On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:11:42 -0800, Fr...@Zappa.com wrote: >I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>You know you want to.
>If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses. >If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>Are you in?
"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." - Groucho Marx
Now, if perchance you decided to start a club that included people who found photographic subjects and compositions that are so astounding and awe inspiring, no matter the resolution, count me in.
Hardware worshippers are nothing but idiot crapshot artists and internet trolls. Consider yourself part of their club.
In rec.photo.digital Fr...@zappa.com wrote: > I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in? > You know you want to. > If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses. > If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses. > Are you in?
I'm not clear what you want to achieve. I thought that for any given exchangeable lens camera it was possible to get a lens with at least slightly higher resolution than its sensor -- if you were prepared to pay for it.
But it sounds as though you want to stop them making soft lenses altogether. If you can buy the sharp lenses you want, why would you want to stop them making the much cheapr and not so sharp lenses that most people are happy with?
>I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
> You know you want to.
> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses. > If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
> Are you in?
there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them with is "cheap" lenses If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-) -- [This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:00:58 +1100, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote: ><Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote in message >news:mhs9f5ht04j7arv57rnnsnm4rr0r6msmva@4ax.com... >>I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>> You know you want to.
>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses. >> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>> Are you in?
>there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them >with is "cheap" lenses >If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma) That thing was soft as shite.
>>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses. >>> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>>> Are you in?
>>there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them >>with is "cheap" lenses >>If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
>I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma) >That thing was soft as shite.
Yet the review samples of that Smegma lens that were supplied to the photo magazines were all sharp ... just like all the Smegma lens review samples. No wonder the reviewers are so keen to keep them - they could never find one as good in a camera store.
>>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper >>> lenses. >>> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>>> Are you in?
>>there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing >>them >>with is "cheap" lenses >>If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
> I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma) > That thing was soft as shite.
It was a Sigma, what do you expect :-) Having said that I do believe that they do occasionally make a sharp lens, but its a lottery if you get one, and the odds are about the same :-) <insert rant by satisfied Sigma customer here in three...............two..................one...............>
-- [This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi
>>>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses. >>>> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>>>> Are you in?
>>> there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them >>> with is "cheap" lenses >>> If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
>> I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma) >> That thing was soft as shite.
> It was a Sigma, what do you expect :-) > Having said that I do believe that they do occasionally make a sharp > lens, but its a lottery if you get one, and the odds are about the same > :-) > <insert rant by satisfied Sigma customer here in > three...............two..................one...............>
Apparently the satisfied Sigma customer is currently reading another newsgroup. -- Michael
Fr...@Zappa.com <Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote: > I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in? > You know you want to.
Nope --- I buy my lenses well informed.
> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses. > If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast, bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective (i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses, but you'll have sharp lenses.
That's why I don't subscribe to such an aim.
As for cults, that's something for vulnerable sheep and ego-tripping, often abusive leaders --- maybe just right for you, but not for most people.
>> I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>> You know you want to.
>Nope --- I buy my lenses well informed.
>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses. >> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast, >bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems >one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective >(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses, >but you'll have sharp lenses.
>That's why I don't subscribe to such an aim.
>As for cults, that's something for vulnerable sheep and >ego-tripping, often abusive leaders --- maybe just right for >you, but not for most people.
>F'up, >-Wolfgang
What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
On reconsideration, I take that back. There is only one situation in which you can use any D/SLR lens' full resolving power. If you mount the camera on a sturdy tripod in a pitch-black room, lock up the mirror, use a slow shutter-speed (about 30 seconds to wait for all vibrations to dampen down), triggered on hand-free time-delay or with a cable-release. Fire a flash mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash. Trigger the flash pulse 30 seconds after the first curtain opens, while both curtains of the shutter are still open, to create the exposure. Using a 2nd curtain flash-sync setting if you have one. Only then can you detect or use a lens' true resolving power with your D/SLR camera.
A unique shooting situation but the only one way where you can accomplish this task.
(Wondering when they're ever going to get smart enough to figure this stuff out.)
>> I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>> You know you want to.
>Nope --- I buy my lenses well informed.
>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses. >> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast, >bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems >one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective >(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses, >but you'll have sharp lenses.
>That's why I don't subscribe to such an aim.
>As for cults, that's something for vulnerable sheep and >ego-tripping, often abusive leaders --- maybe just right for >you, but not for most people.
>F'up, >-Wolfgang
What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
On reconsideration, I take that back. There is only one situation in which you can use any D/SLR lens' full resolving power. If you mount the camera on a sturdy tripod in a pitch-black room, lock up the mirror, use a slow shutter-speed (about 30 seconds to wait for all vibrations to dampen down), triggered on hand-free time-delay or with a cable-release. Fire a flash mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash. Trigger the flash pulse 30 seconds after the first curtain opens, while both curtains of the shutter are still open, to create the exposure. Using a 2nd curtain flash-sync setting if you have one. Only then can you detect or use a lens' true resolving power with your D/SLR camera.
A unique shooting situation but the only one way where you can accomplish this task.
(Wondering when they're ever going to get smart enough to figure this stuff out.)
Uh <uyf...@address.info> wrote: >On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>Fr...@Zappa.com <Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote: >>> I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>>> You know you want to.
>>Nope --- I buy my lenses well informed.
>>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses. >>> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>>You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast, >>bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems >>one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective >>(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses, >>but you'll have sharp lenses.
>>That's why I don't subscribe to such an aim.
>>As for cults, that's something for vulnerable sheep and >>ego-tripping, often abusive leaders --- maybe just right for >>you, but not for most people.
>What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
Go away, idiot troll. Nobody's interested in your cult.
On Friday, November 6, 2009, Fr...@zappa.com wrote: >I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - > anyone else in? >You know you want to. >If there are enough of us we can force > lens makers to make sharper lenses. If > not, they will continue to make > 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses. >Are you in?
I have 5 lenses for my Nikon D70, 2 Nikkors and 3 Sigmas, all of which produce extremely sharp, beautiful images, when used correctly. What makes you think that current lenses aren't sharp enough?
If all you lenses are producing soft images, either there's something wrong with your camera body or with the operator. ;-)
Uh - you forgot something important - again <uyf...@address.info> wrote:
Uh, "the Liar" is back, again!
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast, >>bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems >>one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective >>(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses, >>but you'll have sharp lenses. > What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to > put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the > camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
What difference does your opinion make when your facts are all wrong --- again, as usual and expected by now?
> Fire a flash > mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse > of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash.
Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion!
Once you combine a couple million flashes, you could slightly move a very thin piece of paper with a synchronized mass flash ... as it burns to ashes from the intense light.
Yo, slime, thanks for the proof you never held a firing flash, either.
<ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote: >Uh - you forgot something important - again <uyf...@address.info> wrote:
>Uh, "the Liar" is back, again!
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast, >>>bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems >>>one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective >>>(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses, >>>but you'll have sharp lenses.
>> What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to >> put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the >> camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
>What difference does your opinion make when your facts are >all wrong --- again, as usual and expected by now?
Showing that you've never even read the tests done on this problem, nor tested it yourself.
What's the matter? You don't own any camera to test?
>> Fire a flash >> mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse >> of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash.
>Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion!
No, you pathetic "can't dazzle them with brilliance so baffle them with your bullshit" moron. It's caused by the discharge in the capacitor and its dielectric layers responding to the release of energy. Fuck are you ever stupid. PROVED AGAIN!
ANYONE with a flash unit can fire it off with the test button on it and feel the jolt occurring from the capacitor discharging.
Oh wait, that's right. You have probably never even touched a flash unit, nor any camera. You just proved that by refuting that flash units don't impart a pulse of motion when fired.
>Once you combine a couple million flashes, you could slightly move >a very thin piece of paper with a synchronized mass flash ... as >it burns to ashes from the intense light.
>Yo, slime, thanks for the proof you never held a firing flash, >either.
In article <mhs9f5ht04j7arv57rnnsnm4rr0r6ms...@4ax.com>, Fr...@Zappa.com writes
>I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
There should be one less "l" and an extra "n" in there! ;-) -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Uh - you forgot something important - again <uyf...@address.info> wrote:
Uh - the slime liar is back - again!
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:42:48 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>Uh - you forgot something important - again <uyf...@address.info> wrote: >>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>> What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to >>> put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the >>> camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power. >>What difference does your opinion make when your facts are >>all wrong --- again, as usual and expected by now? > Showing that you've never even read the tests done on this problem, nor > tested it yourself.
I read lots of tests about that --- sorry, your claims are proven wrong. While noone doubts that there is mirror slap and shutter slap, the effect is in most practically cases undetectable. In the few cases where it is detectable, it's trivial to circumvent --- much easier than pre-focussing with P&S for action shots.
My own tests and extensive experience gives the same result.
> What's the matter? You don't own any camera to test?
Would you kindly borrow me yours, so I can see your sledgehammer mirror slap? Oh, sorry, I remember, you don't have one ...
>>> Fire a flash >>> mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse >>> of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash. >>Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion! > No, you pathetic "can't dazzle them with brilliance so baffle them with > your bullshit" moron.
Looking into a mirror can cause slime to write that stuff.
> It's caused by the discharge in the capacitor and its > dielectric layers responding to the release of energy.
Ah. the electrons rushing out of the capacitator must have tons of mass. And of course the random rotation of molecules (in all directions) causes a lot of translational energy.
Whole new physics you are creating, slime.
> Fuck are you ever > stupid. PROVED AGAIN!
Yep, slime, you are.
> ANYONE with a flash unit can fire it off with the test button on it and > feel the jolt occurring from the capacitor discharging.
Having owned more flashes than you have pressed the test button of any flash ... nope, you are wrong.
> Oh wait, that's right. You have probably never even touched a flash unit, > nor any camera. You just proved that by refuting that flash units don't > impart a pulse of motion when fired.
You just proved you never ever held a flash in your life. Don't worry, a nonexisting flash will work well with your imaginary camera, taking perfect shots.
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:24:48 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com>, the "Can't Dazzle Them With Brilliance So Baffle Them With Bullshit" moron attempted to type:
>Uh - you forgot something important - again <uyf...@address.info> wrote:
>Uh - the slime liar is back - again!
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:42:48 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>>Uh - you forgot something important - again <uyf...@address.info> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion!
>> No, you pathetic "can't dazzle them with brilliance so baffle them with >> your bullshit" moron.
>> It's caused by the discharge in the capacitor and its >> dielectric layers responding to the release of energy.
>Ah. the electrons rushing out of the capacitator must have >tons of mass. And of course the random rotation of molecules >(in all directions) causes a lot of translational energy.
No brilliance again, just more bullshit, as usual coming from your idiot's trolling.
It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding from the discharging capacitor.
Don't you feel bad always having to go to such extremes to invent your wild red-herring explanations just for the attention? While wasting the time of people far more intelligent than you'll ever be. Others always having to correct your incessant bullshit-troll's words. Or is this just your way of getting even with smart people for them always proving to the world how stupid and ignorant you have been all your life? (The latter being the more correct and plausible reason.)
After this I think I'll let some other intelligent person reveal to the world how you manage to always make a fool of yourself. It's so easy to do. I'm sure one of them might take some pleasure from it. If there are any intelligent people around here that is, pickings seem mighty slim. Babysitting your ignorance becomes an endless unpaid task for anyone who adopts the desperate Wolfy Cretin. But you are fun to bounce off of your crib walls once in a while--to watch you wildly grasp for anything that you possibly can in an attempt to retain your bliss of ignorance.
Uh - you forgot something important - again wrote:
> It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the > capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding > from the discharging capacitor.
What a complete load of bullshit. For starters; I've spent a total of about 20 years in the electronics industry (both design & service), & I've never heard of any such effect, & I'm very familiar with weird quirks in capacitors - particularly high voltage electrolytics, which are the kind used in flashguns. Secondly: if such an effect existed, it'd affect only the diameter of the can - it wouldn't be directional, thus it wouldn't move the flashgun in any direction. Thirdly: If such an effect existed, it'd eventually tear the capacitor out of the PCB or snap the leads off the cap - that doesn't happen.
PS: Nice try at screwing up the followups to prevent anyone from debunking your bullshit. ;^)
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
|
