The 1248 mm challenge
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.)
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5)
3. .... Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the
best DSLR glass ever made.
The chance to prove these assertions is coming up around November 13:
photograph the full moon with your DSLR or P&S. Only camera lenses
and teleconverters allowed; no telescopes. Do your best to match
1248 mm (35mm equivalent). The test is with HAND HELD imaging only.
Then post a link to your results for everyone to compare.
Any images within a day or so of full moon will do. Tell us
your equivalent focal length, and exposure time. No up scaling;
show the full resolution image, and a single image with no stacking.
Exposure times you can expect at ISO 200:
1/500 sec f/8, 1/250 f/5.6, 1/125 f/4, 1/60 f/2.8.
Exposure times will vary depending on how close to full moon you image.
Here is my entry: DSLR at 1000 mm, 1.3x crop factor camera giving
1300 mm (35 mm) equivalent.
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/moon.rnclark.handheld.c10.25.2007.jz3f6583f-8s-800.html
Roger
Me
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:49159F71...@qwest.net...
> Assertions:
> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
> existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.)
>
1.248mm (49.1" or about 4') lens requires an aperture diameter of 356.6mm
(14")
> 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
> any
> DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5)
>
The Canon S5 iS has a lens of 6mm~72mm (not the myth of 35~420mm)
> 3. .... Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the
> best DSLR glass ever made.
>
> The chance to prove these assertions is coming up around November 13:
> photograph the full moon with your DSLR or P&S. Only camera lenses
> and teleconverters allowed; no telescopes. Do your best to match
> 1248 mm (35mm equivalent). The test is with HAND HELD imaging only.
> Then post a link to your results for everyone to compare.
> Any images within a day or so of full moon will do. Tell us
> your equivalent focal length, and exposure time. No up scaling;
> show the full resolution image, and a single image with no stacking.
>
Full moon, that should have the TROLL baying!!! or was that mastur-baying???
David J Taylor
[]
> Exposure times you can expect at ISO 200:
> 1/500 sec f/8, 1/250 f/5.6, 1/125 f/4, 1/60 f/2.8.
> Exposure times will vary depending on how close to full moon you
> image.
> Roger
I think the exposure times aren't consistent, Roger.
David
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
1/500 f/8, 1/1000 f/5.6, 1/2000 f/4, 1/4000 f/2.8.
Roger
DSLR-TROLL-SPOTTER
You've already lost this test, ages ago. It was already brought to your
attention that an inexpensive P&S camera out-resolved your beloved $12,000 DSLR
+ L-Glass when compared to HAND-HELD P&S images of the moon and your DSLR with
mirror-locked-up on a sturdy tripod. You hated it so much then when someone
proved it to you WITH YOUR OWN IMAGES. Do you want me to drag up that post again
that made you look like the utter fool that you are and proved it to the world?
Quite frankly it's really not worth the time. But it IS fun watching you run
away in shame for another 6 months, so that you quit spamming this newsgroup to
your commercial site that's full of misinformation and misleading deceptive
info.
EducatingCluelessMorons
>
>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote in
>message news:49159F71...@qwest.net...
>> Assertions:
>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
>> existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.)
>>
>1248mm f:3.5 defies the laws of physics and optics. To have f: 3.5 on a
>1.248mm (49.1" or about 4') lens requires an aperture diameter of 356.6mm
>(14")
Shall we try to educate this resident troll moron just one more time? Sure, why
not.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:12:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:39:04 -0500, Si Taylor
><keepyo...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:26:05 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>OMFG! I cannot even fathom someone being this unbelievably stupid.
>>
>>>
>>>Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. A 432mm lense
>>>with an aperture of f3.5 has a diameter of 123mm (quite a lump of
>>>glass for a P&S). A lens assembly with an effective focal length of
>>>2.89 x 432 = 1248mm and a diameter of 123mm has an f number of
>>>1248/123 = 10.15.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:53:02 -0500, Si Taylor <keepyo...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>>
>>>The true focal-length in this instance (not 35mm equivalent) is 208.08mm for
>>>that sensor, 72mm x 2.89. You only need a primary lens diameter of 59.45mm to
>>>equal the light-grasp of an effective f/3.5 aperture at that focal-length with
>>>that sensor. 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.45mm. The extremely high-quality telextender
>>>setup that I use has a full effective aperture of 80mm. This is enough to allow
>>>for an f-stop as large as f/2.6 on the same sensor at that focal length,
>>>208.08mm / 80mm = f/2.6.
>
>You jumble numbers. You talk sh*t. Why should I take you seriously?
>
>
>
>Eric Stevens
If you think those grade-school calculations are "jumbled", no wonder that other
idiots and DSLR camera manufacturers can so easily pull the wool over your
ignorant-consumer's eyes.
Follow close:
The camera has a 432mm f/3.5 lens, as advertised. That's the 35MM CAMERA
EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH. That number is only to give you an idea what "reach" it
has, what FOV it's going to provide when shooting, because everyone grew up on
full-frame 35mm cameras. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL FOCAL-LENGTH OF
THE P&S's CAMERA LENS. The ONLY reason it acts as the same FOV and zoom-reach as
that 432mm f.l. 35mm-camera's full-frame lens is that the sensor is much smaller
than a 35mm full-frame size. This is no different than why you use the 1.6x crop
factor when figuring out the 35mm eq. focal length of DSLR lenses on the most
common DSLR bodies. This camera has a 6x crop factor. (What an amazingly stupid
name to give it, "crop factor", but then look at the vast majority of idiots
that are ignorantly perpetuating info about cameras online and why that stupid
term has become popular.)
The TRUE focal length of this lens is 72mm when zoomed to that setting. Its
actual, true, in reality, front lens element is only 32mm in diameter (just
measured it for this post). This allows it to have an f/ratio going from f/2.7
to f/3.5 throughout its whole zoom range. (72mm/3.5 = 20.5mm dia. 20.5mm dia. is
all that's really necessary for an aperture of f/3.5 if this was a fixed 72mm
focal-length lens, and if there were no internal stops to ensure full resolution
and sharpness at the full aperture.)
If this lens really was a 432mm focal-length lens then its OEM lens would have
to be at LEAST 123.5mm in dia. (432mm/3.5=123.5mm) That is not going to happen.
The whole camera is only 75mm tall, including the bump in the body for the
built-in flash.
Now we add a high-quality 2.89x, 80mm dia. telextender optical assembly on the
front. This OPTICALLY multiplies its _REAL_ focal length by that amount. (In
practice this is NO different than if you hooked up that camera and lens to the
Keck telescope and obtained images at high-resolution with an enormous
light-grasp. Or practiced the art of "digiscoping" where you might add your
camera to a 6" dia. f/4.5 Newtonian telescope where it might afford a 60x
telextender quotient (eyepiece dependent). But then your aperture would be
limited to the weakest link. In that case it would lower your camera's
performance to an f/4.5 aperture, the same as the telescope's.)
For all intents and purposes, with that 80mm dia. 2.89x telextender, it is now
giving us the 35MM EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH reach of a 35MM CAMERA'S 1248mm lens.
2.89 x 432mm (35mm eq.)
This is not the TRUE focal length of this lens. In reality it is now behaving as
a 2.89 x 72mm focal length = 208.08mm. Its TRUE focal-length. One only needs a
59.45mm diameter lens to give that TRUE focal-length an f/ratio of f/3.5.
(208.08mmx3.5=59.45mm)
I'm using a telextender with a full 80mm diameter. Far more diameter than is
needed to afford an f/ratio of f/3.5. Zero light-loss (except for minor
air-to-glass transitions), zero f/ratio lost. Would that the original camera
manufacturer had originally built-in more aperture into their own lens affixed
to the camera, then that telextender lens could provide enough light gathering
ability for an f/2.6 aperture at a 35MM EQUIVALENT FOCAL-LENGTH 1248mm zoom lens
(2.89x432mm).
You have to figure the f/ratio from its TRUE focal-length and TRUE lens
diameters, not its imaginary 35mm equivalent focal length. You must use the
actual physical dimensions, not its advertised human-perception 35mm eq. value
which only give you a familiar idea its performance.
Got it? Did you follow any of that at all? Probably not. I explained it by
approaching it from every way that you might possibly misinterpret things again,
in the hopes that it might get through that pea-brain of yours and others'
similarly sized brains, but I still I feel it was just more wasted typing.
If, however, that intermittently shorted lightbulb in that empty little cavity
you have in that excuse you call a head finally did illuminate by a few
nanowatts, from at least one of the various ways I've proved it, then now do you
see why I'm laughing so hard at these moronic resident-trolls that don't know a
thing about optics and photography? The same relentless and idiotic band of
R.P.D. virtual-reality-living trolls that have been mindlessly parroting the
same stupid nonsense for years now, post after post, their whole pathetic lives.
Even worse are those that are so stupid as to ignorantly believe them without
bothering to figure it out on their own. Worse than that are those that haven't
bothered to correct the resident-trolls' blatant stupidity and reveal their
ignorance to the world, their stupidity borne of their entrenched
virtual-life-psychosis, to finally make them come to terms with the real world
and FACTS.
Hey, everyone is saying it in this newsgroup, it MUST be true. Right?
Fucking retards, all around.
Note to self: Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity -- ESPECIALLY
online.
Sam Taylor
To top it off this self-deceptive misinformed moron doesn't even realize that
the sunlit portion of the moon will require the exact same exposure no matter
how much of it is showing.
Holy fuck this guy is a majorly clueless idiot.
Me Here
"EducatingCluelessMorons" <another...@anotherisp.org> wrote in message
news:naabh41jq6j4ndcec...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:33:38 -0500, "Me" <n...@given.eh> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote
>>in
>>message news:49159F71...@qwest.net...
>>> Assertions:
>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
>>> existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.)
>>
>>1248mm f:3.5 defies the laws of physics and optics. To have f: 3.5 on a
>>1.248mm (49.1" or about 4') lens requires an aperture diameter of 356.6mm
>>(14")
>
> Shall we try to educate this resident troll moron just one more time?
> Sure, why
> not.
>
So where exactly is you degree in optical science from? It isn't a 1248mm
f:3.5, can't be! You can't comprehend cropping.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> To top it off this self-deceptive misinformed moron doesn't even realize that
> the sunlit portion of the moon will require the exact same exposure no matter
> how much of it is showing.
>
> Holy XXXX this guy is a majorly clueless idiot.
Incorrect. The phase function of the moon changes rapidly near
full moon. There are two reasons for this effect. (The phase
angle is the angle from the sun to the object to the observer.)
At full moon, the phase angle is near zero (if too close to zero,
the moon goes into the Earth's shadow, and we see an eclipse).
At such low phase angles, the tiny shadows cast by grains in the
surface are hidden by other grains so the intensity of light
from the surface is greater (1st effect). Second, and much more
important is an effect called coherent backscatter: the constructive
interference of photons scattered from a particulate surface.
You can often see this effect from airplanes as a bright spot on
the ground in the direction opposite the sun.
All this means that the exposure on the moon changes significantly
near full moon, so one must meter for the conditions at that time.
Try googling: coherent backscatter lunar phase function
and you will find scientific articles like:
Phase Curves of Selected Particulate Materials: The Contribution of Coherent Backscattering to the Opposition Surge
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-45K0YV5-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=31fbc122696d5595db91f74e98126ff2
Roger
J. Clarke
>
>> To top it off this self-deceptive misinformed moron doesn't even
>> realize that the sunlit portion of the moon will require the exact
>> same exposure no matter how much of it is showing.
>>
>> Holy XXXX this guy is a majorly clueless idiot.
>
> Incorrect. The phase function of the moon changes rapidly near
> full moon. There are two reasons for this effect. (The phase
> angle is the angle from the sun to the object to the observer.)
> At full moon, the phase angle is near zero (if too close to zero,
> the moon goes into the Earth's shadow, and we see an eclipse).
> At such low phase angles, the tiny shadows cast by grains in the
> surface are hidden by other grains so the intensity of light
> from the surface is greater (1st effect). Second, and much more
> important is an effect called coherent backscatter: the constructive
> interference of photons scattered from a particulate surface.
> You can often see this effect from airplanes as a bright spot on
> the ground in the direction opposite the sun.
So _that_'s what that is. I've noticed it many times and wondered
about it, but by the time I'd gotten to somewhere where I could
research it I always forgot about it.
> All this means that the exposure on the moon changes significantly
> near full moon, so one must meter for the conditions at that time.
>
> Try googling: coherent backscatter lunar phase function
> and you will find scientific articles like:
>
> Phase Curves of Selected Particulate Materials: The Contribution of
> Coherent Backscattering to the Opposition Surge
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-45K0YV5-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=31fbc122696d5595db91f74e98126ff2
>
> Roger
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
JohnFarrel
Wow, a whole 1/3rd f-stop! If that. Do everyone a favor and stop inventing
picayune things just as an excuse to continually spam usenet with your
commercial website links to deceptive misinformation.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Incorrect again. The phase effect from about 24 degrees to full
moon is about a stop and varies with wavelength and location on
the moon. The moon moves about 12 degrees per day so within 2 days
of full moon exposure varies bout about a stop. Blue wavelengths
generally have greater effect and red less. Of course if you
don't care if your exposure is off a stop, then you can ignore it.
Also, my site is not commercial and states so on the welcome page
from the home page, and on the page about obtaining prints.
So, you are completely wrong.
I challenge you to show us a 1248 mm f/3.5 full moon image obtained
with your P&S camera with an exposure of about 1/3000 second, ISO 200.
You have about 4 days to test and make the shot (+/- a day or two).
Hint, the closer to full moon you make the image, the more light
you will have ;-).
Roger
Digital info and photography: http://www.clarkvision.com
Paul Furman
> <the troll> wrote:
>> "Roger N. Clark" wrote
>>
>>> Assertions:
>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
>>> existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.)
Roger, he won't post an example.
> Shall we try to educate this resident troll moron just one more time? Sure, why
> not.
Well at least you posted the relevant info this time instead of the full
rant, though it could have been a whole lot shorter: The difference
described is because DSLR teleconverters attach to the rear of the lens
so they reduce aperture and light passing through where P&S
teleconverters attach to the front. P&S are so small it's not that hard
to make the converter big enough that it doesn't obstruct the original
aperture. This is like putting a closeup lens on the front of a DSLR: no
loss of light. And in the same way, the quality suffers. There probably
are some better quality P&S converters able to produce usable results at
moderate magnifications but it seems highly unlikely that a 3x converter
on the far end of a super-zoom is going to produce good results.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
SMS
<snip>
> it seems highly unlikely that a 3x converter
> on the far end of a super-zoom is going to produce good results.
LOL, when did he ever claim that these kludges produce good results?
ResidentTrollsStillCluelessFilmAt11
>EducatingCluelessMorons wrote:
>> <the troll> wrote:
>>> "Roger N. Clark" wrote
>>>
>>>> Assertions:
>>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
>>>> existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.)
>
>Roger, he won't post an example.
>
Oh look. The blind and unaware resident trolls totally missed the thread:
"2197mm Zoom f/3.5 Hand-Held Photo on a P&S Camera"
How quickly they forget. They have to. They forget anything that's proved them
wrong in their sad little meaningless lives. It's how psychotics stay that way.
Like little insecure children that stick their fingers in their ears and hum a
tune when frightened, so they don't have to listen to or deal with reality.
Ray Fischer
>On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:33:38 -0500, "Me" <n...@given.eh> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote in
>>message news:49159F71...@qwest.net...
>>> Assertions:
>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
>>> existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.)
>>>
>>1248mm f:3.5 defies the laws of physics and optics. To have f: 3.5 on a
>>1.248mm (49.1" or about 4') lens requires an aperture diameter of 356.6mm
>>(14")
>
>Shall we try to educate this resident troll moron just one more time? Sure, why
>not.
You can't be educated. You're a classic example of a stupid asshole
who is convinced that the truth doesn't matter.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Elmo von Thud
to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote:
>Insertions:
[sneep]
>Exposure times you can expect at ISO 200:
[sneep]
Do you achieve your exposures by opening your trench coat in front of
sensitive subjects?
Elmo
Roy G
"DSLR-TROLL-SPOTTER" <any...@whateverisp.org> wrote in message
news:rt9bh41dpa7drurlf...@4ax.com...
"What's'name" is making excuses already.
Because he does not have the equipment, or know how, to compete.
He is full of wind, and knows next to nothing.
Roy G
grant-thomas
Not excuses. It's just not worth the time. He's already been shown that an
inexpensive handheld P&S out-resolves his beloved $12,000 DSLR + $3,000 L-Glass,
even when that wasted purchase of camera and lens of his is locked on a tripod
with mirror lock-up engaged. That still bugs the piss out of him. It's why he
raises the challenge again. Probably in the hopes that new people don't know
about, or forgot, the previous thread and image tests that showed him to be
nothing but a major fool.
Why on earth would I want to entertain this blatant DSLR-troll with more test
results that would only prove him wrong again? His claims were disproved nearly
a year ago with even less capable P&S cameras than exist today.
The guy is a moron who lives in his own mind. Still trying to justify why he
spent over $15,000 and still can't compete with $300 P&S cameras. Hint: he's a
crappy photographer who thinks if he just throws enough money at his
snap-shooting hobby that it'll make him a "Pro", just like most DSLR buyers.
Nothing new. Commonplace self-justifying idiots without a clue.
Roy G
"grant-thomas" <gth...@gthomas.org> wrote in message
news:ed8eh4511vo311ag9...@4ax.com...
You have not proved anything.
You talk a lot, but you won't even name the equipment you use.
You seem to be the only example of a " self-justifying idiot", because we
only ever get talk about your superior intelligence and professional skills.
Never any proof.
Put up or shut up.
Roy G
Mark Thomas
promoter will be able to post something 'similar' from his outfit. (O:
Or he might use the excuse that we are not worthy, or perhaps he just
doesn't have the time...
Whatever he does, game over. In fact it was over as soon as he started
posting, and now that he just cuts and pastes the same drivel over and
over, he's clearly lost the plot.
barry-grant
Looks like someone's going to have to dredge up that thread from last time where
the P&S out-resolved his $15,000 worth of gear. It might be worth it just to
shut you idiots up once again. Then the Roger dSLR troll will slink away again
for 6 months and we don't have to put up with his bullshit.
Any volunteers to repost that whole thread that proves Roger's a troll and a
fool?
The only game-over around here is Roger's troll tactics.
Chris Malcolm
> Why on earth would I want to entertain this blatant DSLR-troll with more test
> results that would only prove him wrong again? His claims were disproved nearly
> a year ago with even less capable P&S cameras than exist today.
> The guy is a moron who lives in his own mind. Still trying to justify why he
> spent over $15,000 and still can't compete with $300 P&S cameras. Hint: he's a
> crappy photographer who thinks if he just throws enough money at his
> snap-shooting hobby that it'll make him a "Pro", just like most DSLR buyers.
> Nothing new. Commonplace self-justifying idiots without a clue.
My Dad's got a better camera than your Dad, so there, donkey brains!
--
Chris Malcolm
jdear64
> "grant-thomas" <gtho...@gthomas.org> wrote in message
<snip>
>
> You have not proved anything.
>
> You talk a lot, but you won't even name the equipment you use.
>
> You seem to be the only example of a " self-justifying idiot", because we
> only ever get talk about your superior intelligence and professional skills.
> Never any proof.
>
> Put up or shut up.
>
> Roy G
The never ending name changing blow hard is not as dumb nor as slow
learning
he may seem to some. He's desperate for attention and is getting it
by saying
something he knows is it's not true, and will get others all worked
up.
For him to prove something one way or the other is counterproductive
to his
lofty goals in life ( getting attention ).
If we ignore him, he will go elsewhere for attention. He most likely
doesn't
even have any interest in photography.
Douglas Johnson
>Not excuses. It's just not worth the time.
It's probably a better use of time than repeated postings of the same
manifesto. It might actually demonstrate your point. Or then again, it might
refute it. Either way, it would more useful than changing your identity every
few posts. -- Doug
Mark Thomas
> Looks like someone's going to have to dredge up that thread
Sadly that thread showed nothing but a very soft image full of flare
and at a resolution useless for showing actual detail. At that size it
would have barely printed to a 6x4. Plus there was only your word
(trusted as that is, hahaha) that it was taken with your mythical twin
1.7x arrangement that you will neither name, or show.
We know why you won't show it.
We also know why the sample was so small.
> Any volunteers to repost that whole thread that proves Roger's a troll and a
> fool?
Thanks for repeating your schizophrenia. As your goldfish memory has
clearly caused you a problem again, Vern, I'll repeat it:
*You* already posted it.
And it got as much acclaim as it did last time.
It's funny to watch you now - have you noticed *everyone* now realises
you are a troll?
But no, of course it isn't game over.. in your head. How about another
identity and another cut and paste? That'll fix 'em.