New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not Four Thirds!

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Bruce, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    I suggest you look at how much DoF you have at say, 50 feet, to get a
    circle of confusion smaller than your tiny photosites with a 80mm (real,
    not EFL) lens. If you want to see it graphically:
    Ofnuts, Sep 16, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thanks again for proving what a useless know-nothing troll you are who has
    never done any photography in his lifetime. If I'm that close to them I'll
    get even closer and get tight shots of them sitting on their roosts or in
    their nests. People don't take images of most birds in flight from only 50
    feet away. The exceptions are hummingbirds (a foot or two away) or those
    just landing or taking off, meaning you already know what to set the focus
    at and don't even need a hyperfocal setting. Capturing tight-shots of birds
    in flight is what a 735mm lens is for. Are you telling me that you don't
    have any skill to follow a bird in flight, handheld, with that much lens?
    Or have so little experience about photography that you don't even think it
    can be done? Of course not, because you're a fuckingly useless
    pretend-photographer TROLL with zero real-life experience.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Sep 16, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    LOL, rest assured that he had _nothing_ to do with the creation of CHDK!
    It's an insult to those of us that worked on CHDK to imply otherwise.

    You're partially right, some of the functions of CHDK are essentially
    additional automation and they're extremely useful and powerful,
    especially exposure bracketing and HDR bracketing. There may be some
    high end P&S cameras that have this built in, but the low-end ones
    don't. By the same token, some of the features of CHDK give you more
    manual control and information that helps you use the manual settings.
    Pre-focusing is often impractical for action shots. You need to use an
    SLR for those shots. Of course in many cases you're going to be needing
    better lenses for action shots than are on the P&S anyway.
    Contrast detect AF is very problematic. What's needed is a PD AF P&S. I
    don't expect we'll see any more of them. It's quite costly to do PD AF.
    SMS, Sep 16, 2010
  4. Here's simple proof that you are fucked-up psychotic liar and have never
    even used CHDK, because you don't even own a camera.

    Quick, what do I change in this simple test-script (that I wrote when first
    helping on the MD detection algorithm implementation) so that it triggers
    when there is no motion instead of triggering when there is motion. I know.
    Do you?
    Proving that SMS is a psychotic lying troll is that simple folks. Just ask
    SMS anything about CHDK that he can't easily find at the Wiki and he'll
    pretend like he never even saw your post. Guaranteed, 100% of the time.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Sep 17, 2010
  5. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    You're assuming a non-existent sincerity. It specializes in chain pulling.
    Peter, Sep 17, 2010

  6. Crikey, can't you three stop talking about the pest??? There's only a
    handful now that feed his ego.
    John McWilliams, Sep 17, 2010
  7. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    Including you? :)
    Peter, Sep 17, 2010
  8. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    People can change. Perhaps he'll eventually tire of his current shtick
    and decide to educate himself. I do wish he'd stop promoting CHDK, and
    stop claiming that he's a contributor to the CHDK effort, as he hurts
    the reputation of CHDK by association. Every time I load CHDK now, I
    cringe to think that our favorite troll promotes it.
    SMS, Sep 17, 2010
  9. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    Since you don't know it's real identity, even if you personally have met
    every contributor to CHDK, how can you tell the truth?
    Just think logic.
    Peter, Sep 17, 2010
  10. People, yes. Slime molds and trolls? I doubt it.
    It alreads is educated (as far as it can ever be). After all,
    it uses DSLR pictures and claims they were done by P&S cameras.

    It just won't tire of it's stick. Maybe a usenet death
    penalty would cure it over half a year (i.e. nobody even gets
    to read what it writes), but people still feed it.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 18, 2010
  11. Yes, including me. It's very tiresome. Now only you and a half dozen
    others are continuing the practice.
    John McWilliams, Sep 18, 2010
  12. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    Not surprising.
    SMS, Sep 19, 2010
  13. And yet it never did improve your photography. Admit it. It probably got
    even worse. The ONLY reason people buy DSLRs today is because they have
    been convinced it will make them into better photographers. When nothing
    could be further from the truth.
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 20, 2010
  14. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    For a camera user who wants to improve their photography, one of the
    best investments they could make is to buy some tuition.

    Instead, they end up spending much more money on a camera they cannot
    use which also gives them a lot of problems, due to the DSLR's
    comparatively very restricted shallow depth of field.
    Bruce, Sep 20, 2010
  15. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    Very true. There are very specific areas where a D-SLR is indispensable:

    -Low light, where a larger sensor with larger pixels are required.

    -High ISO, where a larger sensor with larger pixels are required for
    lower noise.

    -Action shots where fast AF is required

    -Shots where long telephotos or extreme wide angle is required (those
    adapter lenses for point and shoot cameras range from abysmal to mediocre).

    The perfect combination for me is a CHDK equipped P&S and an APS-C D-SLR.

    If our favorite troll saves up his money, he can buy a D-SLR too.
    SMS, Sep 20, 2010
  16. HUH??? dSLRs have adjustable diaphragms. Just increase the f-number to suit your taste.

    If you have the same angular field of view and the same same number
    of megapixels you will get the exact same image as a P&S with the same
    depth of field ... including the same diffraction problems and the
    same noise problems.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Sep 20, 2010
  17. Bruce

    Charles Guest

    Sheesh. You need to follow your own advice about buying some
    Charles, Sep 20, 2010
  18. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    I'll add one to this:

    - Good quality pictures
    Ofnuts, Sep 20, 2010
  19. Pixel count is quite irrelevant, interesting is only the final
    result. Unless the final result is always a 100% view of the
    image, regardless of the megapixel size and regardless that one
    will see only a tiny bit of the whole image. Hence the final
    result is usually:
    - a print of a given size (be it 4x6 inch or "fills the whole
    - an image on the web of a given size (usually small, not more
    than 2 MPix)
    - an image on the monitor (usually small, usually not more than
    2 or 3 MPix)

    It's easy to show that
    a) a 20MPix sensor of a given type and state of the art has
    more per pixel noise than a 5MPix sensor of the same type
    and state of the art
    b) a print from said 20MPix sensor and 5MPix sensor is
    quite indistinguishable[1], as long as the print size
    doesn't cause pixelation in the 5MPix sensor's case.
    That assumes no overly drastic 'noise removal' in the
    20MPix sensor's case.

    Hence the inherent higher possible sharpness only matters when
    we come to prints where less MPixels pixelize already.
    Try using a P&S for fast sports, then complain about the DSLR
    being harder to use. (OK, for even larger formats than 35mm you
    are probably right about the harder to use.)


    [1] There's a bit more read noise in the 20MPix version, but
    except for extreme circumstances that won't matter
    visibly, as read noise rarely becomes visible.
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 20, 2010
  20. In real life the final result is interesting, not only in theory.In
    real life the final result is interesting, not only in theory.
    Not if you print with essentially 12 MPix.

    Additionally, the resolution is determined by the sensor and the
    lens, with better sensors improving resolution in all cases (OK,
    not usefully with coke glass bottle bottoms).
    I've got a 20D and I would like to upgrade to a 5DII --- not
    for the added pixels, but for the increased ISO capabilities.
    Thus your statement is incomplete.
    If that's the final result, that matters.
    Nope. CoC is defined by the enlargement and the viewing distance.
    If you insist to print larger but keep the viewing distance
    the same, you get smaller CoCs, but they are not inherent to
    more pixels.
    That, however, is another problem.
    Pixel noise or whole image noise? And yes, under ideal
    circumstances a P&S can do impressive things, but we don't buy
    DSLRs because we have ideal P&S circumstances in which we shoot.
    That's fine, then use 21MPix. Or switch to 60MPix :)

    You'd probably gain something up to 27.5MPix (thank bayer)
    but nothing above at 300ppi.
    Maybe pixelation wasn't the best word. You nailed what I
    If pigs had wings ...
    .... they'd fly.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 21, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.