1mm / 80mm (entrance-pupil dia.) can afford a real aperture up to f/2.6, if
the camera's own lens would have allowed for that when fully zoomed in. You
don't figure in the sensor's "crop factor" when evaluating the true f-ratio.
That's only used to find a 35mm equivalent.

This is why this can't be done for any dslr. It's physically impossible. Only
fast mirror systems weighing over 200 lbs. can do this and then only at f/4.5
with any degree of usefulness for magnified imagery, faster mirror-optics than
that are plagued with irreparable coma distortions. Yet mine, plus camera, all
fits in one roomy jacket pocket. Go figure (literally).

Go learn some basic math, basic optics, and how different cameras work.


And ....

No, you're not getting it.

A 1248mm lens f/3.5 lens does not (despite your claims - re-read your own
post) exist on the front/sides/bottom/rear/top of your P&S camera.

Really, look at it.
Very, very carefully.
Is it 14 inches across?
No, it isn't, is it?

Of course it doesn't. It doesn't have to be that size to still qualify for those
35mm equivalent numbers. If a lens only has a focal length of 10mm and it is
2.9mm across, then it still remains an f/3.5 lens. If the sensor's "crop-factor"
is 100x then that 10mm focal-length 2.9mm dia. lens would be a 1,000mm f/3.5
lens in 35mm equivalent numbers. Read and UNDERSTAND the post that you are
trying to refute. You'll start to realize why you're making a bigger and bigger
fool of yourself with every reply that you type.



If you are concerned about image quality, you can check out this photo of a
very rare near-white variety of Tiger-Swallowtail butterfly taken with a
1.7x teleconverter on a superzoom's 436mm EFL lens at f/3.5 for an
equivalent focal length of 741mm @ f3.5 from about 8 ft. away.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5107/5592818815_2796fbfb0c_z.jpg

Note the ability to resolve individual wing-scales in the 100% crop from 8
ft. away.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5592818819_5116dda81f.jpg

Now add in the fact that a +2 diopter close-up lens was also added into
this accessory optical-stack between the superzoom's lens and the 1.7x
teleconverter to create a tele-macro mode configuration. That much
3rd-party accessory glass added on and it can still resolve a butterfly's
wing-scales down to single-pixel resolutions from that distance.

Surprised yet?

And all this from a superzoom camera that's now over 4 years old.

BTW: do not misconstrue the blue and red tints in left portions of the 100%
crop as CA, as was first erroneously and loudly declared by one of the many
resident DSLR-Trolls. If it was CA then all the white areas nearby would
also have equivalent CA shifts. Those blue and red shadings are wing-scale
colorings.

Putting a well-matched teleconverter on a superzoom lens is no different
than adding an extra optical group to any single-unit lens configuration to
lengthen its focal-length. The only difference between it and longer
focal-length DSLR lenses is that it's a removable optical-group when not
needed.

On 5/04/2011, Rich wrote:

I'd hang onto it. These things are already becoming collector's
items. What is missing from cities that we need are museums of
electronics. Some of the progression in the various fields is
fascinating.

Really? Sydney, Australia, has such a museum.

--
N

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Apr 5, 10:53*am, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 23:35:48 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, RichA wrote:

Check out prices for used DSLRs.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667

Hey, I got my DSLR for free.

It really uses batteries fast. *It's bulky, and then there are the add on
lenses. *I'm not sure my cardreader can even read the cards, so old they
are. *And I don't have a spare serial port on my computer to make use of
the serial interface on the camera (and later computers don't even have
serial ports).

For that matter, neither do most cameras.

Virtually all computers and cameras have serial ports.

What do you think USB stands for it's (universal serial bus)

Gaah!

Are you a newby round here? :-) My experience is such that when
people say 'serial ports' they mean RS-232 http://tinyurl.com/3ujw2by

If you mean USB you should say USB. Its not enough to claim USB is
serial. For example, so too is SATA. Which one do you mean?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:33:02 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 5, 2011 3:58:37 PM UTC-5, Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 07:32:44 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Now, about those long lens apertures -- cite some numbers. What do
the superzooms have to rival a 400/2.8 or 600/4? (It's entirely
possible I'm out of date on what exists; just point it out to me, and
I'll be enlightened.) Or is your "can" a theoretical claim which
hasn't yet been fulfilled in the real world?

Here's some reprints of previous posts in the distant past to try to
explain it to people far less intelligent than you. Don't take the rhetoric
personally. If you catch on fast, then just skip to the last portion with
further proof.

Let's start with the important bit -- the photo of the butterfly is quite nice.

When you say "teleconverter", you're talking about something that goes
in FRONT of the lens, right? Normally a "teleconverter" is a thing
that goes between the lens and the camera body; something (a
focal-length adjuster) that goes in front of the lens is an
"auxiliary" lens. But I think I know what you mean, anyway.

Correct. In most D/SLR configurations a small negative achromat element is
placed behind the main lens, acting just like a Barlow lens in telescopes.
This increases the apparent focal-length (but not the true focal-length),
but it also reduces the effective aperture when using this method because
the now-diverging light rays have to be spread over a greater area.

In compact and superzoom cameras that can use adapter lenses, the
tele-converter is placed in *front* of the lens. If the aperture of that
group of elements is large enough, then there will be no reduction in
aperture (f-ratio), and only magnification is obtained. It basically
pre-magnifies the image before the camera lens uses that image. It's a very
low-power Galilean telescope. (That's a specific optics arrangement for
those that don't know. A high quality convex achromat front element with
possibly some correcting elements behind it, backed at the exit pupil by a
strong concave achromat.)


Being an SLR guy since 1969 (not, obviously, digital for most of that
time), I don't know too much of the optics of auxiliary lenses (not
that they can't be used; just that it hasn't been common). But I
gather you're saying they can increase the light-gathering power of
your lens?

No, they cannot increase the camera's own widest aperture. The combo of
lenses will always fall-back to its weakest-link in aperture. If the
entrance pupil of the teleconverter is not large enough to account for the
magnification, then it can actually reduce the aperture. You can always
mount a small aperture Galilean telescope in front of the lens, but if
itself is too small, this will reduce the aperture of the lens imaging
through it. No different than those using digiscoping technique of mounting
a camera to a spotting scope. If the spotting scope has an aperture of
f/15, then that is the aperture the camera falls-back to that is used to
image through it. Most all of the better quality teleconverters are
designed so they do not diminish the camera's own aperture when attached to
the lens. This is why my best has a front element 80mm in dia. It was
originally designed to retain the full aperture of an f/2.0 superzoom lens
used behind it. Putting that teleconverter on any other camera with a
smaller camera-lens aperture will never reduce the camera's own apertures
available. If however, it was used on an f/1.4 lens, then it *would* reduce
that lens' aperture to f/2.0.

(Not obviously insane, since they go in front; a
teleconverter that goes between lens and camera, in contrast, clearly
CANNOT improve your light-gathering.) So by stacking suitable lenses
in front, you get very long focal length and wide aperture?

Yes. Keeping in mind that the long focal-lengths are in 35mm equivalents.
No different than any DSLR that uses the same method by using a crop
factor. A 35mm camera lens with a 50mm focal length at f2.0 acts as an 80mm
f2.0 lens on a 1.6x crop-factor sensor. The same holds true on compact and
superzoom cameras. Many of them have a 6.0x crop factor. A 50m f2.0 lens on
that camera will have an EFL (35mm Equivalent Focal Length) of 300mm f2.0.

In retrospect, that acronym should have been FOVE, for
Field-Of-View-Equivalent with angular measures given. It would make much
more sense to everyone today if it was related as an angular FOV rather
than an archaic 35mm-film camera standard. Many people using cameras today
have no idea what kind of FOV is seen in a 35mm-film camera using a 50mm
lens.


None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
really laid out plainly.

I try to never mention brand names. For starters, I don't want others to
know exactly what I use to get such phenomenal performance. I spent many
months and years hand-selecting which adapter lenses and cameras work well
together. Why should I give that valuable information to others for free?
(And especially to the lying, deceitful, and slanderous trolls in these
newsgroups.) And secondly, I despise followers. They need to find their own
discoveries in life and learn from their mistakes and successes, just as I
have. It also encourages them to find new ways to obtain even better
images. Thirdly, I'm no cheap brand-whore. If I find an optical element
from a company that nobody would even consider, and after testing it myself
I come to find it has even better performance than some well-known
expensive brand, I'll use it without question or doubt. I found one
inexpensive fish-eye adapter for example that provides images with
absolutely zero CA and sharp from edge to edge, better images than can be
had by using the most expensive dedicated Nikkor 35mm-camera fish-eye
lenses available. I never trust the opinions of others until I have
verified it with my own tests. How often others have been 100% wrong and
they don't even realize it. All they know is how to parrot some misinformed
opinion of another misinformed person while never verifying what someone
else convinced them to believe.

The only hint and important advice I give is that I have rarely found that
a teleconverter made by company A to fit on company A's camera, is rarely
as good as a teleconverter (or wide-angle adapter), from company D on
company A's camera. And conversely why company A's teleconverter works best
on company C's camera, or that company B's teleconverter doesn't work best
on any of them.. Why this holds to be true I don't know. You'd think that
company A having privileged info to the design of their own optics would
create the best match for accessory lenses for their own cameras. I've
never found that to be true. For example, one teleconverter I have was
designed by Zeiss, yet it doesn't work as well when mated to Zeiss lenses.
Of all companies you'd think they'd be the ones to at least do it right.
This is why it can take months and years to find the best matches.
Sometimes you'll get lucky and find someone who has done the tests for you
with the particular camera you have in mind and posted their results
online. Keeping in mind that those results are only applicable to that
particular camera-lens design, and won't be applicable to next year's new
camera-lens design.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:06:19 -0500, Schneider
wrote:

None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
really laid out plainly.

I try to never mention brand names. For starters, I don't want others to
know exactly what I use to get such phenomenal performance.

Oh, c'mon. Tell us the brand of the camera you used to take that
fuzzy, muddy, out-of-focus shot of the rare moth. Tonka? Mattel?
TootsieToy? Cracker Jack?



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2011-04-05 20:10:11 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:06:19 -0500, Schneider
wrote:

None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
really laid out plainly.

I try to never mention brand names. For starters, I don't want others to
know exactly what I use to get such phenomenal performance.

Oh, c'mon. Tell us the brand of the camera you used to take that
fuzzy, muddy, out-of-focus shot of the rare moth. Tonka? Mattel?
TootsieToy? Cracker Jack?

An informed guess, would be some variety of Canon given his advocacy of CHDK.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:15:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-04-05 20:10:11 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:06:19 -0500, Schneider
wrote:

None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
really laid out plainly.

I try to never mention brand names. For starters, I don't want others to
know exactly what I use to get such phenomenal performance.

Oh, c'mon. Tell us the brand of the camera you used to take that
fuzzy, muddy, out-of-focus shot of the rare moth. Tonka? Mattel?
TootsieToy? Cracker Jack?

An informed guess, would be some variety of Canon given his advocacy of CHDK.

Correction: Not an advocate, I was a huge part in the creation of CHDK. An
integral participant and designer of it during its first 3 years of
evolution and growth. Now I get to enjoy the fruits of my and a select few
other's labor. But that's just one of the many camera brands I've used, and
use.

You should put "CHDK" into google sometime, see how far and wide it has
influenced the world of photography and so many fields of research and art
in so few short years. If only your pathetic beginner's crapshots and
misinformed words of stupidity could have done 0.000001% as much.

Google: CHDK "About 552,000 results". Google Image Search: "About 62,700
results". Google Videos Search: "About 4,720 results". Google Groups
Search: "About 103,000 results". FYI, I was the one who even gave it its
final name and title, so it would be easier to find in search engines in
the future, like today. If the wrong name became popular in the very
beginning of the project then finding how far it had spread and who was
using it would be difficult. GrAnd, one of the very first originators, just
wanted to call it HDK, not realizing it would get lost in the mass of HDK
projects out there one day. Google: HDK "About 3,640,000 results".

P.S. Thanks, for so quickly providing examples of exactly why I won't help
idiot fools like you any further than I already have. Isn't it nice to know
that everyone else in the world now has access to so much less in their
lives just because of morons like you.

And all this time I bet you thought you had won something.

LOL!!!!!!!