On 5/1/2018 5:05 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 April 2018 18:02:42 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/30/2018 10:56 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 April 2018 14:45:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/30/2018 8:19 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:04:57 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/30/2018 6:12 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 27 April 2018 18:39:31 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
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:

[irrelevant drivel snipped]

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.

out perform in what way ?
The problem with small sensor size if the amount you have to enlarge the image so having a 10X sensor is better than having a 1x sensor even if that 1z sensor has less noise because you won't have to enlarge it.

"Image enlargement" ability is a direct factor of sensor matrix
resolution, not cell size. As I stated a number of times, the higher
resolution camera will provide a better representation of the scene for
prints of equal size due to the more complete information at or above
the typical minimally acceptable ppi resolution of a print. The math is
clear, as are the print size limitations of this 8x10 camera.

and still talking crap because resoultion isn't the only thing.

There is a difference that you, yet again, fail to comprehend; "only
thing" does not equal OR negate "most relevant thing".

There is NOT one camera that is better for everything, sometimes a camera is needed that does one thing particualtr well or conviently which is why the local news aggent has a poloriod camera that photogrphes the same image 4 times for passport photos, I can't think of any other reason to have this camera.
I have a microscope camra that I've never used.

No one has claimed that there is "one camera that is better for
everything" beside the straw man that you keep sending in. Since I
already conceded that this particular 8x10 would outperform other
cameras when used for shooting still, gray objects in the dark,

And your TG-4 will outperfom camera where you want to take pictures in a swimming pool.

The problem is that you don't know what the TG-4 is or is capable of and
you let your uninformed notions of it drive your opinions.

The TG-4 will produce better prints of most subjects than that
low-resolution 8x10, which is the ONLY reason for comparing it; the math
is indisputable.

It's also POSSIBLE (though not PRACTICAL) to attach a bellows to its
BAYONET MOUNT for tilt and shift capability, as the proof of concept
experiment with my 40mm Super Angulon showed. You might ask yourself,
"How likely is it that someone who owns a TG-4, bellows and a $5k Super
Angulon lens will not know what's necessary to obtain tilt and shift
capability?"

Our different opinions are the result of my using provable, objective
facts vs. your uninformed impressions of the TG-4.

it is
clear that I hold no such notion as you are attempting to imply.
If there WAS one camera that was better for everything, I'd probably
have that one instead of the numerous cameras that I have.

you probbaly wouldn't because no camera yet has managed to be good at everything,

Surely you realize that your comment only restates what I wrote, above?

--
best regards,

Neil