On 4/27/2018 10:25 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 27 April 2018 13:05:14 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/27/2018 5:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 20:32:25 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/26/2018 8:37 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 12:17:03 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/26/2018 5:01 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 18:45:31 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/25/2018 8:29 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

Which camera better represents the subject would be quite obvious when
looking at two prints of the same size.

That would depend on the subject.

OK, presuming anything other than shooting a still, gray object in
darkness...

and what use the image is to be used for.
We used to a photographic setup here with an 'enlarger' in reverse, it than enlarged the image it only ever reduced it in size. we also had a 20k per sec frame cine camera, we had oscilascope cameras based around the poloroid land camera 110B, sometimes people build cameras and other devices with specific uses which is also why there are more cameras avaiable than just the TG-4.
Just because you don't see a use for another other camera then perhaps that's the real problem.

The "real problem" is that you never comprehended my point.

That's because you haven't got one that can be comprehended.

Clearly not by you, but that's just another example of your thinking
that your personal limitations are generalizable to everyone else.

No that is yuo yuor the one claiming yuor TG-4 is the final word in what cameras should be brought, you seem to think that anyone buying that camera or using that camera should be able to use a TG-4 and get the same results.

I said no such thing, and stated the opposite more than once. The
question I asked has been the same from the start: it's resolution vs.
sensor cell noise.

So why go on about bellows ?

You are the one that brought up shift and tilt, remember? Bellows are
one typical way to achieve that capability.

If your nose wasn't so high in the air about the
TG-4, perhaps you'd be able to grasp my point.

No idea what you mean by that, just becuse I don't see the TG-4 as the best option for everyone.

Nor do I.

While yuo seem to think yuo TG-4 can outperfom the 10x8

Yes, BECAUSE I think that higher resolution cameras will outperform
lower resolution cameras, regardless of sensor cell size.

All I've said is I wouldn't be in the market for that camera and I can see a limited use for a 10X8 sensor, but yuo seem to think yuor TG-4 is better for every type of photography than any other camera.

Show me where I made such a statement. You are lying, but I don't know
why you feel the need to do so.

Not hardly. What part of "...there are dozens of cameras at a fraction
of the cost of that 8x10 that will outperform it..." is stumping you?

Nothing as my M3 can outperfom the hubble in taking pictures of my cat that deson;t mean I think the hubble is ****. It;s just that I know what to buy for what sort of images I want to take.
In the early days of electronics when I produced PCBs I used a camera like the 10x8 , I made up circuits using circuit tape and we used to design them 4 times life size, so that 1/10th of an inch came out as 4/10 so when reduced an anomaly was lost such as dust or dirt at that scale, and they still use a similar system today in that to make marskes for making semicondictors the layout is designed much larger than the original them shrunk down to the size of a silicon chip where light is shown through it for etching purposes.



most cameras would be
limited to monochrome. That doesn't describe the real world of photography.

Not everyone is interested in the 'real world of photography'.

So what is your point... that some people prefer a bulky, low-resolution
monochrome contrivance?

Yes for particualr uses.

I'm still waiting for you to give ONE particular use of THIS PARTICULAR
CAMERA that makes it worth the money.

There are those on the Leica list that shoot
with their monochrome M cameras; 18mp and under $8k. So, that straw man
of yours is also DOA.

your the one putting up straw men.
No your claiming that Leica are wrong in producing their monochrome M cameras.
WTF has it got to do with you.

You are lying again, as I've said nothing about Leica being wrong in
producing their mononchrome M cameras. The OBVIOUS reason that I brought
it up is as another example of a higher resolution camera at much lower
cost that will outperform the low-resolution 8x10. That is ALL that is
stated in my sentence, above.


why do you compare your TG-4 with the 10x8 camera then ?

As I stated a number of times, now, it's because I'm sure I'd get better
photographic results in almost every situation other than shooting
still, gray objects in the dark.

Well there you go then.
But you do know it will take colour photos.

Only if they're still objects and nothing in the lighting conditions
change in the period of time it takes to change filters.

I was never interested in colours when I was using our 10x8 setup.

That's OK, too. If you were shooting film with your 8x10, there is
certainly no comparison in image quality to this particular 8x10. Why
did you bring it up?


It';s not been answered because you didnlt eben know your TG-4 had a non interchanagbe lens.

Non interchangeable? What are the wide-angle and telephoto TG-4 lenses
that I have,

what are these lenses then comeon what are they ?
List them.

Read, above. Or, take a look on the Olympus website for more
information. Of course, you snipped the address I provided once you
discovered that you don't have any real knowledge of the camera.

since they aren't permanently fixed to the camera?

they are converters .

That's a distinction without a difference and just another example of
your narrow-minded notions regarding semantics. Even a single optic
element is a LENS, not anything else.

You just
don't comprehend how they work,

I do Ive had convertors in the past and have w W/A one at work for a camera we have, it is NOT a lens in it;s own right it has NO diaphram.

My eyeglasses don't have a diaphragm, either, but they do have lenses.

and think that your limited notion of
"interchangeable" applies to all situations,

yes it does because that IS the definition.

BS.

which it clearly does not.
It's that communications thing biting your rear end again.

Your wrong and you havent; the brains to understand.
A teleconveror on the front of yuor lens does NOT make it an interchangable lens camera.

Your claim is nonsense.

The TG-4 has a bayonet mount.

where is this mount.

Where else would it be, other than on the front of the camera body?
Where do you think the adapter that I linked you to attaches?

I've told you that numerous times. Is it
that you think 3D scans and CAD files can't be sent to a CNC machine?

yes we have a few here and we have people that know how to use them.

As do I, and have done so many times.

They can, and are every day. Is it that you think the resulting bayonet
mount wouldn't fit on the TG-4? That's idiotic.

Any idiot can mount a lens on anaything they want.
I can where a popes hat put ti doesnlt make me a pope.

You do realize that you didn't answer the question, right?

So, what *is* your issue
with using the bayonet mount to mount a bellows to the camera?

Just the fact that it wouldn't work, mainly becausen of the relative positions of the lens sensor and bellows.

More of your unsubstantiated nonsense. It is the bellows that produces
the shift and tilt corrections, and the front lens captures the image. I
have no problem focusing on the scene viewed through my Schneider 40mm
Super Angulon MF lens when holding it in front of the TG-4. The sensor
plane doesn't prevent obtaining that result.

Are you using 42mm lenes or 39mm threaded ?

Neither. The TG-4 "converter lenses" use 40.5mm threads to attach to the
adapter that mounts to the camera via BAYONET mount. So, why would the
thread mount on those lenses matter if one was going to attach the
bellows TO THE BAYONET MOUNT ON THE CAMERA?

bellows units need to be placed between the rear element of the lens and before the sensor.

If you were right about that,

which I am.

No, you are not, and it should be obvious to all as to why that is.

I see you've stopped lying about the TG-4 not having a bayonet mount.
Hopefully, you'll stop lying about how bellows work, too.

--
best regards,

Neil