If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
There could still be hope! 4 a D7200!!!
android Wrote in message:
David Taylor Wrote in message: On 25/02/2015 20:59, android wrote: [] A quarterframe sensor can only deliver half of the information of a half frame one, like in the EOS M or a quarter of a fullframe one, like in a D810. Any other statement is pure BS. No quibble, but there is also the question of how much information you actually /need/ for any particular purpose. If you don't /need/ full-frame, then you can save on expense, weight and size. I've got som nice imagery with Ixus cameras, but the EOS files are way nicer... For David: https://db.tt/6ecIDRLO -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
There could still be hope! 4 a D7200!!!
Sandman Wrote in message:
In article , android wrote: android: A quarterframe sensor can only deliver half of the information of a half frame one, like in the EOS M or a quarter of a fullframe one, like in a D810. Any other statement is pure BS. nospam: the only thing that's bs is what you said. how much information a sensor captures is a function of more than just its size. android: everything else equal and the size matter. as described in the above. Sandman: Well, when it comes to cameras, everything else isn't always equal :-D nospam: that's the point. android: i've made mine, but sandy snippet it... it can be found about three posts back. Sandman: I snipped nothing in my post. Sure you did. So, we now have a claim from you that I snipped something you wrote, and a counter claim from me that I did not. You have now repeated your claim without supporting it, so here is the support from me: This was your post: This was my followup: In which nothing of what you wrote was omitted or snipped. It is all there, and your initial claim has now been proven to be incorrect. Your only option now is to retract your claim and possibly apologize for making a claim about the actions of another person that you didn't make sure was correct. Any interested party can read the thread backwards! Indeed they can. But I proved you incorrect even if they don't want to read the thread "backwards". Will you admit to having made an incorrect claim? We'll see. As said: The evidence is posted. My claim stand. -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
There could still be hope! 4 a D7200!!!
In article , android wrote:
android: A quarterframe sensor can only deliver half of the information of a half frame one, like in the EOS M or a quarter of a fullframe one, like in a D810. Any other statement is pure BS. nospam: the only thing that's bs is what you said. how much information a sensor captures is a function of more than just its size. android: everything else equal and the size matter. as described in the above. Sandman: Well, when it comes to cameras, everything else isn't always equal :-D nospam: that's the point. android: i've made mine, but sandy snippet it... it can be found about three posts back. Sandman: I snipped nothing in my post. android: Sure you did. Sandman: So, we now have a claim from you that I snipped something you wrote, and a counter claim from me that I did not. You have now repeated your claim without supporting it, so here is the support from me: This was your post: This was my followup: In which nothing of what you wrote was omitted or snipped. It is all there, and your initial claim has now been proven to be incorrect. Your only option now is to retract your claim and possibly apologize for making a claim about the actions of another person that you didn't make sure was correct. android: Any interested party can read the thread backwards! Sandman: Indeed they can. But I proved you incorrect even if they don't want to read the thread "backwards". Will you admit to having made an incorrect claim? We'll see. As said: The evidence is posted. My claim stand. Then you are a proven liar yet again. Congratulations. Working hard to remove all traces of credibility I see. -- Sandman |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
There could still be hope! 4 a D7200!!!
Sandman Wrote in message:
In article , android wrote: android: A quarterframe sensor can only deliver half of the information of a half frame one, like in the EOS M or a quarter of a fullframe one, like in a D810. Any other statement is pure BS. nospam: the only thing that's bs is what you said. how much information a sensor captures is a function of more than just its size. android: everything else equal and the size matter. as described in the above. Sandman: Well, when it comes to cameras, everything else isn't always equal :-D nospam: that's the point. android: i've made mine, but sandy snippet it... it can be found about three posts back. Sandman: I snipped nothing in my post. android: Sure you did. Sandman: So, we now have a claim from you that I snipped something you wrote, and a counter claim from me that I did not. You have now repeated your claim without supporting it, so here is the support from me: This was your post: This was my followup: In which nothing of what you wrote was omitted or snipped. It is all there, and your initial claim has now been proven to be incorrect. Your only option now is to retract your claim and possibly apologize for making a claim about the actions of another person that you didn't make sure was correct. android: Any interested party can read the thread backwards! Sandman: Indeed they can. But I proved you incorrect even if they don't want to read the thread "backwards". Will you admit to having made an incorrect claim? We'll see. As said: The evidence is posted. My claim stand. Then you are a proven liar yet again. Congratulations. Working hard to remove all traces of credibility I see. Talking while shaving, obviously! -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
There could still be hope! 4 a D7200!!!
On 26/02/2015 09:08, android wrote:
[] I've got som nice imagery with Ixus cameras, but the EOS files are way nicer... For David: https://db.tt/6ecIDRLO Yes, a larger sensor (or a longer exposure) might have reduced the noise (not viewing under ideal conditions at the moment). I've taken some acceptable shots with my phone and my iPad, but I wouldn't recommend them for "serious" use! -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
There could still be hope! 4 a D7200!!!
David Taylor Wrote in message:
On 26/02/2015 09:08, android wrote: [] I've got som nice imagery with Ixus cameras, but the EOS files are way nicer... For David: https://db.tt/6ecIDRLO Yes, a larger sensor (or a longer exposure) might have reduced the noise (not viewing under ideal conditions at the moment). I've taken some acceptable shots with my phone and my iPad, but I wouldn't recommend them for "serious" use! U c! Da zize matters! -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
There could still be hope! 4 a D7200!!!
On 26 Feb 2015 07:40:40 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , android wrote: android: A quarterframe sensor can only deliver half of the information of a half frame one, like in the EOS M or a quarter of a fullframe one, like in a D810. Any other statement is pure BS. nospam: the only thing that's bs is what you said. how much information a sensor captures is a function of more than just its size. everything else equal and the size matter. as described in the above. ---Snipped by Sandman: "the physics are the same regardles of the size of the sensor you know... --- Well, when it comes to cameras, everything else isn't always equal :-D -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
There could still be hope! 4 a D7200!!!
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
android: A quarterframe sensor can only deliver half of the information of a half frame one, like in the EOS M or a quarter of a fullframe one, like in a D810. Any other statement is pure BS. nospam: the only thing that's bs is what you said. how much information a sensor captures is a function of more than just its size. android: everything else equal and the size matter. as described in the above. ---Snipped by Sandman: "the physics are the same regardles of the size of the sensor you know... --- Sandman: Well, when it comes to cameras, everything else isn't always equal :-D Ah, my bad. Apologies to Android -- Sandman |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
There could still be hope! 4 a D7200!!!
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:59:15 +0100 (CET), android
wrote: David Taylor Wrote in message: On 25/02/2015 18:29, android wrote: Bowser Wrote in message: [] Well, I'm keeping the GH3 and my m4/3 kit. Still does a great job and can't be beat as a travel cam. Love those light 2.8 zooms. But I have a few things coming up over the next two years that really call for higher IQ. The sensor in mft is really tiny. Quarterframe... So what, /if/ that sensor can deliver the desired image quality? As Bowser suggests, if you need more get a bigger sensor. For all my needs, today's micro-four-thirds sensors and lenses are quite adequate, and remarkable considering the size and weight benefits. Example: I just bought the Olympus fish-eye lens - weighs 50g and is about the size of a lens cap! Less than GBP 100 as well. A quarterframe sensor can only deliver half of the information of a half frame one, like in the EOS M or a quarter of a fullframe one, like in a D810. Any other statement is pure BS. Utter nonsense. All you need to do is look at the results. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
There could still be hope! 4 a D7200!!!
On 2/25/2015 2:36 PM, David Taylor wrote:
On 25/02/2015 18:29, android wrote: Bowser Wrote in message: [] Well, I'm keeping the GH3 and my m4/3 kit. Still does a great job and can't be beat as a travel cam. Love those light 2.8 zooms. But I have a few things coming up over the next two years that really call for higher IQ. The sensor in mft is really tiny. Quarterframe... So what, /if/ that sensor can deliver the desired image quality? As Bowser suggests, if you need more get a bigger sensor. For all my needs, today's micro-four-thirds sensors and lenses are quite adequate, and remarkable considering the size and weight benefits. Example: I just bought the Olympus fish-eye lens - weighs 50g and is about the size of a lens cap! Less than GBP 100 as well. I suspect that for most of us here photography is an enjoyable hobby. As such we mostly stick to our fiscal and physical limits. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hope for The Gimp? | Unclaimed Mysteries[_2_] | Digital Photography | 2 | September 22nd 07 03:05 AM |
A ray of hope? | Art Reitsch | Large Format Photography Equipment | 25 | November 20th 06 11:14 PM |
Why we should all hope the D2X is great | McLeod | Digital SLR Cameras | 18 | February 25th 05 10:57 PM |
FS: Hope 30" RA4 Processor | C | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 4th 03 02:21 AM |
FS: Hope 30" RA4 processor | Charles | Darkroom Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 16th 03 04:15 AM |