Telephoto Reach and Digital Cameras - lens comparison

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

On 12/15/10 PDT 7:38 AM, Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
wrote:
Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 01:25:07 -0600, Dudley Hanks

Rog-

Please do not reply to this schmuck AT ALL........

Cordially,

John

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
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.

Here's a 20 year old lens on a 5 year old camera:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...16631/sizes/o/

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:04:30 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote:

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
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.

Here's a 20 year old lens on a 5 year old camera:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...16631/sizes/o/

Here is a 20 year old lens on a 2 year old camera (at the time).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eric_th...n/photostream/



Eric Stevens

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
I was alerted to this thread by another.

Superzooms Still Win wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:20:48 -0000, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

A comparison of fixed focal length lenses& consumer zooms on DSLRs when
photographing distant objects:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/

including a comparison with a super-zoom P&S.


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


A longer zoom may not be better than a shorter fixed focal length lens.

Just more of Clark's garbage in, garbage out results. No wonder he was
fired from so many jobs. His glaringly biased attempts to try to justify
why he has spent all that money, like every other test he's ever done.

The above statement is outright libel! I have never been fired from
any job in my life. This is absolutely outrageous, and a complete
lie. I have been with my present employer for 27 years and I
was promoted this year.


You'll note that he should have used ISO100 and larger apertures on the
superzoom, where the images would then have been nearly identical,
because
the superzoom lens improves on resolution at larger apertures, unlike on
DSLR glass where the figure isn't good enough to hold to
diffraction-limited resolutions at larger apertures. Instead he made sure
to use the superzoom on settings where noise and diffraction limitations
start to set in just to try to make his expensive gear look better to
him.

Any astronomer knows that resolution is limited by aperture.
It is a simple computation. The lens apertures found in
superzoom cameras are quite small. Changing ISO does not
change resolution, except in changing post image acquisition
in camera noise reduction. The high zoom ratio of super zoom cameras
are impressive in that they deliver OK image quality over a large
range, but are soft compared to fixed focal length lenses.
Stopping down a stop or so improves image quality on every zoom
lens I have tested. So opening up the super zoom lens would
have reduced diffraction up to 40%, but other aberrations would
have reduced the image quality more. Figure 1 on the web page illustrates
that effect using another zoom lens.

If you look at both images at pixel level you'll note too that he took a
higher-resolution image from the DSLR then applied much higher JPG
compression to the superzoom image.

They were the highest resolution jpeg each camera produces.
And since the web image is one image with both the DSLR and P&S
image embedded in it, the jpeg compression of the web image
is identical.

Of course the DSLR raw data could be used to produce and even
better image.

He just loves fudging his own tests to get the results he wants, always
leaving out these important bits of details in his biased
explanations. And
all you fools fall for it, every time, guaranteed.

BS. If you can match or better the DSLR+300mm+1.4xTC moon image
shown with a P&S super zoom camera, the show us. You can't because
simple physics proves you can't. The Dawes limit, is
4.56/D where D is the clear aperture diameter in inches:

Thus:
300 mm f/2.8 lens, Dawes limit = 4.56/4.22 = 1.08 arc seconds.
300 mm f/4 lens, Dawes limit - 4.56/2.95 = 1.54 arc-seconds.

FZ35 super zoom at max focal length of 86.4 mm
fastest f/ratio, f/4.4, aperture =19.6 mm: Dawes limit =
4.56/0.77= 5.9 arc-seconds (and it only achieves that if other
aberrations are smaller, and they are not at f/4.4).

All superzoom P&S cameras have small clear apertures which
limits resolution on a subject, regardless of focal length.
It is simple physics, no bias.

You have stated on rec.photo.digital that superzoom cameras are diffraction
limited. Fine, but the diffraction is so large from the small
aperture that it limits detail on a subject. DSLRs using telephoto
lenses with larger clear apertures do not need to be diffraction
limited to better the resolution on a subject over a P&S camera.
Simple physics.


Regarding Rich's comment:
Anyone trying to take good moon shots by using a telephoto lens
instead of a telescope is making a mistake.

The point was not to compete with telescopes, but to show the relative
performance of each camera and lens. The Moon is a natural
target that anyone anywhere in the world can image, so they can
test their own lenses and techniques and compare to others.
At short focal lengths like 300 mm, atmospheric distortions
are minimal. The Moon has effectively infinite detail and is
not a bar chart, so more natural in terms of complexity of
imaging in the real world. These results extend to wildlife,
sports, people and other photography.

Good telephoto lenses can take great images of the Moon.
For example, check this out (be sure to click on the link
to the full resolution image):

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0mm_e-900.html


Let's see a P&S superzoom camera with its "super" telephoto lens beat that,
or for that matter, even come close. It can't due to the simple physics
of diffraction. No bias, just simple physics.

Roger

But just to level the playing field a bit, estimate the COST and WEIGHT
of the system you used to get this moon image vs the COST and WEIGHT of
the Superzoom camera to which you made the image comparison.
Bob Williams

"bobwilliams" wrote in message
...
[]
But just to level the playing field a bit, estimate the COST and WEIGHT
of the system you used to get this moon image vs the COST and WEIGHT of
the Superzoom camera to which you made the image comparison.
Bob Williams

That's a fair comment, Bob. One uses the tools most appropriate to the
task in hand, and I know that I won't carry such big lenses as Roger uses,
and I accept the performance will be somewhat worse. I do now use a DSLR
as it has many advantages for me over the cameras I used before, but I
still have a pocket camera for those occasions which require it. What
Roger's page clearly shows is that very small sensors and lenses cannot
overcome the limitations of physics.

Cheers,
David

On 12/15/2010 1:56 AM, Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

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.


I noticed on your site that you take images with stacked teleconverters.
It is my understanding that in addition to loss of light a teleconverter
also exaggerates any flaws in the prime lens. I could not see any such
exaggeration of aberrations.

Also, I would think that stacking would work for your astro shots, when
mounted on a proper tracking mount, but would not be very practical for
wildlife photography.

--
Peter

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:39:38 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

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

Hey MORON, this has nothing to do with lens physics, DUDley is throwing in
another situation that he created which proved himself too to be a total
moron.

As for your physics proving everything, it FAILS because it does NOT take
into account the figure of the lenses. The lenses on the superzoom camera
can and ARE polished to diffraction-limited quality. They have to be in
order to allow the photosites resolve individual details. Otherwise nobody
would buy them. Thereby allowing them to have more resolution at larger
apertures. DSLR glass is NEVER ground to diffraction-limited quality,
because the cost to do so puts them outside the reach of every consumer,
therefore they can never attain diffraction-limited resolutions at ANY
useful aperture.

But then you already knew this, or you wouldn't have blatantly biased your
fools' tests again by choosing aperture and exposure settings and
resolutions and JPG compressions which would give an advantage to your
PIECE OF **** DSLR CRAP.

Shove that "physics" up your useless asshole full of relentless BAD-SCIENCE
bull****. Now, go ahead, spend three more years of your useless life trying
to outdo more P&S cameras that have already surpassed anything you have
ever accomplished in your miserable existence.

"David J Taylor"
wrote:
"bobwilliams" wrote in message
...
[]
But just to level the playing field a bit, estimate the COST and WEIGHT
of the system you used to get this moon image vs the COST and WEIGHT of
the Superzoom camera to which you made the image comparison.
Bob Williams

That's a fair comment, Bob. One uses the tools most appropriate to the
task in hand, and I know that I won't carry such big lenses as Roger uses,
and I accept the performance will be somewhat worse. I do now use a DSLR
as it has many advantages for me over the cameras I used before, but I
still have a pocket camera for those occasions which require it. What
Roger's page clearly shows is that very small sensors and lenses cannot
overcome the limitations of physics.

Cheers,
David


I don't think anyone, including Roger, is saying P&S cams are
not worth owning, well, almost nobody (let's leave room for
Rich). The point is simply that, if you want to produce the
best pics, you have to own something capable of producing the
best, which suprzooms are not.

There's a lot of talk about superzooms having defraction
limited glass, while larger DSLR's don't. It is portrayed as
though this gives the SZ cams some sort of inherent advantage.
What is actually the situation is that the SZ cams need the
better glass just to get an acceptable image, because their
smaller sensors would produce demonstrably inferior images if
they weren't equipped with lenses capable of rendering very
fine detail on an area too small to work with normal glass.
But, it's a pretty big leap to claim that the smaller sensor
cams produce better pics with their nice glass than the larger
sensor cams produce without it.

It's kind of like comparing that deluxe car sound system to
your home entertainment center. Sure, the sound is good in
the car, but put it in a basement rec room and see how it
performs. And, of course, neither system will compare
favourably to a good orchestra in a well-designed auditorium.
The smaller systems work well within its confines, but isn't
exactly the anser to every scenario.

The same can be said for colour tonality in cameras. The
smaller sensors just can't pull the same tonal range out of a
given scene as is possible with larger sensors, as the
comparison of SZ's colourful butterfly and my black and tan
shepherd so clearly demonstrated.

Take Care,
Dudley

peter wrote:
Roger N. Clark wrote:

Compare that to a mere 1400 mm (real) focal length:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0mm.d-923.html

I noticed on your site that you take images with stacked teleconverters.
It is my understanding that in addition to loss of light a teleconverter
also exaggerates any flaws in the prime lens. I could not see any such
exaggeration of aberrations.

The stacked teleconverters will also crop off the edges where
aberrations are most troublesome like CA, coma and astigmatism. What
I've found is that teleconverters will give a softer image at the pixel
level but they do generally increase actual subject detail, so not great
for large prints but still useful.

Also, I would think that stacking would work for your astro shots, when
mounted on a proper tracking mount, but would not be very practical for
wildlife photography.

A loose fitting gimbal head is ideal for wildlife:
http://www.google.com/images?q=gimbal+head