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: Paul Furman on 22 May 2010 23:26 DanP wrote: > On 22 May, 23:17, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote: > >> Theoretically but in reality it's the opposite given a budget. BTW this >> is not the same discussion as the OP regarding sensor size and >> equivalent fields of view. I'm not even sure what this part of the >> thread is discussing <g>. > > To be on topic again, I think the NEX-5 looks ridiculous with the > 18-55mm lenses on. > I mean it is pointless to have a smaller camera without smaller > lenses. > > So I have asked myself, what will be lost by making the lenses > smaller. > The answer to that is the lenses will be slower. Also, what will be gained by making them smaller. In this case, the only price is coolness factor but I'd dispute that. Look at these rangefinder lenses on Panasonic's equivalent micro 4/3: http://www.pbase.com/image/121902428/original.jpg context: forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=186390 Also by reducing size, you lose autofocus & image stabilizing. It would be possible to chip such a lens to report f/stop & focus distance for flash metering & lens correction software but these cameras are targeted to the mass market so AF is essential. A decent viewfinder isn't unfortunately.
From: DanP on 23 May 2010 01:51 On May 23, 3:31 am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > Wrong. Bigger apertures allow higher resolution. That's why big > telescopes are better than tiny ones. Telescopes are focused at infinity so that is a different case. Binoculars are better big but with the size it comes a smaller DOF. This is the same in cameras if the lens are set to maximum aperture (low f number). But the bigger the size of the lens the smaller the internal aperture has to be to keep the same f number. DanP
From: RichB on 23 May 2010 02:09 On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:51:14 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 23, 3:31�am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> Wrong. �Bigger apertures allow higher resolution. �That's why big >> telescopes are better than tiny ones. > >Telescopes are focused at infinity so that is a different case. >Binoculars are better big but with the size it comes a smaller DOF. > >This is the same in cameras if the lens are set to maximum aperture >(low f number). >But the bigger the size of the lens the smaller the internal aperture >has to be to keep the same f number. > > >DanP Hey everyone, has this DanP numb-nuts ever gotten anything right yet?
From: Paul Furman on 23 May 2010 02:31 DanP wrote: > the bigger the size of the lens the smaller the internal aperture > has to be to keep the same f number. The opposite.
From: DanP on 23 May 2010 02:55
On May 23, 7:31 am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote: > DanP wrote: > > the bigger the size of the lens the smaller the internal aperture > > has to be to keep the same f number. > > The opposite. Can you argue why? If you are right then it means for the same f number more light is let in by bigger lenses, first by the lenses then by the aperture. And another consequence will be that DOF for bigger size lenses will be even smaller, bigger lenses will scatter more light and bigger aperture will make it even less sharp. By aperture I mean the size of the diaphragm measured in inch/mm. For the purpose of comparing apples to apples f number has to be kept the same. DanP |