Now, the next BIG contest is ON!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Here Comes the 3-D Camera: Revolutionary Prototype Films Worldin Three Dimensions
Next: Why the Nikon Coolscan V ED is so expensive event on vintage market ?
From: Chris Malcolm on 16 May 2010 05:49 In rec.photo.digital DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 15 May, 14:59, DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 15 May, 12:41, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:16:34 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> > >I am still scratching my head and thinking smaller lens diameter means >> > >less light captured. >> > >So the FF sensor has to struggle and compensate for the small lens. >> >> > The trouble is, your mindset is based around retrofocus lens designs >> > that need to clear the reflex mirror in a DSLR. >> >> No, I do not think of camera design at all. >> Instead I think of binoculars and telescopes where the bigger lens >> diameter gives a better IQ. > To close the subject, after some reading and thinking lens diameter > does not affect the amount of light captured. Obviously not enough reading and thinking. Binoculars in effect use the human iris for aperture control, and use front lens diameter to increase the size of the exit pupil. -- Chris Malcolm
From: David J Taylor on 16 May 2010 05:54 "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:859rs0F97cU1(a)mid.individual.net... > In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: [] >> Exactly. There is a reason why most lenses used for portraiture are >> within a very short range of focal lengths. Anything significantly >> longer or shorter gives a rendition that most people consider is >> neither natural nor pleasant. > > Short focal lengths exaggerate nearer features, but I can't see the > problem with long focal lengths. [] > Chris Malcolm Maybe you need a little "exaggeration" to make the face "look" natural - as if you were taling to a person. Unless you spend your life only looking at faces through binoculars, that is! Cheers, David
From: Chris Malcolm on 16 May 2010 05:58 In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:55:28 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> >>If Olympus had any sense, they'd do it and break the 4/3 straight >>jacket that confines them. > That would make no sense at all. Far better to stay in a format where > they have only one competitor who is also a partner. > Trying to break into the established APS-C and/or full frame market > would be commercial suicide. Sony tried it with the Alpha series of > DSLRs, and that has been a spectacular commercial failure, with very > slow sales and frightening losses. Very slow sales for some reason in the US, but not generally speaking compared to other DSLR makers in the rest of the world. The losses might frighten a manufacturer who only made cameras, but not Sony. In the DSLR market their video and sensor technologies give them advantages they haven't yet brought into their DSLRs. -- Chris Malcolm
From: Bruce on 16 May 2010 07:30 On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:54:43 +0100, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message >news:859rs0F97cU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >[] >>> Exactly. There is a reason why most lenses used for portraiture are >>> within a very short range of focal lengths. Anything significantly >>> longer or shorter gives a rendition that most people consider is >>> neither natural nor pleasant. >> >> Short focal lengths exaggerate nearer features, but I can't see the >> problem with long focal lengths. >[] >> Chris Malcolm > >Maybe you need a little "exaggeration" to make the face "look" natural - >as if you were taling to a person. Unless you spend your life only >looking at faces through binoculars, that is! Why am I not in the least surprised that Chris Malcolm "can't see the problem with long focal lengths"?
From: DanP on 16 May 2010 11:34
On 16 May, 10:49, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > In rec.photo.digital DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 15 May, 14:59, DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 15 May, 12:41, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:16:34 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> > >> > wrote: > > >> > >I am still scratching my head and thinking smaller lens diameter means > >> > >less light captured. > >> > >So the FF sensor has to struggle and compensate for the small lens. > > >> > The trouble is, your mindset is based around retrofocus lens designs > >> > that need to clear the reflex mirror in a DSLR. > > >> No, I do not think of camera design at all. > >> Instead I think of binoculars and telescopes where the bigger lens > >> diameter gives a better IQ. > > To close the subject, after some reading and thinking lens diameter > > does not affect the amount of light captured. > > Obviously not enough reading and thinking. Binoculars in effect use > the human iris for aperture control, and use front lens diameter to > increase the size of the exit pupil. > > -- > Chris Malcolm I do not understand where you disagree with me. Is it that larger lens diameter is better for binoculars? Or larger front lenses for cameras do not matter (but they allow a lower f number)? I think I was not clear in my previous post, I was referring to camera lenses. DanP |