A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 25th 18, 01:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 2018-04-25 11:58:07 +0000, Neil said:

On 4/25/2018 5:11 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 16:29:27 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/24/2018 9:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 13:37:53 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/24/2018 5:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 21:16:32 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/23/2018 9:09 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 13:28:07 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
wrote:

If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much
rather carry my Olympus TG-4.

while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore
much higher noise.

"Much" higher noise?

yes.

I seriously doubt it.

then you don't understand physics.

S/N has more parameters than
just pixel size.

so what?

the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more
light. basic physics.

It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less
random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects.

I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as
unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry.

Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor
of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise
than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I
doubt it.

You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or
lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which
defines noise NOT size.
what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ?

A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a
differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited
sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by
the design, components and construction of electronic equipment.

The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from
the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents
the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution.

you'd probably be wrong, otherwise they'd be sending small sensors into
space, they aren't, they use big sensors the bigger the better in most
cases.

So, you are another thinking that the differences in noise between the
8x10's and a smaller sensor would affect print quality!

Yes it would depending on what's expected, One reason for using a large
sensor as with film was so that you didn't need to enlarge the image as
much so you'd get less grain, noise as such didn't really exist back in
film days other than being part of the grain.
Noise is sensors is quite differnt.

I disagree that it is "quite different". In electronics, noise is an
variation in the output from a source signal.

No it is NOT.
Noise is defined as unwanted signal.
Lik students talking at the back of the class.

That is correct for one usage of the term. However, you must be aware
that there are others that are just as valid because they're analogous
but not measured in the same way?


Then how are they analogous.

For example, when one refers to the
S/N of audio speakers, it is a figure assigned that does not take into
consideration any particular environment, so "noise" is therefore not an
external factor as it is in your example. Let's move on.


You're talking crap, we used to test loudspeakers here, we had one of
the few anachoic chambers in the country. Noise is NOT a feature of
speakers. They DO NOT have a S/N ratio.

Oh, you think I made up that usage? I did not, and I don't particularly
agree with it, either. Usage is about communication, and that usage
communicates with many folks even though it doesn't remotely represent
your limited definition of noise being an external factor. Put your
hands over your ears and yell "blah blah" all you want. No one cares.


He's livin SO might, and end up to be his ex livin SO! :-))

In film, grain is just one
of the factors that can cause the resulting image (e.g. the "output") to
vary from the subject (e.g. the "source signal").

sort of right but what is your source signal ?

The subject being photographed.


SO what 'noise' comes from this source. See you even have this wrong
NOISE does not come from the subject, well unless they are students of
course, then it's almost pure noise.


Why did you ask
"what do you mean by sufficiently more noise"?

because I"ve no idea what you mean can you explain ?

Simplest way to put it is that the noise of the smaller sensor would
cause a larger misrepresentation of the subject than the much lower
resolution of the 8x10 camera. Since you claimed that it would, the
reason for asking the question is puzzling.

because sufficiently means very little and isn't very accurate or scientific.
We can travel sufficiently close to the speed of sound anyhting esle as
virtually meaningless.

In this context, "sufficiently" means "...enough to be the primary
reason for a poorer representation of the subject".


So pretty meaningless then as I suspected.

Which camera better represents the subject would be quite obvious when
looking at two prints of the same size.

which is why they use them in space. Resolution and image
flaws (as well as color and other parameters) are handled in
post-processing for every final image I've seen in that usage; the "raw"
images are not that impressive.

The raw gives you the ability to adjust images more accuratley and
better repeatability than a JOOC image could be.

JOOC is irrelevant if both cameras under discussion shoot raw.

No it isn't if you're using JOOC.

Keep setting up your straw men, I'll keep shooting them.


The TG-4
does, but I don't know what the 8x10 does other than shoot monochrome
only, which pretty much guarantees a worse representation of anything
other than still subjects.

Not if yuo need the tilt and shift functions which is what this camera
is for yuor TG-4 CAN NOT do that.
I don't see any bellows on that camera,


Then go to specsavers, or another opticians.

and it would be just as easy to
attach one to the TG-4,


yeah sure it would.

Why do you believe that your personal limitations apply to everyone? If
I wanted to attach a bellows to the TG-4 for some odd reason, the task
would take less than an afternoon. I'd take one of my TG-4 lenses to
the closest MakerSpace ( 10 minute drive), do a 3D scan of the lens
mount, send the file to the CNC machine and attach the new mount to one
of my bellows. No big deal at all.

if that mattered, because it does have
interchangeable lenses and standard thread mounts. So, it doesn't and
we're back to basics:


a pin hole camera is back to basics

which represents most subjects better,


The 10X8 camera isn't for most subjects any more than the space shuttle
was meant as public transport to the ISS.

I see no particular value to that camera. At 12mp it can do nothing
that can't be done better with dozens of cameras at a fraction of its
cost. Dance all you want, set up as many straw men as you want, and
refuse to give the obvious answer to the original question. No one
cares.

higher
resolution *in color* or lower S/N in monochrome?



--
teleportation kills

  #32  
Old April 25th 18, 06:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/25/2018 8:29 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

Which camera better represents the subject would be quite obvious when
looking at two prints of the same size.


That would depend on the subject.

OK, presuming anything other than shooting a still, gray object in
darkness...

The TG-4
does, but I don't know what the 8x10 does other than shoot monochrome
only, which pretty much guarantees a worse representation of anything
other than still subjects.

Not if yuo need the tilt and shift functions which is what this camera is for yuor TG-4 CAN NOT do that.
I don't see any bellows on that camera,

Then go to specsavers, or another opticians.

and it would be just as easy to
attach one to the TG-4,

yeah sure it would.

Why do you believe that your personal limitations apply to everyone?


you're the one setting personal limitations.

Such as?

If
I wanted to attach a bellows to the TG-4 for some odd reason, the task
would take less than an afternoon.


yeah sure it would.
Where is this bellows unit for your camera ?

There is nothing special about a bellows other than the mounts. I could
adapt any of the bellows that I have by changing the mounts in the way I
already described (and you snipped).


I'd take one of my TG-4 lenses to the
closest MakerSpace ( 10 minute drive),


which TG4 lens ?

Why would it matter if I'm only interested in recreating the MOUNT? Read
below.

do a 3D scan of the lens mount,
send the file to the CNC machine and attach the new mount to one of my
bellows. No big deal at all.


--
best regards,

Neil
  #33  
Old April 26th 18, 12:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/26/2018 5:01 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 18:45:31 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/25/2018 8:29 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

Which camera better represents the subject would be quite obvious when
looking at two prints of the same size.

That would depend on the subject.

OK, presuming anything other than shooting a still, gray object in
darkness...


and what use the image is to be used for.
We used to a photographic setup here with an 'enlarger' in reverse, it than enlarged the image it only ever reduced it in size. we also had a 20k per sec frame cine camera, we had oscilascope cameras based around the poloroid land camera 110B, sometimes people build cameras and other devices with specific uses which is also why there are more cameras avaiable than just the TG-4.
Just because you don't see a use for another other camera then perhaps that's the real problem.

The "real problem" is that you never comprehended my point. The TG-4 is
my *least capable* camera, yet it will outperform that $100k device in
just about every photographic task up to the 8x10's maximum practical
print size. The presentation of that unit as an "8x10" camera has
implications that it can't live up to, and it's those who refuse to see
that who are the ones with a problem.

The TG-4
does, but I don't know what the 8x10 does other than shoot monochrome
only, which pretty much guarantees a worse representation of anything
other than still subjects.

Not if yuo need the tilt and shift functions which is what this camera is for yuor TG-4 CAN NOT do that.
I don't see any bellows on that camera,

Then go to specsavers, or another opticians.

and it would be just as easy to
attach one to the TG-4,

yeah sure it would.

Why do you believe that your personal limitations apply to everyone?

you're the one setting personal limitations.

Such as?


comparing it to yuor prized TG-4, which is irrelivant to those that might be in the market for a 10X8 camera.

How is that a "personal limitation"? The limitations of that device are
not personal, either. Those in the market for an 8x10 camera would be
better served by a clue regarding image resolution and color capability.


If
I wanted to attach a bellows to the TG-4 for some odd reason, the task
would take less than an afternoon.

yeah sure it would.
Where is this bellows unit for your camera ?

There is nothing special about a bellows other than the mounts. I could
adapt any of the bellows that I have by changing the mounts in the way I
already described (and you snipped).


Is your TG-4 an interchangable lens camera ?

Could you not comprehend that from my earlier posts?

Do you know where bellows fit ?

I know where they fit on my 35mm, MF, and 4x5 cameras, as well as on the
24"x24" process camera I used to work with. So, what is your point?

Have you ever used bellows in photography ?, I have.

It *really* doesn't sound like you have.

What lens would you choose to go with this bellows setup ?

I have many to choose from, including Olympus, Leica, Zeiss, and
Schneider. Why do you ask?

I'd take one of my TG-4 lenses to the
closest MakerSpace ( 10 minute drive),

which TG4 lens ?

Why would it matter if I'm only interested in recreating the MOUNT? Read
below.


Because yuo need more than just the mount in order to take photos, what mount is your TG-4 ?

One DOESN'T need more than the mount to attach a bellows to a camera
with interchangeable lenses. I already described in detail how I could
make a compatible mount in a short time frame. Not that I would bother
to do so, but it is not a big deal.

Keep sending your straw men, I'll keep shooting them down. ;-P

--
best regards,

Neil
  #34  
Old April 26th 18, 08:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/26/2018 8:37 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 12:17:03 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/26/2018 5:01 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 18:45:31 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/25/2018 8:29 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

Which camera better represents the subject would be quite obvious when
looking at two prints of the same size.

That would depend on the subject.

OK, presuming anything other than shooting a still, gray object in
darkness...

and what use the image is to be used for.
We used to a photographic setup here with an 'enlarger' in reverse, it than enlarged the image it only ever reduced it in size. we also had a 20k per sec frame cine camera, we had oscilascope cameras based around the poloroid land camera 110B, sometimes people build cameras and other devices with specific uses which is also why there are more cameras avaiable than just the TG-4.
Just because you don't see a use for another other camera then perhaps that's the real problem.

The "real problem" is that you never comprehended my point.


That's because you haven't got one that can be comprehended.

Clearly not by you, but that's just another example of your thinking
that your personal limitations are generalizable to everyone else.

The TG-4 is
my *least capable* camera, yet it will outperform that $100k device in
just about every photographic task up to the 8x10's maximum practical
print size.


As long as you believe that fine, but unless you can prove the point I'm betting those that see a need for a 10x8 camera will buy it.

I would agree with you if you limited your statement to "those that see
a need for that particular implementation of an 8x10 camera". Those who
generally need an 8x10 camera will also need more than that is capable
of doing.


The presentation of that unit as an "8x10" camera has
implications that it can't live up to, and it's those who refuse to see
that who are the ones with a problem.


There's a world of differnce between what you percieve as wanted and what someone else might want.

That's just another of your personal limitations. I'm not the one who
would walk into a camera store and wonder what people might want.

Those in the market for an 8x10 camera would be
better served by a clue regarding image resolution and color capability.


Maybe they are more clued up than you or prhaps they donlt need or want colour.
Don't forget colour is an illusion anyway there really is NO such thing as colour. The illusion depends on your reciever and also the speed it travels at.

Yet another straw man. If color was unimportant, most cameras would be
limited to monochrome. That doesn't describe the real world of photography.

Not everyboady needs colour in order to understand what an image means or displays.

No one other than you suggested otherwise.

Strangley those working at the local post office, that do instant passports don;t have a TG-4 they have a poloriod with 4 lenes and if I want a passport photo immediatly then I'd go to them not you with a TG-4, certain camera have specific uses and it's best to leave those cameras with those that have those uses and know how to use them.

Yet another straw man. No one claimed that a TG-4 is the answer to all
photographic tasks. I don't even know why you're bothering to go in that
direction.

If
I wanted to attach a bellows to the TG-4 for some odd reason, the task
would take less than an afternoon.

yeah sure it would.
Where is this bellows unit for your camera ?

There is nothing special about a bellows other than the mounts. I could
adapt any of the bellows that I have by changing the mounts in the way I
already described (and you snipped).

Is your TG-4 an interchangable lens camera ?

Could you not comprehend that from my earlier posts?


No, can you not answer a simple Q. It doesn't appear that you can.

When a question has already been answered, it's the person continuing to
ask the same question (you, in this case) with the problem.

Do you know where bellows fit ?

I know where they fit on my 35mm, MF, and 4x5 cameras, as well as on the
24"x24" process camera I used to work with. So, what is your point?


Then why did you buy the TG-4 as it is yuor Quote :-
"The TG-4 is my *least capable* camera, yet"


Why buy it ?

can you fit them bellows to your TG-4 yes or No.

I already described the process in detail. What part of it did you not
understand?

you claim you can fit it to yuor 35mm camera and the 4x5.

Just to be clear, the 35mm/DSLR and MF bellows are not the same as for
the 4x5 or any other view camera (to shoot that straw man before it
shows its face).

So why did you buy the TG-4 if you can't fit yuor bellows to it.

I told you how I could adapt a bellows to the TG-4; I never said I
thought it necessary to do so. The details of the process were in
response to YOUR question about tilt and shift capability: all it
requires is a bellows and lens mounts.

Have you ever used bellows in photography ?, I have.

It *really* doesn't sound like you have.


I remember using bellows for this short, I had them it mounted on a rifle grip with two small flashguns mirage 600 and a sunpak 134 IIRC . Think I had the 80-210mm tamron lens on at the time, as I didn;t want to get too close to a wasp.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...n/photostream/


whereas my LED watch I used extention tubes with a tripod, the watch was balanced on my bed.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...n/photostream/


Where as my transitor photo was through a microscope, I didn't have a proper adapter so I used tape and a cardboard tube.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/26588444057/


It's nice to see that you've "hacked" some solutions, too, but it's
puzzling that you think you're the only one capable of such things.

What lens would you choose to go with this bellows setup ?

I have many to choose from, including Olympus, Leica, Zeiss, and
Schneider. Why do you ask?


Because you claim that you can get a baynet mount 3D printed that's why.

I didn't say anything about 3D printing (it's that comprehension thing
biting your behind again). I said that I would 3D SCAN the bayonet mount
and make one in a CNC machine. Surely, you don't think that's impossible
or even difficult?

Are you using 42mm lenes or 39mm threaded ?

Neither. The TG-4 "converter lenses" use 40.5mm threads to attach to the
adapter that mounts to the camera via BAYONET mount. So, why would the
thread mount on those lenses matter if one was going to attach the
bellows TO THE BAYONET MOUNT ON THE CAMERA?

I'd take one of my TG-4 lenses to the
closest MakerSpace ( 10 minute drive),

which TG4 lens ?

Why would it matter if I'm only interested in recreating the MOUNT? Read
below.

Because yuo need more than just the mount in order to take photos, what mount is your TG-4 ?

One DOESN'T need more than the mount to attach a bellows to a camera
with interchangeable lenses.


Does your TG-4 actually take interchgangable lenese I don;t see any for sale.
Why is that ?

I generalized about "cameras with interchangeable lenses" because they
can have a bellows attached. But in a sense, so does the TG-4; they're
"converter lenses", but they can be interchanged to provide different
optical capabilities.

I already described in detail how I could
make a compatible mount in a short time frame. Not that I would bother
to do so, but it is not a big deal.


you couldnl;t your TG-4 lens is NOT interchanagble.

Bellows attached to the camera's bayonet mount would function similarly
and have the same optical issues as the "converter lenses" since none of
them replace the built-in lens that functions as additional lens
elements when used in those configurations. For one who has "hacked"
other solutions you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty
grasping this concept:

1) the TG-4 has a bayonet mount
2) the mount on the adapter can be 3D scanned
3) a new adapter can be machined from the 3D file
4) the new adapter can be attached to a bellows
5) the bellows can then be attached to the TG-4 and used with existing
lenses.

6) Not that I think it's necessary or a good use of my time and resources.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #35  
Old April 27th 18, 01:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/27/2018 5:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 20:32:25 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/26/2018 8:37 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 12:17:03 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/26/2018 5:01 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 18:45:31 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/25/2018 8:29 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

Which camera better represents the subject would be quite obvious when
looking at two prints of the same size.

That would depend on the subject.

OK, presuming anything other than shooting a still, gray object in
darkness...

and what use the image is to be used for.
We used to a photographic setup here with an 'enlarger' in reverse, it than enlarged the image it only ever reduced it in size. we also had a 20k per sec frame cine camera, we had oscilascope cameras based around the poloroid land camera 110B, sometimes people build cameras and other devices with specific uses which is also why there are more cameras avaiable than just the TG-4.
Just because you don't see a use for another other camera then perhaps that's the real problem.

The "real problem" is that you never comprehended my point.

That's because you haven't got one that can be comprehended.

Clearly not by you, but that's just another example of your thinking
that your personal limitations are generalizable to everyone else.


No that is yuo yuor the one claiming yuor TG-4 is the final word in what cameras should be brought, you seem to think that anyone buying that camera or using that camera should be able to use a TG-4 and get the same results.

I said no such thing, and stated the opposite more than once. The
question I asked has been the same from the start: it's resolution vs.
sensor cell noise. If your nose wasn't so high in the air about the
TG-4, perhaps you'd be able to grasp my point.


All I've said is I wouldn't be in the market for that camera and I can see a limited use for a 10X8 sensor, but yuo seem to think yuor TG-4 is better for every type of photography than any other camera.
What part of "my LEAST capable camera" is stumping you (see below)?


The TG-4 is
my *least capable* camera, yet it will outperform that $100k device in
just about every photographic task up to the 8x10's maximum practical
print size.

As long as you believe that fine, but unless you can prove the point I'm betting those that see a need for a 10x8 camera will buy it.

I would agree with you if you limited your statement to "those that see
a need for that particular implementation of an 8x10 camera". Those who
generally need an 8x10 camera will also need more than that is capable
of doing.


and I bet yuor TG-4 won't satisfy that need, even if you think it might.

Not hardly. What part of "...there are dozens of cameras at a fraction
of the cost of that 8x10 that will outperform it..." is stumping you?


The presentation of that unit as an "8x10" camera has
implications that it can't live up to, and it's those who refuse to see
that who are the ones with a problem.

There's a world of differnce between what you percieve as wanted and what someone else might want.

That's just another of your personal limitations.


It's yuor limitation not mine.

I'm not the one who
would walk into a camera store and wonder what people might want.


That makes as little sense as expected.

Of course it doesn't to one with your limited ability to comprehend
simple sentences.

Those in the market for an 8x10 camera would be
better served by a clue regarding image resolution and color capability.

Maybe they are more clued up than you or prhaps they donlt need or want colour.
Don't forget colour is an illusion anyway there really is NO such thing as colour. The illusion depends on your reciever and also the speed it travels at.

Yet another straw man.


No it isn't, it's a scientific fact. Animals that rely on hunting skills and speed of reaction mostly use monochrome imagary.

If color was unimportant,


unimportant to who ?

most cameras would be
limited to monochrome. That doesn't describe the real world of photography.


Not everyone is interested in the 'real world of photography'.

So what is your point... that some people prefer a bulky, low-resolution
monochrome contrivance? There are those on the Leica list that shoot
with their monochrome M cameras; 18mp and under $8k. So, that straw man
of yours is also DOA.

Strangley those working at the local post office, that do instant passports don;t have a TG-4 they have a poloriod with 4 lenes and if I want a passport photo immediatly then I'd go to them not you with a TG-4, certain camera have specific uses and it's best to leave those cameras with those that have those uses and know how to use them.

Yet another straw man. No one claimed that a TG-4 is the answer to all
photographic tasks. I don't even know why you're bothering to go in that
direction.


why do you compare your TG-4 with the 10x8 camera then ?

As I stated a number of times, now, it's because I'm sure I'd get better
photographic results in almost every situation other than shooting
still, gray objects in the dark.


If
I wanted to attach a bellows to the TG-4 for some odd reason, the task
would take less than an afternoon.

yeah sure it would.
Where is this bellows unit for your camera ?

There is nothing special about a bellows other than the mounts. I could
adapt any of the bellows that I have by changing the mounts in the way I
already described (and you snipped).

Is your TG-4 an interchangable lens camera ?

Could you not comprehend that from my earlier posts?

No, can you not answer a simple Q. It doesn't appear that you can.

When a question has already been answered, it's the person continuing to
ask the same question (you, in this case) with the problem.


It';s not been answered because you didnlt eben know your TG-4 had a non interchanagbe lens.

Non interchangeable? What are the wide-angle and telephoto TG-4 lenses
that I have, since they aren't permanently fixed to the camera? You just
don't comprehend how they work, and think that your limited notion of
"interchangeable" applies to all situations, which it clearly does not.
It's that communications thing biting your rear end again.

Do you know where bellows fit ?

I know where they fit on my 35mm, MF, and 4x5 cameras, as well as on the
24"x24" process camera I used to work with. So, what is your point?

Then why did you buy the TG-4 as it is yuor Quote :-
"The TG-4 is my *least capable* camera, yet"

Why buy it ?

can you fit them bellows to your TG-4 yes or No.

I already described the process in detail. What part of it did you not
understand?


the bit(s) where yuor lying.






I told you how I could adapt a bellows to the TG-4; I never said I
thought it necessary to do so. The details of the process were in
response to YOUR question about tilt and shift capability: all it
requires is a bellows and lens mounts.


which CAN NOT be fitted to the TG-4.


Have you ever used bellows in photography ?, I have.

It *really* doesn't sound like you have.

I remember using bellows for this short, I had them it mounted on a rifle grip with two small flashguns mirage 600 and a sunpak 134 IIRC . Think I had the 80-210mm tamron lens on at the time, as I didn;t want to get too close to a wasp.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...n/photostream/


whereas my LED watch I used extention tubes with a tripod, the watch was balanced on my bed.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...n/photostream/


Where as my transitor photo was through a microscope, I didn't have a proper adapter so I used tape and a cardboard tube.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/26588444057/


It's nice to see that you've "hacked" some solutions, too, but it's
puzzling that you think you're the only one capable of such things.


I've NOT hacked anything, it's not difficult puttign something between the lens and teh sensor of a camera that has interchangable lenses.
But you can;t do that with yuor TG-4 maybe that is why it is your *least capable* camera why do you call it that ?



What lens would you choose to go with this bellows setup ?

I have many to choose from, including Olympus, Leica, Zeiss, and
Schneider. Why do you ask?

Because you claim that you can get a baynet mount 3D printed that's why.

I didn't say anything about 3D printing (it's that comprehension thing
biting your behind again). I said that I would 3D SCAN the bayonet mount
and make one in a CNC machine. Surely, you don't think that's impossible
or even difficult?


I don't think you could do that for your TG-4 so what mount is your TG-4 ?

The TG-4 has a bayonet mount. I've told you that numerous times. Is it
that you think 3D scans and CAD files can't be sent to a CNC machine?
They can, and are every day. Is it that you think the resulting bayonet
mount wouldn't fit on the TG-4? That's idiotic. So, what *is* your issue
with using the bayonet mount to mount a bellows to the camera?


Are you using 42mm lenes or 39mm threaded ?

Neither. The TG-4 "converter lenses" use 40.5mm threads to attach to the
adapter that mounts to the camera via BAYONET mount. So, why would the
thread mount on those lenses matter if one was going to attach the
bellows TO THE BAYONET MOUNT ON THE CAMERA?


bellows units need to be placed between the rear element of the lens and before the sensor.

If you were right about that, then none of the lenses for the TG-4 would
work, but as they do, you are once again proven wrong. The fixed lens
simply becomes additional lens elements that project the light rays from
the adapter lenses on the sensor. So, the only requirement is that the
fixed lens can also focus on the light rays from the lens mounted on the
bellows, and I don't see that as much of a problem considering the focal
range of the fixed lens.


Does your TG-4 actually take interchgangable lenese I don;t see any for sale.
Why is that ?

I generalized about "cameras with interchangeable lenses" because they
can have a bellows attached.


Yes cameras with interchangable lenes can have bellows attached well done.


But in a sense, so does the TG-4;


No it doesn't.


they're
"converter lenses", but they can be interchanged to provide different
optical capabilities.


but NOT bellows.

You keep making that claim, with absolutely no basis for its veracity.
You claim to be so "scientific", yet fail to comprehend that we're
really talking about what happens to light rays in that configuration
without giving one reason why focus would be impossible. THE OPTICAL
ISSUES ARE THE SAME IN BOTH CASES.

I already described in detail how I could
make a compatible mount in a short time frame. Not that I would bother
to do so, but it is not a big deal.

you couldnl;t your TG-4 lens is NOT interchanagble.

Bellows attached to the camera's bayonet mount would function similarly
and have the same optical issues as the "converter lenses"


you're talking **** yet again.

since none of
them replace the built-in lens that functions as additional lens
elements when used in those configurations. For one who has "hacked"
other solutions you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty
grasping this concept:

1) the TG-4 has a bayonet mount


prove it.

Take a look at how the REQUIRED adapter attaches to the camera.

http://www.olympusimage.com.sg/product/compact/accessory/conversion_lens/clat01.html

2) the mount on the adapter can be 3D scanned


what adapter what mount .

See above. Are you really that dense?

3) a new adapter can be machined from the 3D file
4) the new adapter can be attached to a bellows
5) the bellows can then be attached to the TG-4 and used with existing
lenses.

6) Not that I think it's necessary or a good use of my time and resources.


--
best regards,

Neil
  #36  
Old April 27th 18, 06:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

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:
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 20:32:25 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/26/2018 8:37 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 12:17:03 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/26/2018 5:01 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 18:45:31 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/25/2018 8:29 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

Which camera better represents the subject would be quite obvious when
looking at two prints of the same size.

That would depend on the subject.

OK, presuming anything other than shooting a still, gray object in
darkness...

and what use the image is to be used for.
We used to a photographic setup here with an 'enlarger' in reverse, it than enlarged the image it only ever reduced it in size. we also had a 20k per sec frame cine camera, we had oscilascope cameras based around the poloroid land camera 110B, sometimes people build cameras and other devices with specific uses which is also why there are more cameras avaiable than just the TG-4.
Just because you don't see a use for another other camera then perhaps that's the real problem.

The "real problem" is that you never comprehended my point.

That's because you haven't got one that can be comprehended.

Clearly not by you, but that's just another example of your thinking
that your personal limitations are generalizable to everyone else.

No that is yuo yuor the one claiming yuor TG-4 is the final word in what cameras should be brought, you seem to think that anyone buying that camera or using that camera should be able to use a TG-4 and get the same results.

I said no such thing, and stated the opposite more than once. The
question I asked has been the same from the start: it's resolution vs.
sensor cell noise.


So why go on about bellows ?

You are the one that brought up shift and tilt, remember? Bellows are
one typical way to achieve that capability.

If your nose wasn't so high in the air about the
TG-4, perhaps you'd be able to grasp my point.


No idea what you mean by that, just becuse I don't see the TG-4 as the best option for everyone.

Nor do I.

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.

All I've said is I wouldn't be in the market for that camera and I can see a limited use for a 10X8 sensor, but yuo seem to think yuor TG-4 is better for every type of photography than any other camera.


Show me where I made such a statement. You are lying, but I don't know
why you feel the need to do so.

Not hardly. What part of "...there are dozens of cameras at a fraction
of the cost of that 8x10 that will outperform it..." is stumping you?


Nothing as my M3 can outperfom the hubble in taking pictures of my cat that deson;t mean I think the hubble is ****. It;s just that I know what to buy for what sort of images I want to take.
In the early days of electronics when I produced PCBs I used a camera like the 10x8 , I made up circuits using circuit tape and we used to design them 4 times life size, so that 1/10th of an inch came out as 4/10 so when reduced an anomaly was lost such as dust or dirt at that scale, and they still use a similar system today in that to make marskes for making semicondictors the layout is designed much larger than the original them shrunk down to the size of a silicon chip where light is shown through it for etching purposes.



most cameras would be
limited to monochrome. That doesn't describe the real world of photography.

Not everyone is interested in the 'real world of photography'.

So what is your point... that some people prefer a bulky, low-resolution
monochrome contrivance?


Yes for particualr uses.

I'm still waiting for you to give ONE particular use of THIS PARTICULAR
CAMERA that makes it worth the money.

There are those on the Leica list that shoot
with their monochrome M cameras; 18mp and under $8k. So, that straw man
of yours is also DOA.


your the one putting up straw men.
No your claiming that Leica are wrong in producing their monochrome M cameras.
WTF has it got to do with you.

You are lying again, as I've said nothing about Leica being wrong in
producing their mononchrome M cameras. The OBVIOUS reason that I brought
it up is as another example of a higher resolution camera at much lower
cost that will outperform the low-resolution 8x10. That is ALL that is
stated in my sentence, above.


why do you compare your TG-4 with the 10x8 camera then ?

As I stated a number of times, now, it's because I'm sure I'd get better
photographic results in almost every situation other than shooting
still, gray objects in the dark.


Well there you go then.
But you do know it will take colour photos.

Only if they're still objects and nothing in the lighting conditions
change in the period of time it takes to change filters.

I was never interested in colours when I was using our 10x8 setup.

That's OK, too. If you were shooting film with your 8x10, there is
certainly no comparison in image quality to this particular 8x10. Why
did you bring it up?


It';s not been answered because you didnlt eben know your TG-4 had a non interchanagbe lens.

Non interchangeable? What are the wide-angle and telephoto TG-4 lenses
that I have,


what are these lenses then comeon what are they ?
List them.

Read, above. Or, take a look on the Olympus website for more
information. Of course, you snipped the address I provided once you
discovered that you don't have any real knowledge of the camera.

since they aren't permanently fixed to the camera?


they are converters .

That's a distinction without a difference and just another example of
your narrow-minded notions regarding semantics. Even a single optic
element is a LENS, not anything else.

You just
don't comprehend how they work,


I do Ive had convertors in the past and have w W/A one at work for a camera we have, it is NOT a lens in it;s own right it has NO diaphram.

My eyeglasses don't have a diaphragm, either, but they do have lenses.

and think that your limited notion of
"interchangeable" applies to all situations,


yes it does because that IS the definition.

BS.

which it clearly does not.
It's that communications thing biting your rear end again.


Your wrong and you havent; the brains to understand.
A teleconveror on the front of yuor lens does NOT make it an interchangable lens camera.

Your claim is nonsense.

The TG-4 has a bayonet mount.


where is this mount.

Where else would it be, other than on the front of the camera body?
Where do you think the adapter that I linked you to attaches?

I've told you that numerous times. Is it
that you think 3D scans and CAD files can't be sent to a CNC machine?


yes we have a few here and we have people that know how to use them.

As do I, and have done so many times.

They can, and are every day. Is it that you think the resulting bayonet
mount wouldn't fit on the TG-4? That's idiotic.


Any idiot can mount a lens on anaything they want.
I can where a popes hat put ti doesnlt make me a pope.

You do realize that you didn't answer the question, right?

So, what *is* your issue
with using the bayonet mount to mount a bellows to the camera?


Just the fact that it wouldn't work, mainly becausen of the relative positions of the lens sensor and bellows.

More of your unsubstantiated nonsense. It is the bellows that produces
the shift and tilt corrections, and the front lens captures the image. I
have no problem focusing on the scene viewed through my Schneider 40mm
Super Angulon MF lens when holding it in front of the TG-4. The sensor
plane doesn't prevent obtaining that result.

Are you using 42mm lenes or 39mm threaded ?

Neither. The TG-4 "converter lenses" use 40.5mm threads to attach to the
adapter that mounts to the camera via BAYONET mount. So, why would the
thread mount on those lenses matter if one was going to attach the
bellows TO THE BAYONET MOUNT ON THE CAMERA?

bellows units need to be placed between the rear element of the lens and before the sensor.

If you were right about that,


which I am.

No, you are not, and it should be obvious to all as to why that is.

I see you've stopped lying about the TG-4 not having a bayonet mount.
Hopefully, you'll stop lying about how bellows work, too.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #37  
Old April 30th 18, 01:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

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.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #38  
Old April 30th 18, 02:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

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".

--
best regards,

Neil
  #39  
Old April 30th 18, 06:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

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, 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.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #40  
Old May 1st 18, 02:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trying to print a camera shot bigger than A4 edigi Digital Photography 2 May 13th 07 09:35 AM
Printing longer than 44 inches shockey Digital Photography 0 February 10th 05 03:12 AM
MegaPixels and Inches Explained PR General Photography Techniques 0 February 12th 04 07:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.