Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison

Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:37:58 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
wrote:


It has not ever been shown that an image from a superzoom camera with its
lens at full zoom could match a DSLR and fixed focal length telephoto.
Not even close.

The test two years ago, pitted against your OWN photos, shows that the
superzoom not only matched your PIECE OF **** DSLR gear, but it BEAT IT.

THAT'S WHY YOU'VE NOW SPENT 2 YEARS OF YOUR USELESS LIFE TAKING IMAGES OF
THE MOON TO TRY TO PROVE THAT IT COULDN'T BE TRUE.

What a ****ing MORON!

LOL!!!!!!!!


Maybe you can enlighten the people new to this group
within the last two years with a link to this spectacular P&S
image. I bet you won't post a link and the only response
will be more foul language and some lame excuse why you
won't post the link. The real reason is a P&S super zoom
image does not exist that is better than a DSLR + super
telephoto image. Simple physics proves it.

Roger

David J Taylor wrote:

What is perhaps confusing is the effect of diffraction in object space
and sensor space. As I understand it, in object space - what the camera
sees - the effect of diffraction can best be visualised in angular
terms, so that a larger diameter lens has a smaller diffraction "cone"
(if you like), and hence can resolve more detail on a given surface. In
sensor space - where the image is produced - the effect of diffraction
can be visualised making each image spot a finite diameter for a
particular f/number. When the pixel size is larger than the diffraction
spot, the pixel size tends to be the limiting factor in resolution, and
this can happen in large-pixel DSLRs with the best lenses. Where the
pixel size is smaller than the diffraction spot, the effect of
diffraction would be the dominant factor in determining resolution.

David,
Yes, that is a good way to describe it.

So while the small-sensor camera /may/ be closer to diffraction-limited,
given good enough optics (which is questionable at the price), that
diffraction limit is a much lower resolution in object space, due to the
smaller actual diameter of the optics. The ratio of the sensor sizes
might be 30/6.5 (for an APS-C camera to a "1/2.7-inch" sensor camera) -
so about 4.5 times, and hence the scale of the optics, and that ratio
might set the upper limit for the resolution ratio if both cameras had
diffraction-limited systems working at the same f/number.

Exactly. There are reasons why astronomers build big telescopes:
to collect more light, and gain more resolution.

Your comparison shows the benefit of the larger diameter optics....

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...are.moon.a.jpg

I'll also add more in the future as I get access to other cameras.

The other thing that is often not realized is that the main effect
as you reach diffraction limits on images is a reduction in contrast
especially at the finest detail. So it is more than just a resolution
limit, it is a reduction in contrast, and that is apparent in the
FZ35 image. That also makes the DSLR images better because not being
near the diffraction limit, but pixel pitch limited, means higher
contrast in the finer details.

Roger

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:49:21 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:

Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:37:58 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
wrote:


It has not ever been shown that an image from a superzoom camera with its
lens at full zoom could match a DSLR and fixed focal length telephoto.
Not even close.

The test two years ago, pitted against your OWN photos, shows that the
superzoom not only matched your PIECE OF **** DSLR gear, but it BEAT IT.

THAT'S WHY YOU'VE NOW SPENT 2 YEARS OF YOUR USELESS LIFE TAKING IMAGES OF
THE MOON TO TRY TO PROVE THAT IT COULDN'T BE TRUE.

What a ****ing MORON!

LOL!!!!!!!!


Maybe you can enlighten the people new to this group
within the last two years with a link to this spectacular P&S
image.

His moon shot? Well, it wasn't exactly a shot of the moon. It was a
shot of moonlight illuminating what he claimed was a rare,
never-before-discovered, moth. At least he said it was a moth. It
was so fuzzy and out-of-focus that it was difficult to tell if was a
moth or a pile of sweepings from a barbershop floor.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:49:21 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:37:58 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
wrote:


It has not ever been shown that an image from a superzoom camera with its
lens at full zoom could match a DSLR and fixed focal length telephoto.
Not even close.

The test two years ago, pitted against your OWN photos, shows that the
superzoom not only matched your PIECE OF **** DSLR gear, but it BEAT IT.

THAT'S WHY YOU'VE NOW SPENT 2 YEARS OF YOUR USELESS LIFE TAKING IMAGES OF
THE MOON TO TRY TO PROVE THAT IT COULDN'T BE TRUE.

What a ****ing MORON!

LOL!!!!!!!!


Maybe you can enlighten the people new to this group
within the last two years with a link to this spectacular P&S
image. I bet you won't post a link and the only response
will be more foul language and some lame excuse why you
won't post the link. The real reason is a P&S super zoom
image does not exist that is better than a DSLR + super
telephoto image. Simple physics proves it.

Roger


I guess you want to get laughed out of the newsgroups again. Okay. If
that's what you want. Here's just a couple of posts from those many
discussion threads where you were completely proved to be the fool that you
are. Now you can spend another 2 years (correction THREE YEARS judging by
these post dates) and another $10,000 on camera gear to create even more
obviously rigged tests to try to prove it's worth it.

Go ahead, waste your life and money some more. How very entertaining to
know that this is all you have accomplished in three years of a human
lifetime. Botched camera tests and wasting money on camera gear that does
you and nobody else any good.

LOL!!!!!


From: KevinGreene
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc ,alt.photography
Subject: Moon shots - Lumix FZ18 vs. Canon G7
Message-ID:
References: .com
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:24:48 GMT

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:11:14 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

wrote:
I took some photos of the moon tonight. They were taken around 20:30h,
1 hour after sunset. The moon was located less than 45 degrees from
the horizon. I don't know whether the timing and the position of the
moon was ideal or not.
The smaller moon object was taken with the G7, and the larger ones
with FZ18. I also was not sure whether I should push the zoom beyond
the 6x optical for the G7, and beyond the 18x for the FZ18. However,
the maximum 24x in G7 is still relatively small in comparison to the
FZ18 )which is about 72X (??)
It appears that the best exposures were taken at -1.5 to -2 EV (under
exposed) for both camera. I think the IS was not turned off.
They do not show as sharp as other photos that I have seen. Perhaps I
need to look for better conditions and should not go into the digital
zoom territory? Any comments?
http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots
(Note that exif data were shown in each photos)


Another set of examples:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1

Roger

Interesting. Some of aniramca's P&S camera photos are much better than any of
your dslr shots, yours done in RAW (highest detail possible) and on a tripod at
that. Interesting to note that you also had to lock up that image-jarring mirror
and lose use of your viewfinder to obtain all of them too. The only reason
there's more contrasting detail in yours is the phase of the moon, when the
angle of the sun defines the moon's relief more sharply from the shadows cast.
Some of aniramca's photos still show more detail and are every bit as clear even
without having the benefit of the lower angle of the sun.

So much for "getting what you pay for." Thanks for posting the photos for
comparison between the capabilities of a very expensive dslr and lens and some
of the more popular and inexpensive P&S cameras.


From: KevinGreene
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc ,alt.photography
Subject: Moon shots - Lumix FZ18 vs. Canon G7
Message-ID:
References: .com
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:22:30 GMT


On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:07:24 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:


You completely missed the point of the page.

On the contrary. You missed the whole point of what you so happily, but
ignorantly, provided.

Check out the details surrounding and all throughout Mare Crisium, Mare
Tranquillitatis, Mare Nectaris, and Mare Fecunditatis between your photos made
with your dslr and the photos made with the FZ18. Even your up-sampled and
severely over-Photo-Shopped versions don't contain even half the details
contained in the FZ18 photos. Just the structure of the lunar features alone in
those evenly lit areas are defining all that detail in the FZ18 photos. Those
areas are lit by nearly the same angles of lights in both sets (FZ18 vs. Mk II),
not relying on high-contrast details from relief shadows at any terminator.
Which you thought would make your images look better at the terminator, but
failed at miserably, because those shadows on your photos now only show how much
more blurry your lens and sensor resolves details compared to the P&S's zoom
lens and smaller sensor.

Read 'em and weep.

What a pity that you wasted all that money on a dslr and overpriced "L" glass.
Even more's the pity that you are now trying so desperately to prove how much
better it must be. You could have obtained better photos with an inexpensive P&S
camera. You can lie to yourself all you want. Even believe your dslr is better
until you are dead and in your grave. Doesn't matter one bit.

The pictures don't lie.

Fool.

Superzooms Still Win wrote:

I guess you want to get laughed out of the newsgroups again. Okay. If
that's what you want. Here's just a couple of posts from those many
discussion threads where you were completely proved to be the fool that you
are. Now you can spend another 2 years (correction THREE YEARS judging by
these post dates) and another $10,000 on camera gear to create even more
obviously rigged tests to try to prove it's worth it.

Go ahead, waste your life and money some more. How very entertaining to
know that this is all you have accomplished in three years of a human
lifetime. Botched camera tests and wasting money on camera gear that does
you and nobody else any good.

LOL!!!!!

Pretty funny. Again you failed. You reference a web page that
compares different cameras limiting the test to 400 mm equivalent field
of view, not the limits of each lens. You referenced
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1
The DSLR images were with a mere 300 mm lens.
Then you compare to a different web page of with maximum
zoom on the super zoom cameras. And even then none of the P&S images
have the resolution of the DSLR images sen in Figures 5a and 8.
So you are proven wrong again.

But wait, if you want to compare the super zoom at max zoom, then compare
to the DSLR with its max lenses + TCs. to see what the limits really are.

So your P&S superzoom best is:
http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots

Compare to:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...st2/index.html
Starting at Figure 3, at only 300 mm, image quality shows far more detail
than any of the superzoom images, and as you go further down the page, the
images with the DSLR just keep showing more and more detail, and these
are an in-camera produced jpegs. Figures 4 and 5 are
far past any superzoom P&S camera image possible. Again, simple
physics proves the point. By the time you get to Figure 7 with
the DSLR raw image, it is so far beyond the P&S image, it is amazing.

But wait, we not done yet. DSLRs keep getting better and better.
Some of the picassaweb images are claiming 2016 mm equivalent focal length, e.g.
http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca...54027503541298
(probably the best P&S image on the page).
Compare that to a mere 1400 mm (real) focal length:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0mm.d-923.html
The full resolution image is here (781 kbytes):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...d-2385srgb.jpg

No contest, the DSLR blows away any P&S superzoom moon image, as
simple physics proved it would.

Roger

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote
in message ...
[]
Your comparison shows the benefit of the larger diameter optics....

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...are.moon.a.jpg

I'll also add more in the future as I get access to other cameras.

The other thing that is often not realized is that the main effect
as you reach diffraction limits on images is a reduction in contrast
especially at the finest detail. So it is more than just a resolution
limit, it is a reduction in contrast, and that is apparent in the
FZ35 image. That also makes the DSLR images better because not being
near the diffraction limit, but pixel pitch limited, means higher
contrast in the finer details.

Roger

Yes, I can see that about fine detail, I'm still slightly surprised about
the apparent "flare" in the FZ35 image. I hope to have access to a 1300mm
f/12.7 telescope soon and may try attaching the Nikon D5000 camera to
that. 5.5um pixels if I worked it out correctly, so the camera won't be
the limit but the f/12.7 optics.

Thanks for your other comments.

Cheers,
David

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:56:06 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

Superzooms Still Win wrote:

I guess you want to get laughed out of the newsgroups again. Okay. If
that's what you want. Here's just a couple of posts from those many
discussion threads where you were completely proved to be the fool that you
are. Now you can spend another 2 years (correction THREE YEARS judging by
these post dates) and another $10,000 on camera gear to create even more
obviously rigged tests to try to prove it's worth it.

Go ahead, waste your life and money some more. How very entertaining to
know that this is all you have accomplished in three years of a human
lifetime. Botched camera tests and wasting money on camera gear that does
you and nobody else any good.

LOL!!!!!

Pretty funny. Again you failed. You reference a web page that
compares different cameras limiting the test to 400 mm equivalent field
of view, not the limits of each lens. You referenced
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1
The DSLR images were with a mere 300 mm lens.
Then you compare to a different web page of with maximum
zoom on the super zoom cameras. And even then none of the P&S images
have the resolution of the DSLR images sen in Figures 5a and 8.
So you are proven wrong again.

But wait, if you want to compare the super zoom at max zoom, then compare
to the DSLR with its max lenses + TCs. to see what the limits really are.

So your P&S superzoom best is:
http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots

Compare to:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...st2/index.html
Starting at Figure 3, at only 300 mm, image quality shows far more detail
than any of the superzoom images, and as you go further down the page, the
images with the DSLR just keep showing more and more detail, and these
are an in-camera produced jpegs. Figures 4 and 5 are
far past any superzoom P&S camera image possible. Again, simple
physics proves the point. By the time you get to Figure 7 with
the DSLR raw image, it is so far beyond the P&S image, it is amazing.

But wait, we not done yet. DSLRs keep getting better and better.
Some of the picassaweb images are claiming 2016 mm equivalent focal length, e.g.
http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca...54027503541298
(probably the best P&S image on the page).
Compare that to a mere 1400 mm (real) focal length:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0mm.d-923.html
The full resolution image is here (781 kbytes):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...d-2385srgb.jpg

No contest, the DSLR blows away any P&S superzoom moon image, as
simple physics proved it would.

Roger

Comparing recent cameras and glass that you've thrown away many $1000's on
to a three year old P&S's images. And this desperate to try to beat a 3
year old P&S camera for THREE YEARS NOW! And still you fail unless you can
stack the deck in your favor with misinformation and misleading results.
How very sad and insecure your life must be.

LOL!!!!!!

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 01:25:07 -0600, Dudley Hanks
wrote:

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" username@qwest.
net wrote:
Superzooms Still Win wrote:

I guess you want to get laughed out of the newsgroups again. Okay. If
that's what you want. Here's just a couple of posts from those many
discussion threads where you were completely proved to be the fool that you
are. Now you can spend another 2 years (correction THREE YEARS judging by
these post dates) and another $10,000 on camera gear to create even more
obviously rigged tests to try to prove it's worth it.

Go ahead, waste your life and money some more. How very entertaining to
know that this is all you have accomplished in three years of a human
lifetime. Botched camera tests and wasting money on camera gear that does
you and nobody else any good.

LOL!!!!!

Pretty funny. Again you failed. You reference a web page that
compares different cameras limiting the test to 400 mm equivalent field
of view, not the limits of each lens. You referenced
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1
The DSLR images were with a mere 300 mm lens.
Then you compare to a different web page of with maximum
zoom on the super zoom cameras. And even then none of the P&S images
have the resolution of the DSLR images sen in Figures 5a and 8.
So you are proven wrong again.

But wait, if you want to compare the super zoom at max zoom, then compare
to the DSLR with its max lenses + TCs. to see what the limits really are.

So your P&S superzoom best is:
http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots

Compare to:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...st2/index.html
Starting at Figure 3, at only 300 mm, image quality shows far more detail
than any of the superzoom images, and as you go further down the page, the
images with the DSLR just keep showing more and more detail, and these
are an in-camera produced jpegs. Figures 4 and 5 are
far past any superzoom P&S camera image possible. Again, simple
physics proves the point. By the time you get to Figure 7 with
the DSLR raw image, it is so far beyond the P&S image, it is amazing.

But wait, we not done yet. DSLRs keep getting better and better.
Some of the picassaweb images are claiming 2016 mm equivalent focal length, e.g.
http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca...54027503541298
(probably the best P&S image on the page).
Compare that to a mere 1400 mm (real) focal length:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0mm.d-923.html
The full resolution image is here (781 kbytes):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...d-2385srgb.jpg

No contest, the DSLR blows away any P&S superzoom moon image, as
simple physics proved it would.

Roger


Now that Roger has debunked your claims about detail, LOL,


He's done no such thing. All he's done is **** out more bull**** that he
could dance through and make others wade through, like the true spamming
troll that he is. Someone like your own kind! (Yes, you're spam link and
con-artist link was deleted from this reply.)

perhaps we should run an analysis of the number of colour
shades captured in those DSLR and P&S pics? Or, are you still
smarting from the butterfly drubbing you took ... ?



But but DUDley! Didn't you compare that other image I posted that showed
many many thousands of more color shades in its data so therefore it MUST
be a better image according to your reasoning? What? Didn't you show it to
your sighted friends so they could laugh out loud at your absurdity and
failed reasoning? Didn't you even show them how your "editing skills"
totally trashes every photo you put through your "enhancing" routines?
We've all seen it, that's why they were all remaining so silent, you were
making such a total fool of yourself, AGAIN.

LOL!

Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:56:06 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
wrote:

Superzooms Still Win wrote:

I guess you want to get laughed out of the newsgroups again. Okay. If
that's what you want. Here's just a couple of posts from those many
discussion threads where you were completely proved to be the fool that you
are. Now you can spend another 2 years (correction THREE YEARS judging by
these post dates) and another $10,000 on camera gear to create even more
obviously rigged tests to try to prove it's worth it.

Go ahead, waste your life and money some more. How very entertaining to
know that this is all you have accomplished in three years of a human
lifetime. Botched camera tests and wasting money on camera gear that does
you and nobody else any good.

LOL!!!!!

Pretty funny. Again you failed. You reference a web page that
compares different cameras limiting the test to 400 mm equivalent field
of view, not the limits of each lens. You referenced
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/moon-test1
The DSLR images were with a mere 300 mm lens.
Then you compare to a different web page of with maximum
zoom on the super zoom cameras. And even then none of the P&S images
have the resolution of the DSLR images sen in Figures 5a and 8.
So you are proven wrong again.

But wait, if you want to compare the super zoom at max zoom, then compare
to the DSLR with its max lenses + TCs. to see what the limits really are.

So your P&S superzoom best is:
http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca/Moon_shots

Compare to:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...st2/index.html
Starting at Figure 3, at only 300 mm, image quality shows far more detail
than any of the superzoom images, and as you go further down the page, the
images with the DSLR just keep showing more and more detail, and these
are an in-camera produced jpegs. Figures 4 and 5 are
far past any superzoom P&S camera image possible. Again, simple
physics proves the point. By the time you get to Figure 7 with
the DSLR raw image, it is so far beyond the P&S image, it is amazing.

But wait, we not done yet. DSLRs keep getting better and better.
Some of the picassaweb images are claiming 2016 mm equivalent focal length, e.g.
http://picasaweb.google.com/aniramca...54027503541298
(probably the best P&S image on the page).
Compare that to a mere 1400 mm (real) focal length:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0mm.d-923.html
The full resolution image is here (781 kbytes):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...d-2385srgb.jpg

No contest, the DSLR blows away any P&S superzoom moon image, as
simple physics proved it would.

Roger

Comparing recent cameras and glass that you've thrown away many $1000's on
to a three year old P&S's images. And this desperate to try to beat a 3
year old P&S camera for THREE YEARS NOW! And still you fail unless you can
stack the deck in your favor with misinformation and misleading results.
How very sad and insecure your life must be.

LOL!!!!!!


You are wrong again. The camera on the moon-test2 page is over two years
old, and the lenses over 3 years old; the 500 mm lens is about 10 years
old.

But let's go back to 2004 DSLR technology and about a 10 year old lens:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...-c-5x-700.html

and how about hand held:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f-8s-800.html
full resolution image he
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f6583f-8s.jpg

So 6+ year old technology easily beats any current or past P&S super zoom camera.
Simple physics proves it.

Roger

Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 01:25:07 -0600, Dudley Hanks
wrote:

Now that Roger has debunked your claims about detail, LOL,

perhaps we should run an analysis of the number of colour
shades captured in those DSLR and P&S pics? Or, are you still
smarting from the butterfly drubbing you took ... ?

But but DUDley! Didn't you compare that other image I posted that showed
many many thousands of more color shades in its data so therefore it MUST
be a better image according to your reasoning? What? Didn't you show it to
your sighted friends so they could laugh out loud at your absurdity and
failed reasoning? Didn't you even show them how your "editing skills"
totally trashes every photo you put through your "enhancing" routines?
We've all seen it, that's why they were all remaining so silent, you were
making such a total fool of yourself, AGAIN.

You are not getting it. Simple physics proves you are wrong.
Regarding image detail, the super zoom P&S cameras have clear
apertures on the order of an inch or less. Diffraction from
such a small lens means poor subject resolution. A DSLR with
even a lower end fixed telephoto like 300 f/4 has about a 3-inch
clear aperture, thus on the order of 3x higher resolution
on a subject. The 3x larger diameter lens delivers 9x
more light. More light = finer gradations due to better
signal-to-noise ratio. Again, this is simple physics.
There is no contest between a DSLR versus P&S whether telephoto
resolution on a subject or color tonality, or signal-to-noise
ratio. Simple physics, the DSLR wins. Anyone who can do
simple physics can prove this. Dudley is correct.

Roger