new Nikkor 200-400 f4 vrII lens

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Tim Conway, Apr 28, 2010.

  1. What is contradicting according to you?
     
    Robert Spanjaard, May 1, 2010
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. As with all DSLR-Trolls like Alan Browne, he took it out of context to
    infer something that wasn't true about the new technology.

    The full passage states:

    "However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures,
    backside-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise,
    dark current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image
    degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio. To
    overcome this issue, Sony has newly developed a unique photo-diode
    structure and on-chip lens optimized for back-illuminated structures, that
    achieves a higher sensitivity of +6dB and a lower random noise of -2dB
    without light by reducing noise, dark current and defect pixels compared to
    the conventional front-illuminated structure."

    Too bad that insecure DSLR-Trolls like Alan are even more transparent than
    these back-illuminated photosites. But his transparency is based on old
    DSLR-Troll technology that creates 100% noise with no clear image
    whatsoever.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, May 1, 2010
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Can you be a bit more specific? Or do you really believe that a new
    technology can't have both advantages and disadvantages at the same time?
     
    Robert Spanjaard, May 1, 2010
    #23
  4. They only applied it on small sensors, where its advantages outweigh its
    disadvantages.
    What's wrong with that?
    Nothing wrong with that either.
    Which should be clear for anyone capable of thinking for themselves. The
    larger (effective) photo diodes reduce noise, but the technology itself
    increases noise. For large sensors, which already have relatively large
    photodiodes, the increase in noise is bigger than the decrease.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, May 1, 2010
    #24
  5. I think you're just looking for something to whine about. I'll stop
    replying until you come up with something that's worth it.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, May 1, 2010
    #25
  6. Tim Conway

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Go away asshole troll.
     
    Ray Fischer, May 1, 2010
    #26
  7. Tim Conway

    Me Guest

    The sensor arrays on NASA SDO (16mp 49.2mm square format = 12um sensels)
    use two variations of the same basic sensor, backlit for UV imaging,
    front lit for visible spectrum imaging.
    If backlit was more effective at visible light spectrum for this
    purpose, then they'd have used it.
     
    Me, May 3, 2010
    #27
  8. Tim Conway

    Me Guest

    Here's the concept study for the AIA which gives you some of the
    "tradespace" for their decisions. It wasn't combined from disparate
    sources and cobbled together like a chinese made SUV.
    http://aia.lmsal.com/public/CSR.htm
    It would have been nice if there was a comment as to why back-lit CCD
    was chosen for UV/eUV imaging, front-lit for visible light.
     
    Me, May 3, 2010
    #28
  9. Tim Conway

    Peter Guest


    The 400 f2.8 is a great lens. But, outside my budget right now, so I go as
    previously posted.
     
    Peter, May 6, 2010
    #29
  10. Tim Conway

    me Guest


    I carry this beast around a lot and had hold 99.99995% of my shots. I
    doubt I would be able to do this with the 400 f/2.8. Which is why I
    chose the 200-400 f/4 over the 400 f/2.8 when I made the purchase,
    fwiw.
     
    me, May 7, 2010
    #30
  11. Tim Conway

    Peter Guest

    I have been loooking for a shoulder mount for quite some time. Didn't see it
    any at photo expo, B&H nor Adorama. Whch one do you have?

    You are not alone in that.
     
    Peter, May 7, 2010
    #31
  12. Tim Conway

    Peter Guest

    Peter, May 7, 2010
    #32
  13. Tim Conway

    me Guest


    At this point we have totally different approaches to photography. I
    do hope to some day be able to embrace your approach. This is not to
    say the 200-400 f/4 doesn't push my physical limits in ways that I
    don't pay for it.
     
    me, May 7, 2010
    #33
    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.