Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next OL lens lab test - Tamron 35mm f/2.8 Di III OSD M1:@
#11
The Good Proofreader he is. Big Grin
#12
"Corners are not edges.... Circles have en edge too (one edge: its circumference). Where the edges in polygons meet are vertices or corners. Tricky to say what you mean correctly... Yes, a heptagon has more edges (7, versus 1 of a circle), but just as much edge. And a shape with more edges gets more and more smooth, until you call it a circle and it only has one edge, basically. So, "more edgy" does not cover it."
 ........................................................................................................................

 Some trigonometrical diatribe BC ....... not sure sure it has any relevance to ordinary english speaking human beings though, with all it's vertices and heptogonic references ...... Smile

 ........ personally, I'm perfectly happy with Klaus's use of "edgy" ...... a useful word which applies itself to many situations ........ "to be on edge" (nervous) ........ "to have the edge on someone" (advantage)........ to behave in an edgy fashion ........ ........ to be on the edge (breakdown) ...... etc.....


 ...... maybe I might have phrased it slightly diferently ?? ..... only slightly .......

  "The circular shape is maintained at F4, but it's edgy aperture form becomes more prominent/dominant from F5.6 onwards."

   ......... the bottom line is, if you are going to correct an editors English on a public forum .........

.......... you've really have to make certain that you are right ....... !!  Smile
Dave's clichés
#13
What is an editors English? And what did I get wrong? I know I typed "en" instead of "an" somewhere.

You are trying to "correct" me because it is me, and then you write "...  it's edgy aperture form becomes more prominent/dominant from F5.6 onwards."
Mistakes:
  1. "it's". It is?? No, "its".
  2. edgy aperture. I explained that edgy is wrong. The circle is just as edgy. Klaus is objecting not to the edge, but to the shape, or the amount of corners. It goes from a circular shape to a heptagonal shape. So he can choose which direction he wants to go, he can complain about the shape (heptagon, or "seven sided aperture" as to not confuse simpletons, but then "aperture" might also have to be simplified to "opening") or the straight aperture blades creating distracting bokeh.
  3. aperture form? No, aperture shape.

And Dave... No trigonometry was involved in anything I wrote (I guess you must have meant geometry?), and the only even slightly diatribe-ical post made appears to be yours? Wink
#14
[quote='Brightcolours' pid='54210' dateline='1626073275']
What is an editors English? And what did I get wrong? I know I typed "en" instead of "an" somewhere.

You are trying to "correct" me because it is me, and then you write "...  it's edgy aperture form becomes more prominent/dominant from F5.6 onwards."
Mistakes:
  1. "it's". It is?? No, "its".
  2. edgy aperture. I explained that edgy is wrong. The circle is just as edgy. Klaus is objecting not to the edge, but to the shape, or the amount of corners. It goes from a circular shape to a heptagonal shape. So he can choose which direction he wants to go, he can complain about the shape (heptagon, or "seven sided aperture" as to not confuse simpletons, but then "aperture" might also have to be simplified to "opening") or the straight aperture blades creating distracting bokeh.
  3. aperture form? No, aperture shape.




 Editors English is what an editor writes ......... 

  Yes, I put an apostrophy mark where I shouldn''t ....... "its"....

 "its edgy aperture form becomes more prominent/dominant from F5.6 onwards."

........ however, I was happy enough with the original sentence ........ and clearly so is Klaus, as it remains unchanged  ...... Smile
.........................................................................................................................

 ........ I harp back to a statement I made about the D4's sensor and said that I thought it was a very good one .........

  ...... you took it to mean that I meant it was one of the best sensors ever  ...... and were having none of it and set about proving it .......
 
 ........ so I did exactly the same and was having none of yours ...... Smile  reserving the right to have my own opinion ....... which still stands ......even though my D750 sensor is better ....... 

 I'm delighted to have different views, thoughts and opinions to yours BC ...... and no doubt you are relieved not to have the same as mine ....... Smile
Dave's clichés
#15
You are revising the history of the Df discussion a bit here, Dave....

You wrote: "...  it also had the renowned sensor from the D4, a good FF sensor to this day ...... both from the POV of noise, DR and colour rendition", after I wrote that the Df had "A contrived controls mix concept, under the guise of "retro" and "style"."

To which I replied: "The Df had the sensor of the D4, which had low dynamic range compared to the Sony sensors (worse than the D600/610/D750 for instance), the thing Canon sensors got bashed for at the time.... With similar high ISO noise as a D610 or 6D. Not sure what was renowned of that sensor, maybe its low resolution (4mp lower than my 6D)? "
The last part about the low resolution was of course a bit tongue in cheek.

I have not said that the D4 had a lousy sensor, nor am I of the opinion that the 6D has a lousy sensor. But neither should be described as "renowned" when they were not...

The noise at higher ISO is like other sensors (albeit with a lower resolution sensor, you should look at image level and not pixel peeping), the DR (something not high on my properties list as you are well aware) is lower than the Sony-sensored Nikon DSLRs of the same era, and colour rendition.... You can write whole dissertations about that....

My original point was that the Df was not a great design from Nikon, and lets leave it at that...
#16
(07-12-2021, 10:46 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: You are revising the history of the Df discussion a bit here, Dave....

You wrote: "...  it also had the renowned sensor from the D4, a good FF sensor to this day ...... both from the POV of noise, DR and colour rendition", after I wrote that the Df had "A contrived controls mix concept, under the guise of "retro" and "style"."

To which I replied: "The Df had the sensor of the D4, which had low dynamic range compared to the Sony sensors (worse than the D600/610/D750 for instance), the thing Canon sensors got bashed for at the time.... With similar high ISO noise as a D610 or 6D. Not sure what was renowned of that sensor, maybe its low resolution (4mp lower than my 6D)? "
The last part about the low resolution was of course a bit tongue in cheek.

I have not said that the D4 had a lousy sensor, nor am I of the opinion that the 6D has a lousy sensor. But neither should be described as "renowned" when they were not...

The noise at higher ISO is like other sensors (albeit with a lower resolution sensor, you should look at image level and not pixel peeping), the DR (something not high on my properties list as you are well aware) is lower than the Sony-sensored Nikon DSLRs of the same era, and colour rendition.... You can write whole dissertations about that....

My original point was that the Df was not a great design from Nikon, and lets leave it at that...

 ......... You see, I even let you have the last few words BC ..... I don't want you to feel like I'm not listening  .........I'm all ears ............ Smile
Dave's clichés
#17
Gosh, the DF vs. 6D debate has spilled here, too. Smile
Anyway, the review is still technically filled under the Industry News list... Klaus? Smile
#18
Oh no, the D4 vs 6D argument is resurfacing here.
Guys, how about taking the debate elsewhere?
Perhaps we need a new forum topic:"arguing" ;-)
--Florent

Flickr gallery
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)