> And that's what you offer as proof? Images where you can't even discern the > pupil diameter? (Hint: the iris in any species never totally disappears.)
Sorry, but I'm not going to publish the full sized, full rez image ... afterall, since you keep on telling us about how paranoid you are about showing off "works", I'm merely following your lead.
The regular readers know that I'm good to back up my statements. If any of them ask for a 100% crop, that's doable.
In the meantime...for the curious:
Host: 211.30.213.211 Date: Nov 05 03:42:03 Host: 110.175.202.173 Date: Nov 05 03:56:19 Host: 138.253.178.42 Date: Nov 05 04:05:00 Host: 94.71.68.14 Date: Nov 05 09:53:49 Host: 99.52.200.137 Date: Nov 05 08:32:22 Host: 205.156.36.15 Date: Nov 05 10:47:34 Host: 12.73.131.174 - Date: Nov 05 14:58:45
>> And that's what you offer as proof? Images where you can't even discern the >> pupil diameter? (Hint: the iris in any species never totally disappears.)
>Sorry, but I'm not going to publish the full sized, full rez image ... >afterall, since you keep on telling us about how paranoid you are >about showing off "works", I'm merely following your lead.
Ah, the plaintive cries of a troll proved dead-wrong again. You can't post a crop of just the eyes. Instead you try to baffle them with bullshit. LOL
>The regular readers know that I'm good to back up my statements. If >any of them ask for a 100% crop, that's doable.
Now onto the troll's standard red-herring crap. Yes, he does that too. You are right. You do exactly everything needed to back up proving exactly what you are. Thanks! LOL I couldn't have proved you being a troll any better if I did it for you.
>>> >Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
>>> It's not in sunlight, asshole. Get a clue.
>>I recall doing some research awhile back on solar-based power systems >>for dismounted military. Stuff was looking pretty promising until >>someone pointed out the 'all terrains' requirement and asked, "How >>well would this have worked in Vietnam?" Long story short is that in >>jungle triple canopy, roughly 95% of available light is absorbed >>before it hits the ground...and despite arguments of "find a patch of >>sunlight", this solar project was killed.
>>Applying that 95% loss in photographic terms, that's four (4) stops.
>Provide proof.
Oooo! The lying troll that NEVER provides proof is now demanding proof from someone else!
...which states, "Only about 5 percent of the sunlight shining on the rainforest reaches the understory", which confirms my recollection of a ~95% light loss.
As I reminded him...even if others do not (for reasons of hypocrisy, etc), the regular readers know that I'm good to back up my statements.
Of course, the real impliations of his display of ignorance merely goes to illustrate that despite his attempted claims to the contrary, he has no actual real world experience in trying to work & photograph within jungle understory canopy environment.
Ray Fischer wrote: > Trolls is FUN! <o...@trollouters.org> wrote: >> <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>>> Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed >>>> It's not in sunlight, asshole. Get a clue. >>> I recall doing some research awhile back on solar-based power systems >>> for dismounted military. Stuff was looking pretty promising until >>> someone pointed out the 'all terrains' requirement and asked, "How >>> well would this have worked in Vietnam?" Long story short is that in >>> jungle triple canopy, roughly 95% of available light is absorbed >>> before it hits the ground...and despite arguments of "find a patch of >>> sunlight", this solar project was killed.
>>> Applying that 95% loss in photographic terms, that's four (4) stops. >> Provide proof.
> Oooo! The lying troll that NEVER provides proof is now demanding > proof from someone else!
What a surprise!
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
-hh wrote: > Ray Fischer wrote: >> [the Copy & Paste troll wrote]: >>> Provide proof. >> Oooo! The lying troll that NEVER provides proof is now demanding >> proof from someone else!
> Yes, and his level of hypocrisy is ... not at all surprising.
> In the meantime, for his challenge on tropical canopy light > penetration, mister "Copy & Paste" couldn't even have tried to read > Wikipedia:
> ...which states, "Only about 5 percent of the sunlight shining on the > rainforest reaches the understory", which confirms my recollection of > a ~95% light loss.
<nods> As usual the P&S troll has been caught making up his 'facts' again.
> As I reminded him...even if others do not (for reasons of hypocrisy, > etc), the regular readers know that I'm good to back up my > statements.
Indeed.
> Of course, the real impliations of his display of ignorance merely > goes to illustrate that despite his attempted claims to the contrary, > he has no actual real world experience in trying to work & photograph > within jungle understory canopy environment.
Of course he hasn't. Every time he's talked about anything on which I'm an authority, he's gotten it wrong. No surprise that he gets other stuff wrong as well.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>-hh wrote: >> Ray Fischer wrote: >>> [the Copy & Paste troll wrote]: >>>> Provide proof. >>> Oooo! The lying troll that NEVER provides proof is now demanding >>> proof from someone else!
>> Yes, and his level of hypocrisy is ... not at all surprising.
>> In the meantime, for his challenge on tropical canopy light >> penetration, mister "Copy & Paste" couldn't even have tried to read >> Wikipedia:
>> ...which states, "Only about 5 percent of the sunlight shining on the >> rainforest reaches the understory", which confirms my recollection of >> a ~95% light loss.
><nods> As usual the P&S troll has been caught making up his 'facts' again.
>> As I reminded him...even if others do not (for reasons of hypocrisy, >> etc), the regular readers know that I'm good to back up my >> statements.
>Indeed.
>> Of course, the real impliations of his display of ignorance merely >> goes to illustrate that despite his attempted claims to the contrary, >> he has no actual real world experience in trying to work & photograph >> within jungle understory canopy environment.
>Of course he hasn't. Every time he's talked about anything on which I'm >an authority, he's gotten it wrong. No surprise that he gets other stuff >wrong as well.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
>Ray Fischer wrote: >> Trolls is FUN! <o...@trollouters.org> wrote: >>> <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>>>> Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed >>>>> It's not in sunlight, asshole. Get a clue. >>>> I recall doing some research awhile back on solar-based power systems >>>> for dismounted military. Stuff was looking pretty promising until >>>> someone pointed out the 'all terrains' requirement and asked, "How >>>> well would this have worked in Vietnam?" Long story short is that in >>>> jungle triple canopy, roughly 95% of available light is absorbed >>>> before it hits the ground...and despite arguments of "find a patch of >>>> sunlight", this solar project was killed.
>>>> Applying that 95% loss in photographic terms, that's four (4) stops. >>> Provide proof.
>> Oooo! The lying troll that NEVER provides proof is now demanding >> proof from someone else!
>What a surprise!
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
In general: a DX lens mounted on a FF camera will typically result in vignetting under at least some condition (apperture/focal lenght combination). The other way round, i.e. mounting a FF lens on a DX camera is no problem.
Canon specific: Any EOS-lens can be mounted on any EOS-camera. However the EOS system (using the EF mount) is completely incompatible to the earlier FD mount system.
|
