P&S cameras with eye-level finders?

On 1/11/2015 5:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:07:47 +0100, android wrote:


liar! don't pretend that you don't know of what i'm a talking!!!

I thought Harpo Marx was dead.


Well a harp is a cousin of the lyre.

--
PeterN

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:07:47 +0100, android wrote:


liar! don't pretend that you don't know of what i'm a talking!!!

I thought Harpo Marx was dead.

Nope, Karl is the one that died. All the other three are alive and
kicking...
--
teleportation kills

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:45:41 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:07:47 +0100, android wrote:


liar! don't pretend that you don't know of what i'm a talking!!!

I thought Harpo Marx was dead.

Nope, Karl is the one that died. All the other three are alive and
kicking...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpo_Marx
"Harpo Marx died on September 28, 1964"
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , android wrote:

nospam:
nonsense and there are no lens baby effects, even with a
****ty lens. where the hell did you get that idea??

a full frame lens on 4/3rds uses more of the sweet spot
than with a dx camera, which means it's actually *better*
than what you'd get on dx.

android:
liar! you're repeating crap. smaller sensor area means that
the lens can share less of the information it generate and
that it's resolution will accordingly be proportionally
diluted in the file.

nospam:
that is the most absurd thing i've read in a long time.

diluted resolution in the file?? what are you smoking?

android:
liar! don't pretend that you don't know of what i'm a talking!!!

nospam:
what's to pretend? you haven't any clue what you're talking about.

i invite the interested photographer to read this article in it
glorious totality and make his or hers own call... you're repeating
crap and talking against your own better knowledge and are
therefore a liar!

Nospam is correct, you don't know what you're talking about (no surprise
there, ey?)

A FX lens on a 4/3 sensor would make the sensor only be exposed by the
center of the lens, meaning that the 4/3 only sees the sweet spot center.
The lens itself doesn't have a specific "resolution" made specifically for
FX cameras, it focuses light onto the sensor, if that's a FX sensor or a DX
sensor makes no difference other than the area of the focused image they
see.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , android wrote:

The downside of using a smaller sensor (but increasing the pixel
count) is that the individual sensor elements are smaller, so
each one captures less light during the exposure. This has
problems because the signal/noise ratio drops, and is the one
reason for going for a larger rather than a smaller sensor.

A smaller sensor gives the lense less area to resolve on. Period. A
smaller censor gives you lower quality pixels if you want's the same
count as on a larger one. Fact!

Photons doesn't have a resolution, Android. They come through the lens and
hit the sensor. If the lens has lots of diffractions, or other
imperfections, the light is scattered, but scattered equally on any sensor,
so the same problem occurs on all sensors.

And, since most lens are sharper in the middle, the smaller sensor would
get a better part of the projected photons than a larger sensor would.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:45:41 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:07:47 +0100, android wrote:


liar! don't pretend that you don't know of what i'm a talking!!!

I thought Harpo Marx was dead.

Nope, Karl is the one that died. All the other three are alive and
kicking...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpo_Marx
"Harpo Marx died on September 28, 1964"

That doesn't mean that he is dead...
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , android wrote:

nospam:
nonsense and there are no lens baby effects, even with a
****ty lens. where the hell did you get that idea??

a full frame lens on 4/3rds uses more of the sweet spot
than with a dx camera, which means it's actually *better*
than what you'd get on dx.

android:
liar! you're repeating crap. smaller sensor area means that
the lens can share less of the information it generate and
that it's resolution will accordingly be proportionally
diluted in the file.

nospam:
that is the most absurd thing i've read in a long time.

diluted resolution in the file?? what are you smoking?

android:
liar! don't pretend that you don't know of what i'm a talking!!!

nospam:
what's to pretend? you haven't any clue what you're talking about.

i invite the interested photographer to read this article in it
glorious totality and make his or hers own call... you're repeating
crap and talking against your own better knowledge and are
therefore a liar!

Nospam is correct, you don't know what you're talking about (no surprise
there, ey?)

A FX lens on a 4/3 sensor would make the sensor only be exposed by the
center of the lens, meaning that the 4/3 only sees the sweet spot center.
The lens itself doesn't have a specific "resolution" made specifically for
FX cameras, it focuses light onto the sensor, if that's a FX sensor or a DX
sensor makes no difference other than the area of the focused image they
see.

Not gona give you a repeat of the basics that I gave the nospams...
--
teleportation kills

On 2015-01-12 16:13:37 +0000, android said:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:45:41 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:07:47 +0100, android wrote:


liar! don't pretend that you don't know of what i'm a talking!!!

I thought Harpo Marx was dead.

Nope, Karl is the one that died. All the other three are alive and
kicking...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpo_Marx
"Harpo Marx died on September 28, 1964"

That doesn't mean that he is dead...

Well he would be a doddering 121 year old harp strumming, horn blower
if he were alive today.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2015011209355487662-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2015-01-12 16:13:37 +0000, android said:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:45:41 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:07:47 +0100, android wrote:


liar! don't pretend that you don't know of what i'm a talking!!!

I thought Harpo Marx was dead.

Nope, Karl is the one that died. All the other three are alive and
kicking...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpo_Marx
"Harpo Marx died on September 28, 1964"

That doesn't mean that he is dead...

Well he would be a doddering 121 year old harp strumming, horn blower
if he were alive today.

This deserves the silence treatment...
--
teleportation kills

In article , android wrote:

In article ,

nospam:
nonsense and there are no lens baby effects,
even with a ****ty lens. where the hell did you get
that idea??

a full frame lens on 4/3rds uses more of the sweet
spot than with a dx camera, which means it's actually
*better* than what you'd get on dx.

android:
liar! you're repeating crap. smaller sensor
area means that the lens can share less of the
information it generate and that it's resolution will
accordingly be proportionally diluted in the file.

nospam:
that is the most absurd thing i've read in a long
time.

diluted resolution in the file?? what are you smoking?

android:
liar! don't pretend that you don't know of what i'm
a talking!!!

nospam:
what's to pretend? you haven't any clue what you're
talking about.

android:
i invite the interested photographer to read this article in it
glorious totality and make his or hers own call... you're
repeating crap and talking against your own better knowledge
and are therefore a liar!

Sandman:
Nospam is correct, you don't know what you're talking about (no
surprise there, ey?)

A FX lens on a 4/3 sensor would make the sensor only be exposed by
the center of the lens, meaning that the 4/3 only sees the sweet
spot center. The lens itself doesn't have a specific "resolution"
made specifically for FX cameras, it focuses light onto the
sensor, if that's a FX sensor or a DX sensor makes no difference
other than the area of the focused image they see.

Not gona give you a repeat of the basics that I gave the nospams...

The basics are so way out of your grasp that it's not even funny.


--
Sandman[.net]