Search results

Let me correct that for you: "YOU" don't care! But then, who cares. Just shut up if you have nothing to say.

Easily the most hilarious post ever!

Artisan & Artist

ROTFL

It appears to me that you are both right, yet apply different assumptions re output size/magnification. This is what matters, not the sensor size as such. The lens indeed doesn't care... Also, please don't be simplistic about Swiss cheese.

We are in agreement... Yet if you decompose what's going on, then changing the sensor size does NOT change the size of the COC produced by the lens, but only what you do with the recorded information in terms of magnification does.

Perfectly agree. I believe the confusion between Don, Neuro, Orangutan was on if, how and why changnig the sensor would do anything to the size of the COC the lens produces. And we seem to agree that it doesn't do anyhting at this level.

So, but this changes the size of the COC on the output through different magnification, but not the absolute size of the COC at the point the light reaches the sensor.

But through magnifying to same picture size...

Why is the circle of confusion changing? Isn't the only thing changing the size of the COC relative to the sensor size (but not the absolute size of the COC)?

Why do you guys always try to convince each other? That's a completely futile excercise...

I'm perfectly fine if you look at it that way.

I'm not arguing if Canon is doing right or wrong. I'm saying that if you want to assess if individual spec decisions are right or wrong, you have to look at how any given product sells in various channels and to various customer groups (e.g. sports, studio/fashion, film-makers, hobbyist, etc.)...

I don't think that the total sales number is meaningful enough to understand how well the different companies do with their business decisions with the different stakeholders out there. Meaningful data would include product groups, performance level, form factor, sales channel, consumer groups...

I don't think there is sales data publicly available which is meaningful enough for this discussion.

You might be right. And I hope you're right. I would hate to find out at some stage that they just missed the bus. Am I certain this is not the case? Probably not.

Not hairsplitting at all. The effect on AF performance is completely different: Putting an extension tube between the lens and the camera moves the lens away from the foreseen working distance to the sensor, while the adaptor puts the lens on the foreseen working distance to the sensor. Hence...

I don't think extension tubes are a meaningful comparison. They use the lens at a not foreseen distance to the sensor. An adapter would do the exact opposite; it would allow to use the lens at the foreseen distance to the sensor.

It is perfectly ok if you just only talk for yourself. I'll express my opinion myself if you don't mind...

How do you know it is not the other way around?