Gary’s Parries 29/10/06

October 29, 2006 | Mark Goldstein | Gary's Parries | 18 Comments |

Gary's ParriesThis week’s Gary’s Parries topics are:

1. Panasonic FZ50’s Noisy CCD, It’s Just Not Cricket
2. How Do Add-On Lenses Effect DOF?

Introducing this week’s Gary’s Parries column. Everything you always wanted to know about digital cameras, but were afraid to ask. No question too difficult, or too easy. As a Senior Principal Software Engineer, and a former Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems, as well as a recording studio owner/operator, inventor, and now, a digital camera enthusiast, GARY has more digital camera knowledge in his entire brain than most people have in their little finger. In the unlikely event that GARY would not know the answer to your question, he will answer it anyway, true to the spirit of the word “Parries”, a fencing term which, in this context, implies “cleverly evasive answers”. So let your imagination run wild. Email all your nagging digital camera questions to: garysparries@photographyblog.com , and then, En Garde!

You may also attach to your email an ORIGINAL PHOTO of your choosing. A preview of the photo will be displayed with your question, and a full-sized version will be just a click away. No personal information will be published with your question unless you specifically include it in the text or attached photo of your email, which may be further edited for grammar, content, or other reasons.

***
*** QUESTION 1—- PANASONIC FZ50’S NOISY CCD, IT’S JUST NOT CRICKET
***

Dear Mr. Gary,

I am a young amateur photographer who hopes to be able to call himself an enthusiast someday. I currently use a Canon PowerShot S1 IS. Though it has a great feature set and sufficient megapixels for my applications (I usually never print larger than 8 x 10 inches), I find its response rather slow and its shutter lag high. Also, its manual focus is a pain to use, and its movie mode, like many other Canon cameras, is very granular.

I recently fell in love with the handling and features of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50, but I am disappointed by its high image noise. Many reviews say that its 10-megapixel rating is of little use for printing large pictures due to a noisy CCD. Its movie mode was head and shoulders above other Canon & Kodak cameras I have tested, and its intuitive menu system and well thought-out controls make it a pleasure to use. The optional wide-angle converter and choice of aspect ratios are a breath of fresh air. Why can’t Panasonic release an FZ50 with a low-noise Fuji SuperCCD?

Why don’t more camera manufacturers record movies in DivX format for compression sake? Many of today’s DVD players support it. If they allow sufficiently long video on digicams, they could probably kill the amateur handy-cam market. Being able to carry one device that is great for photos and decent for videos would do the trick for many.

When examining the movie mode specifications of a camera, I think it is essential for the manufacturer to mention how long the battery lasts at the highest resolution. What is the point of being able to record a 2GB video if your battery drains completely after filling up 800MB? Would you happen to know the length of time a freshly charged battery will last in the FZ50’s video mode? It could perhaps save me the cost of 4GB cards. I wish camera companies were more forthcoming with this bit of information.

I am an engineering student, but photography is my passion. The Panasonic FZ50 is a very unique offering that many amateurs on a shoestring budget (like me) would love to possess, but we cannot afford to sink our money into a brilliant camera with a noisy CCD.

I hope you can find the time to kindly answer this long email.

Thanking you.

Yours truly,
Aditya Govindarajan


***
*** ANSWER 1
***

AG, judging from the level of your questions about digital cameras, it sounds to me like you are ‘already’ an enthusiast.

Regarding the specs you requested about the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50’s battery life in video mode, unfortunately, I do not have that information. Maybe one of our readers with an FZ50 will be kind enough to check for you. I am sure others would be interested, as well.

Regarding the FZ50’s unacceptably noisy image sensor, as has been reported by every reviewer (with the possible exception of CNET’s Philip Ryan who, in his FZ50 Review, cleverly pointed out that the FZ50 is NOT as noisy as some of Panasonic’s ‘other’ camera models :)), I can certainly sympathize with you, as the camera is nearly perfect in every other respect. It’s just not cricket, AG.

Your idea of replacing the FZ50’s noisy CCD with a low-noise, Fuji SuperCCD, is a good one from a technological standpoint, but not so good from a marketing standpoint. Panasonic needs to differentiate the FZ50 from entry-level DSLRs by having a clearly lower price point compared to DSLRs. Adding a Fuji SuperCCD would only make this already difficult task nearly impossible.

As for your question about more camera manufacturers utilizing the DivX video format, with that I can help. Where there was previously only one such manufacturer, Pentax, with its Optio S6 (the first ever DivX camera), and then later with its Optio A10, S7, and A20 models, now there is a second manufacturer, Casio, with its Zoom EX-S600D. Can Panasonic be far behind?

P.S. Your Canon PowerShot S1 IS did a superb job with this cricket action shot from the ICC Champions Trophy - 4th Match : Australia vs. West Indies at Brabourne Stadium in Mumbai. (I hope you were rooting for West Indies, who won by 10 runs.)

***
*** QUESTION 2—- HOW DO ADD-ON LENSES EFFECT DOF?
***

Hi Gary’s,

In comment #5 of the October 15, 2006 Gary’s Parries, you eloquently explained how add-on lenses attached between the camera body and lens affect a camera lens’ f-stop differently from add-ons attached to the front of the camera lens. As a result of your clear and simple explanation, I now understand this phenomenon completely, and I was hoping you could provide a similar explanation for the effect of add-on lenses on depth of field?

Thank you in advance for your excellent response.

Regards,
Paris


***
*** ANSWER 2
***

Paris, did you happen to read comment #7 from that very same Gary’s Parries, where I specifically expressed gratitude that no one had asked me about the effect of add-on lenses with respect to DOF? :)

The reason I was reluctant to answer that question is because of the abundance of misinformation out there on the subject of DOF … to which, hopefully, this will not add.

When a lens is focused on a subject, the only points on the subject that will appear as single points on its image are those that are located at the precise focus distance of the lens. Points that are located near the lens focus distance will appear on an image as small circles (of confusion), rather than as single points. This is caused mainly by lens aberrations (mostly spherical aberrations as a result of the curved surfaces of the lens) that diffuse the points of light, and to a lesser extent, by diffraction of the light rays as they pass through the lens shutter.

If the resulting circles of confusion are sufficiently small, they will still be perceived as single image points by the eye. However, as the points of a subject become increasingly separated from the lens focus distance, their circles of confusion become increasingly large, which causes them to appear out of focus to the eye. This is where the concept of depth of field comes into play.

The total depth of field for an image is defined as the distance along the optical axis of the lens from the closest point of the subject that appears in focus to the farthest point of the subject that appears in focus. For example, if the leaves of a tree start to appear in focus at 10 feet from the lens, and then start again to appear out of focus after 15 feet from the lens, the total depth of field for that image is 15 - 10 = 5 feet.

In order to understand the effect that add-on lenses will have on DOF, we need to make some assumptions. For the purposes of simplification, we will assume that our add-on lenses are ideal lenses (i.e., no aberrations of their own). We will also assume that our subject distance is within 1/4 of the hyperfocal distance (look it up) of the camera lens.

With these simplifications in place, I can now make the highly controversial claim that the focal length of a lens has NO effect on DOF. For example, when using a camera’s Aperture Priority mode with a 10x (28 - 280mm) zoom lens, if you observe the DOF of an image with the zoom lens set for 28mm at f/8 while focused on a subject 4 feet away, and then compare it with the DOF of an image with the zoom lens set for 280mm at f/8 while focused on the same subject, but from 40 feet away (thereby producing the same subject size for the two images), the DOF of the two images will also be the same.

If you’re still with me after that trying last paragraph, you are now ready to accept the fact that DOF is affected ONLY by the physical aperture settings of the lens. The reason for this is simple. When an aperture is adjusted wide open, light from the entire face of the lens is passed through to strike the image sensor. As the aperture is made smaller, light passing through the outer edges of the lens is blocked from the image sensor. At the smallest aperture of the lens, all light is blocked except that which passes through the very center of the lens.

As ‘luck’ would have it, the center of a lens has the fewest aberrations. Stopping down a lens (i.e., ‘physically’ decreasing its aperture) blocks the ‘bad’ light from the edges of the lens and passes the ‘good’ light from the center of the lens; hence, it is the lens aperture that determines an image’s circle of confusion size, which in turn determines its DOF.

If you recall from our previous discussion of the two types of add-on lenses in comment #5 of the October 15, 2006 Gary’s Parries, the type that attaches between the camera body and lens will multiply the camera lens’ f-stop by the add-on lens’ magnification factor, whereas the type that attaches to the front of a camera lens will have no effect on the camera lens’ f-stop. So you might think that the former type of add-on lens would also multiply an image’s DOF by the add-on’s magnification factor, in which case, you would be wrong.

An add-on lens does not change the ‘physical’ aperture of a camera lens, and it is the reduction of the physical aperture that has the effect of directing light through the lens center to minimize an image’s circle of confusion, and thereby maximize its DOF. So, as you can see, with both types of add-on lenses, there will be no effect on DOF (again, assuming the simplifications previously discussed.)

Paris, hope that clears things up for you. Now please, DO NOT ask me about the effect that add-on lenses will have on ‘bokeh’. :)

[Note: Much thanks to Nick in Japan for submitting this family outing photo of his son and two daughters. Nick, you must be a good family man. Your family always looks so happy. – Ed.]

***
[Column photo “The Photographer” by Brenda LaFleur of Brenda LaFleur Photography.]



Tracker Pixel for Entry

Your Comments

18 Comments | Newest Oldest First | Post a Comment

#1 nick in japan

Thanks to you, Gary, my family has grown happier and happier, proportional to the happiness you have given me, and many, many others, through your education and humor.
After Sanae got through rolling on the floor with laughter, and went back to washing the dishes, she asked if you "were serious?"...
Great explanations this week!

12:17 pm - Sunday, October 29, 2006

#2 Gary's Parries

Nick, I know that you have only one daughter, but from this photo, I
could not tell which was which; however, upon closer examination, I
can see that your daughter is not wearing a wedding ring.

3:49 pm - Sunday, October 29, 2006

#3 Notmy Name

> Panasonic needs to differentiate the FZ50
> from entry-level DSLRs by having a clearly
> lower price point compared to DSLRs.

Why? Thirty-five years ago zoom lens
that had passable image quality and
a reasonable range were restricted,
by sheer price, to highly paid sports
photographers and movie makers. Since
then computer design has revolutionized
photographic optics, so good quality,
wide aperture superzooms that do very
adequate macro as well are on every
medium-priced compact. And the advent
of digital processing has made fixing
the residual distortion and chromatic
aberration that are more or less inherent
in all workable zooms a no-brainer.

Manufacturers just haven't caught up
with the fact that large numbers of well
off, retirement-age amateurs (a growing
spending demographic if ever there was
one) PLUS a lot of general photo
professionals would never stand
schlepping all those lenses and their
associated teams of Sherpas around if
there was only just a half-OK alternative.

Previously there wasn't even the theoretical
possibility of a that (mostly because of
the problems of designing zoom lenses), but
now there is: a high-quality, large-sensor
(APS or better) superzoom/macro compact
camera (forget the "bridge" nonsense - the
only bridge many of today's middle range
high-spending DSLR users are going to cross
is the bridge to the great slideshow in the
sky) with a bunch of professional/studio
features (e.g. a good hotshoe-mount external
finder - which even the Ricoh Photocopier Co
can manage these days - proper flash sync,
etc., etc....).

So what if it has a price-point HIGHER than
today's entry-level DSLRs (and, in fact,
the likely higher manufacturing costs and
initial lower uptake would almost certainly
ensure that)? In 25 years one unified
device is all that most people will want to
carry for anything (it is already, or has
no-one except Orange and BT noticed the rise
and rise of the multi-mega-pixel-functioned
cellphone with integrated dishwasher and PDA
recently?).

And right now there are enough well off
amateurs or general professionals who would
like to do that with a high-quality dedicated imagers. What it costs, they'll pay. It can
now be built, and the first to build it will
get the best shot at a long term reputation.
As Leica's marketing department is probably
guessing already (though they'll sure need
to fix the Lumix noise problem first, and
Fuji might not be too keen on selling them
their particular sensor to do it with....).

4:14 pm - Sunday, October 29, 2006

#4 Gary's Parries

Mark, don't we have a word count limit on these comments? :)

Just kidding, NN. Even though it was a bit long, I found your comment
to be quite interesting reading. But I think you're overlooking one thing.

If you had to pay the same price for a bridge camera as you would for
a comparable DSLR, why wouldn't you buy the DSLR with the 'intention'
of leaving a single lens on it permanently, thereby giving you the option
of being able to expand your lens collection at some later time?

9:27 pm - Sunday, October 29, 2006

#5 Bruce McL

I think the Sony R1 was a step in the direction that Mark is talking about. I say was because it no longer appears on Sony's web site. A friend recently bought an R1 used but I have not had the opportunity to see it yet.

Note that it is possible to buy lenses that add on to the R1 camera, rather than replace the lens it comes with. The "option to expand the lens collection" does exist with the R1. As far as that goes, I have an FZ5 that can take optional lenses for telephoto and wide angle. Many non-DSLR cameras have similar add-on lenses available.

I agree that an excellent one piece camera would have great value for many photographers. However I don't think the market is going this way. Like the word megapixel, the word DSLR is easy to sell right now. And manufacturers like the idea of locking in customers to their own lens system so that the customer will buy their next DSLR from them as well as the current one.

10:09 pm - Sunday, October 29, 2006

#6 Gary's Parries

Bruce, my guess is that the Sony R1 did not sell very well, and for the
very reason we have been discussing. The proof is in the fact that an
R2 hasn't been released, and it has been over a year. By comparison,
Sony released not one, but two H models in a years time since the H1.

I agree, add-on lenses are a viable option for expansion, but they are
not without their problems, as you probably already knew having read
Topic #1 of the October 15, 2006 Gary's Parries --- Getting Close With
Add-On Lenses. :)

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/garys_parries_15_10_06/

10:45 pm - Sunday, October 29, 2006

#7 nick in japan

#5, DSLR cameras give users the ability to "mix and match" with other bodies, and the ability to separate the lens from the body to enable repair, cleaning, trade-in, upgrade, etc.
Having one camera with one lens requires that camera to be real special in that it will perform with pro-level dependable consistancy, and the attached lens must be a VERY, Very fast one to give you that initial option. The add-on lenses will give you a view change, you are absolutely right... with an added price, because, they are dedicated, therefore more costly than doing the same thing with what a DSLR affords.
I like what Sigma does, and Nikon does, and what Tokina does when attached to my Canons.
Gary, Thank you for the kind words, IF I get my way, there won't be a ring on little Ms. Miho's finger for, at least, 30 years!

10:53 pm - Sunday, October 29, 2006

#8 Aditya Govindarajan

Thanks Mr.Gary for answering my first question. You mentioned that incorporating the Fuji SuperCCD mab be expensive but Fuji itself has a slightly more affordable S9100 in the same league( its lens gives a 28mm wideangle without the need for an add on lens). It however lacks Image Stabilisation and sufficient scene modes; not to mention its predecessor the S9000 had a slow CompactFlash performance( I would never want to buy an xD Card or Memory Stick if I could prevent it)void(0);
wink

If Panasonoic launched an FZ40 with the 9Megapixel Fugi S9100 CCD with the same FZ50 body(or perhaps a wideangle Lens built in) it would fit snuggly in their Product line between the FZ30 & FZ50.They could advertise the Fuji CCD just like they do with their Leica Lens. It would even improve the image of the entire product line if they could show that they have solved the Noise Problem. I am sure there must be at least some people from Panasonic(or who know people in their Lumix Division) reading this column. Can someone please forward this request to them? I am sure that enough of a market for it.

6:44 pm - Thursday, November 2, 2006

#9 Gary's Parries

Good point, AG. However, since Fuji manufactures the CCD, it is a lot
less expensive for them to include it in their cameras than it would be
for Panasonic. Now if Panasonic were to make a 'low noise' CCD, then
we'd have something. :)

2:13 pm - Friday, November 3, 2006

#10 golfzilla

I'm a happy Sony R1 owner. I wish someone would make something similar with a square chip of about 16mb size. I love the exterior screen and how it lets you compose under difficult circumstances.

I suspect the reason there is no R2 is because of the A100. Additionally, they did more than a few REALLY dumb things with the camera that could have been fixed in firmware, but never seemed to give it a thought. A100 buyers beware.

All the China travel shots on my website were shot with the R1. I'm also featuring some of those images next month at my gallery.

1:50 am - Sunday, November 5, 2006

#11 Gary's Parries

The R1 was a real "breakthrough" camera, with expectations of even
greater things to come from, not only Sony, but other manufacturers
as well. As it turns out, it looks like the R1 was not only the first of its
kind, but also the last.

Golfzilla, I had to laugh when I saw a couple of your Shanghai photos.
It looks like the R1 has a really bad case of barrel distortion, but upon
closer inspection, you realize it's just the Shanghai architecture.

http://www.pbase.com/golfzilla/chinashanghai

9:17 am - Sunday, November 5, 2006

#12 golfzilla

Shanghai architecture is a hoot. In the past 15 years huge amounts of entrepreneur (and government) ego $$$ has been spent on new skyscrapers. Every architect who had something "different" to sell has sold it in Shanghai.

I kid about the architecture, but Shanghai is a great city. Put it on you list.

6:52 pm - Sunday, November 5, 2006

#13 Notmy Name

Mr Parry wrote:

"If you had to pay the same price for a bridge camera as you would for
a comparable DSLR, why wouldn't you buy the DSLR with the 'intention'
of leaving a single lens on it permanently, thereby giving you the option
of being able to expand your lens collection at some later time?"

Yes and no. If I found a DSLR that was
closer to my ideal spec than any available
compact, sure I'd buy it. Not to have the
option to get more lenses, but because it
was a single unit camera that fitted my
"requirements" best (though it happens that,
for me, the near-total silence of compacts
that I've now come to appreciate would be
hard for any DSLR to beat).

For a lot of us (including by far the
majority of "pros", who spend their entire
working life at weddings and Bar Mitzvahs
deploying a very narrow set of photographic
techniques) a second compact, with maybe some
differences in functionality - rainproofing,
whatever - would be preferable. There's a
lot of the Swiss Army Knife attitude in
enthusiast photography that just doesn't
work for many other serious photographers,
including not only large numbers of small
town professionals, but also many full
spectrum studios (whose most-thumbed manuals
are often catalogues from the nearest camera
hire companies - different backs and lenses
for some preferred SLR are not the answer in
a technical or large-format camera shoot or
whatever else comes up in a working year).

If you rewrap these short lines the message
won't be so long. As Charles Lamb told his
boss in the Admiralty when he was caught
coming in late: "But you should see how early
I leave."

11:17 pm - Tuesday, November 7, 2006

#14 Gary's Parries

NN, I know there are 'compact' bridge cameras, but when I made that
statement about bridge cameras, I was referring more to the 'SLR-like'
majority of bridge cameras. The choice to which I was referring, would
be between an SLR-like bridge and a comparable (in size, weight, lens,
etc.) DSLR for the same price. In that case, you'd be better off with the
DSLR, unless of course (as you pointed out), you absolutely needed the
near-total silence of a bridge.

As Shakespeare once said, "That is the long and short of it." :)
(The Merry Wives of Windsor - Act II, Scene II --- I added the Smiley.)

7:39 am - Wednesday, November 8, 2006

#15 Notmy Name

Mr Parry, I gave up trying to keep up with
technical marketing terminology years ago,
but I think what I've been calling 'compact'
you would (probably more correctly) call
'bridge' - i.e. cameras like the Minolta
DiMAGE A2 (v. their DiMAGE X-50), Sony DSC-R1
(v. their Cybershot S90), and so on.

Cameras that you probably call 'compact' -
cameras with buttons instead of zoom rings,
with 'big' LCDs but either no or unusable
finders instead of decent optical finders
(or at least very fine EVFs, good enough to
focus with), with only pre-processed JPEG
or TIF outputs instead of RAW mode (either
as well or exclusively), etc. - I would call,
for the most part, 'old bottles' (and I
wasn't referring to them, just using the
wrong word).

And the point I was making was that, no,
-YOU- might be better off with the DSLR but
-I-, and a lot of others, not excluding a
large proportion of professionals whose work
is almost exclusively weddings and portraits
and similar everyday mundanities, would not
be, either - if they had a real choice.

It depends on work patterns (some will always
need interchangeable lenses, etc) and whether
they are into "gadgets" or not (to me it said
a great deal about many amateur photographers
when an Olympus DSLR recently won a US techie
magazine's best 'gadget' award). A great
many amateurs really are more into gadgets
than into any sort image making beyond the
most basic of snaps. I live right beside
a world-famous tourist spot and the number
of people out there taking bad shots of
their expensive wives propped up against
the iconics with thousand dollar DSLRs that
they have, quite obviously, only ever used
one lens and two buttons of, is staggering
(and not one in 1000 carries anything except
a single-zoom DSLR, not even a lens hood or
polarizer, let alone tripod/monopod/minipod).
One day I'm going to put up a sign chastising
them for not reading at least a few pages of
the manual and bidding them to consider all
those cameraless children in China who don't
have -ANY- effs to stop.

I chose the equipment examples because they
illustrate the situation. Minolta was very
definitely a photgraphy company but they
got eaten (like a large number of old time
photography companies, even - very nearly -
Leica) by the gadget manufacturers. Until
the new wine breaks free of the old bottles
the economics of gadgets will predominate
in the photography as well as in the gadget
field. A really good 'bridge' camera (to
adopt what I think is your usuage of the
term) has not yet - in my opinion - been
released, though some have come fairly close.
Not least because in this world of gadgets
and robotic production lines a good bridge
camera is likely to return less per-unit
profit than a low-end or even a mid-range
DSLR, and with all those tourists being born
every minute who can blame the manufacturers?

My guess is that the old bottles ('compacts',
a.k.a. 'abortions') will be gone in a decade
or so (and the rapidly growing proportion of
people outside my door who now cluster around
the screens of their G3 cellphones or PDAs
compared to those checking out the same snaps
on their 'compacts' seems to confirm that).

Then, the extraordinary advances in lens and
imaging technology that make a single-unit,
professional, miniature camera possible now,
if not yet available, will come into their
own and the weighty aluminimum-box "gadget
bag" of a very high proportion of current
DSLR-using professionals or image-inclined
amateurs (though not all of them, of course)
will shrink to hold the only the polarizers,
the plastic and a Mars Bar or two. Because
a single-unit camera - with a backup of some
sort, hardware or hire shop, kept somewhere
in case of equipment failure - will do the
job, so they'll prefer it that way. As will
their tailors, their finally-merry wives and
their customer-brides' Moms....

My regards to all the little Parries. :-)

-- I added the ASCII portrait of Shagsper....

3:30 pm - Saturday, November 11, 2006

#16 Gary's Parries

Let me see if I understand your contention correctly. Given a choice
between a "Panasonic FZ50" bridge camera and a "Nikon D50" DSLR
with an equivalent image-stabilized 12x zoom lens at the same price,
you would choose the FZ50 over the D50?

If that is your contention, I must admit, I do not understand why, just
for the D50's better image quality not to mention for its narrower DOF
when doing portraits, let alone for its ability to change lenses, 'should'
you feel the need.

NN, I 'rewrapped' the lines (as you suggested in comment #13), and
comment #15 was still long ... but nonetheless, very interesting. :)

4:52 pm - Saturday, November 11, 2006

#17 Notmy Name

> Let me see if I understand your contention correctly. Given a choice
> between a "Panasonic FZ50" bridge camera and a "Nikon D50" DSLR
> with an equivalent image-stabilized 12x zoom lens at the same price,
> you would choose the FZ50 over the D50?


Not necessarily. I have been pursuing your
ORIGINAL point of manufacturers maintaining
pricing points - which, I have been saying,
are usually significantly more related to
what they have tooled up to do in the past
rather than what their customers would prefer
to buy today (see Toby, below): comparing two
specific products, both of which are based on
yesterday's lines is not a useful exercise in
that context, EXCEPT for Ninon's financial
controllers and shareholders.

In the early 1970s I went to a trade demo of
Philip's new "video disc", which the public
would have bought plenty of (tempus QED),
but what they got for the next two decades
was VCRs because manufacturers other than
Philips were already financially committed to
tape as a result of their prior activities. And

in the late-mid 1970s I was involved in early
development of what have since been called
"PDAs". Screens and miniaturization were not
as good as today's, but they were good enough
for there to have been a decent pre-fruit-mad
market. However, Taiwan's technical R&D and
production lines - and globalized production
for transatlantic businesses - were far more
primitive and transatlantic manufacturers had
unamortized investments in a very much more
macro-scale product. So the public "did not
want" the very same fruit-named technology it
now $o de$ire$ for another decade & 1/2. As
Toby Young's old Dad used to say: people do
not know what they want until they see it in
front of them. Surviving manufacturers amortize
yesterday before they let their customers
into tomorrow. A bit like "waste not, want
not", except more like "if anyone is going to
waste their substance on outmoded technology
let it be the customer, not the shareholder."

Incidentally, re DoF, your elucidations of
it (or those that I've seen) have not made
much, if anything, of either the subtended
angle of the final print/display from average
viewing distances or the resolving power of
the lens in the *choice* of CoC. Thus, perhaps,
giving the impression that objectivity in the
matter of what is "in" or "out" of "focus" is
rather more important c.f. subjectivity than
it actually is.

PS: "NN" is fine for formal, but you can call
me "Bokeh" (or "Okeh Bokeh" for short :-) )

1:33 pm - Saturday, November 18, 2006

#18 Gary's Parries

NN (OB, if you prefer), your references are going way over my head.
Once you get off the subject of digital cameras, I am OOF. :)

As for your point about Circle of Confusion being "subjective" as well
as objective, I would certainly agree, especially with regard to Bokeh,
where it is not only the CoC size that matters, but also the shape and
distribution.

9:51 am - Sunday, November 19, 2006