The Canon EOS R1 may not come until 2024

[Michael Clark]

Ways to round numbers fall into two categories:

1. Mathematically correct
2. Wrong

You chose one from the second category. But that much you can’t seem to admit, freely or otherwise.

Types of numerical systems:

1. Base-10/decimal
2. Non-decimal systems, such as Binary/Base-2, Base-3, Base-4, etc. or other bases that use only numeral characters where the "round" numbers do not translate to round Base-10 numbers.
3. Hexadecimal (Base16) or other systems that use a combination of numerals and letters and the "round" numbers in such systems do not translate to round Base-10 numbers.
4. Logarithmic systems based on rational or even irrational numbers (e.g. "natural log" e) that are not decimal based and thus the "round" numbers in such a system do not translate to round Base-10 numbers.
5. Exponential systems based on powers of numbers other than 10 so that the "round" numbers in such a system do not translate to round Base-10 numbers.
6. Vocational systems based on the most commonly used values that are not all "round" Base-10 numbers, such as photographic lens focal lengths such as 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 85mm, 100mm, 105mm, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, etc.
7. Systems based on multiples of irrational numbers such as π or φ, so that "round" numbers such as 2π or φ+1 do not translate to round Base-10 numbers.
8. Coinage systems with coins which are not multiples of 10 of the base unit. For example, 23 cents would round up to 25 cents, rather than down to 20 cents. 7 cents would round down to 5 cents, rather than up to 10 cents.

You're being entirely too self-limiting by insisting that numbers with more than only a first significant digit not divisible by 10, 100, 1000, etc. are round numbers.

 

[Michael Clark]

You may be able to measure brain activity corresponding to specific wavelengths, but as colours do not really exist and are just a concept of our brains, how on earth can we find out if the sky looks the same for both of us? No matter how the sky looks, each of us would still call that colour "blue", as we both have learned that this colour is blue.

Here is an article about that:

Your Color Red Really Could Be My Blue

Scientists think our brains do not have a predetermined way of perceiving each wavelength of light. The way we each perceive colors could be unique.

www.livescience.com

Quote:
Anyone with normal color vision agrees that blood is roughly the same color as strawberries, cardinals and the planet Mars. That is, they're all red. But could it be that what you call "red" is someone else's "blue"? Could people's color wheels be rotated with respect to one another's?

"That is the question we have all asked since grade school," said Jay Neitz, a color vision scientist at the University of Washington. In the past, most scientists would have answered that people with normal vision probably do all see the same colors. The thinking went that our brains have a default way of processing the light that hits cells in our eyes, and our perceptions of the light's color are tied to universal emotional responses. But recently, the answer has changed.

"I would say recent experiments lead us down a road to the idea that we don't all see the same colors," Neitz said.

Another color vision scientist, Joseph Carroll of the Medical College of Wisconsin, took it one step further: "I think we can say for certain that people don't see the same colors," he told Life's Little Mysteries.

One person's red might be another person's blue and vice versa, the scientists said. You might really see blood as the color someone else calls blue, and the sky as someone else's red. But our individual perceptions don't affect the way the color of blood, or that of the sky, make us feel.

Any time a scientist says "I think that" instead of "peer reviewed studies that have been duplicated and verified show that" you can read between the lines about how accepted the claim is by the overall scientific community who are experts in that area.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Any time a scientist says "I think that" instead of "peer reviewed studies that have been duplicated and verified show that" you can read between the lines about how accepted the claim is by the overall scientific community who are experts in that area.

You will not find any peer reviewed study that shows the opposite, as it is simply not possible to find out how another person feels.

Even left and right are subjective. Imagine your view was mirrored and all the signals of your body where also mirrored. So if you touch something with your right hand, you would feel it in your left hand and so one. If you feel that you turn left, you actually turn right, but you would not know the difference, as you have learned that this direction is called "right".

Brain waves do not help much with that. You can just measure how much activity is in which part of your brain, but if we could understand those waves, we could read the brains of people. If hope that we will never be able to do that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Types of numerical systems:

1. Base-10/decimal
2. Non-decimal systems, such as Binary/Base-2, Base-3, Base-4, etc. or other bases that use only numeral characters where the "round" numbers do not translate to round Base-10 numbers.
3. Hexadecimal (Base16) or other systems that use a combination of numerals and letters and the "round" numbers in such systems do not translate to round Base-10 numbers.
4. Logarithmic systems based on rational or even irrational numbers (e.g. "natural log" e) that are not decimal based and thus the "round" numbers in such a system do not translate to round Base-10 numbers.
5. Exponential systems based on powers of numbers other than 10 so that the "round" numbers in such a system do not translate to round Base-10 numbers.
6. Vocational systems based on the most commonly used values that are not all "round" Base-10 numbers, such as photographic lens focal lengths such as 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 85mm, 100mm, 105mm, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, etc.
7. Systems based on multiples of irrational numbers such as π or φ, so that "round" numbers such as 2π or φ+1 do not translate to round Base-10 numbers.
8. Coinage systems with coins which are not multiples of 10 of the base unit. For example, 23 cents would round up to 25 cents, rather than down to 20 cents. 7 cents would round down to 5 cents, rather than up to 10 cents.

You're being entirely too self-limiting by insisting that numbers with more than only a first significant digit not divisible by 10, 100, 1000, etc. are round numbers.

Let's review:

Do you have any idea how much a lens with an 180mm front element would cost? That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.

The 800/5.6 does not have a 150mm front element. I should know better than to think you could possibly just simply admit that you made a mistake.

 

[AlanF]

View attachment 206382

Let's review:

The 800/5.6 does not have a 150mm front element. I should know better than to think you could possibly just simply admit that you made a mistake.

A 800 f/5.6 lens has an entrance pupil of 142.9mm to 4 significant figures, 143mm to 3 significant figures, 140mm to 2 significant figures and 100mm to 1 significant figure. And, I can't see anywhere you have contradicted that.

 

[bbasiaga]

A 800 f/5.6 lens has an entrance pupil of 142.9mm to 4 significant figures, 143mm to 3 significant figures, 140mm to 2 significant figures and 100mm to 1 significant figure. And, I can't see anywhere you have contradicted that.

This is a great way to show how sig figs can be grossly mis-applied. I'd hate to be the optical engineer that made the wrong size front element because of sig figs!

-Brian

 

[AlanF]

This is a great way to show how sig figs can be grossly mis-applied. I'd hate to be the optical engineer that made the wrong size front element because of sig figs!

-Brian

Nothing to worry about - if they rounded down to 100mm by mistake, they'd just sell it as a 800mm f/8 and proudly say it is a lighter rival to the Nikon 800/6.3.

 

[Michael Clark]

View attachment 206382

Let's review:

The 800/5.6 does not have a 150mm front element. I should know better than to think you could possibly just simply admit that you made a mistake.

So let me get this straight.

You're claiming I didn't round at all but simply made an error in arithmetic?
At the same time you're also claiming that I rounded incorrectly?

 

[neuroanatomist]

So let me get this straight.

You're claiming I didn't round at all but simply made an error in arithmetic?
At the same time you're also claiming that I rounded incorrectly?

Does it matter? Either way, you were wrong.

But since you ask – yes, no, and yes.

Yes, I initially implied that you made an error in arithmetic, suggesting you needed a calculator and that your example should have been the 600/4 (the quotient of which is 150), instead of the 800/5.6 (the quotient of which is 143).

No, I did not state at the same time that you rounded incorrectly. You are the one who later claimed you had rounded the front element diameter of the 800/5.6 to 150mm.

Yes, I subsequently stated that rounding 143mm up to 150mm is mathematically incorrect. Because it is.

You then proceeded to make ever more outlandish, asinine claims in your pathetic efforts to avoid simply admitting you were wrong.

If you did not simply make an arithmetic error (or mentally transpose the 800/5.6 and 600/4), I can only conclude that either your ability to correctly round numbers is below that of my children as first graders or you are mentally incapable of simply admitting you were wrong. The former seems unlikely, as you are evidently an intelligent person. The latter, in my experience, is associated with pathological emotional insecurity.

 

[Kit.]

I can only conclude that either your ability to correctly round numbers is below that of my children as first graders

Do your children know the difference between the rounding rules in the 1985 and the 2008 versions of the IEEE 754 standard?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Do your children know the difference between the rounding rules in the 1985 and the 2008 versions of the IEEE 754 standard?

Lol, no. Nor do I. Please tell me, does any version of the standard include using 'commonly marketed 135-format lens focal length values' as reference points to which numbers should be rounded?

That was one of @Michael Clark's excuses for why he rounded the 143mm quotient of 800mm / 5.6 up to 150mm...because 140mm is not a commonly marketed 135-format lens focal length. His argument was that 143mm is closer to 150mm than to 135mm, so 150mm was the correctly rounded value for the front element diameter of an 800mm f/5.6 lens.

 

[Curahee]

We only ever get bits and pieces about the development of the Canon EOS R1, which will be the flagship camera of the RF system. Most of what we’re hearing now may have some truth in it, but there are also going to be a lot of unknowns and likely hearsay. There is a recent

See full article...

I see speculation on the R1 price pushing 10K in USD. Is this reasonable with the Nikon pricing scheme being substantially lower for the Z9?
If the R1 is the be all end all high res monster some say, perhaps the price would be justified, but the video specs would have to be very high end pro as well, I would guess. It is exciting to speculate on specs, but, with the economy not exactly booming and affecting everyone pretty much including organizations who use these cameras struggling. Finally with AP going Sony that is a lot of cameras not being sold unless Canon can recapture that market and other pros that have jumped to Sony. I hope they can recapture those markets but even for those markets 10K USD is going to be a hard sell.

 

[Kit.]

Lol, no. Nor do I. Please tell me, does any version of the standard include using 'commonly marketed 135-format lens focal length values' as reference points to which numbers should be rounded?

They don't need to. They specify different ways or rounding (and both include rounding up toward +infinity). It's up to the users to select the method of rounding more applicable to their use cases.

That was one of @Michael Clark's excuses for why he rounded the 143mm quotient of 800mm / 5.6 up to 150mm...because 140mm is not a commonly marketed 135-format lens focal length. His argument was that 143mm is closer to 150mm than to 135mm, so 150mm was the correctly rounded value for the front element diameter of an 800mm f/5.6 lens.

Seems weird. Still, I have a much better "excuse":

I don't see how a honest 800/5.6 lens that is able to focus on infinity can be made with a 140 mm front element.

 

[neuroanatomist]

They don't need to. They specify different ways or rounding (and both include rounding up toward +infinity). It's up to the users to select the method of rounding more applicable to their use cases.

This is not complicated, it's simple.



Regardless, the standard seems to recommend rounding to the nearest value with an even least significant digit, i.e. 143mm should be rounded to 140mm, not 150mm.

Seems weird. Still, I have a much better "excuse":

I don't see how a honest 800/5.6 lens that is able to focus on infinity can be made with a 140 mm front element.

Because the lens is neither exactly 800mm nor exactly f/5.6. My EF 600mm f/4L IS II can focus to infinity, and the measured front element diameter is ~144mm. I don't have an 800/5.6 to measure, but I would bet the actual front element of the real lens has a diameter of <140mm.

So unless you are suggesting that an 800/5.6 needs a larger front element than a 600/4, claiming an 800/5.6 lens has a 150mm front element is wrong.

 

[Kit.]

This is not complicated, it's simple.

Indeed. "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

View attachment 206446

This one is not one of the rules specified in IEEE 754. It looks like the rule added in the 2008 revision ("Round to nearest, ties away from zero"), except that "add one more" is confusing and may be misinterpreted for negative numbers.

Regardless, the standard seems to recommend rounding to the nearest value with an even least significant digit, i.e. 143mm should be rounded to 140mm, not 150mm.

It is preferred to "ties away from zero", because it doesn't introduce rounding bias when used with values having the same sign.

However, sometimes you are forced to round toward a particular direction (and be aware of the accrued bias), because rounding toward another direction is physically incorrect.

Because the lens is neither exactly 800mm nor exactly f/5.6.

Then it's not "honest".

 

[Michael Clark]

Lol, no. Nor do I. Please tell me, does any version of the standard include using 'commonly marketed 135-format lens focal length values' as reference points to which numbers should be rounded?

That was one of @Michael Clark's excuses for why he rounded the 143mm quotient of 800mm / 5.6 up to 150mm...because 140mm is not a commonly marketed 135-format lens focal length. His argument was that 143mm is closer to 150mm than to 135mm, so 150mm was the correctly rounded value for the front element diameter of an 800mm f/5.6 lens.

Yet here you are, claiming to know what my thought process was when I originally divided 800 by 5.6, got 142.857... and decided to round up to 150mm rather than round down to 135mm because those are two common measurements used in 135 format photography.

You can argue, and may even be correct by some folks' standards, that such a decision was incorrect or invalid.

What you can never know nor never prove is what my thought process was leading to posting the result that you consider an error.

Yet you repeatedly have falsely insisted that you know better than I what I did (you claim, for instance, that I did not use a calculator when I most certainly did - unless one considers the calculator app in Windows 10 to not be an actual calculator).

Your refusal to admit that you are completely, totally incorrect about the way I know how I arrived at the number I did is the elephant in the room here.

You continually browbeat me that there's no way I could have arrived at 150mm in the way I know I did.
You continually browbeat me over the fact that I refuse to agree with you about how you theorize I chose 150mm.
You continually make the same error over and over and over again while criticizing me for making what you consider to be a singular error in rounding by insisting, incorrectly, about how I must have arrived at that number, even though I have explained exactly how I know I arrived at that number.

Who's the one being most stubborn about admitting they are wrong?

 

[Michael Clark]

I see speculation on the R1 price pushing 10K in USD. Is this reasonable with the Nikon pricing scheme being substantially lower for the Z9?
If the R1 is the be all end all high res monster some say, perhaps the price would be justified, but the video specs would have to be very high end pro as well, I would guess. It is exciting to speculate on specs, but, with the economy not exactly booming and affecting everyone pretty much including organizations who use these cameras struggling. Finally with AP going Sony that is a lot of cameras not being sold unless Canon can recapture that market and other pros that have jumped to Sony. I hope they can recapture those markets but even for those markets 10K USD is going to be a hard sell.

The AP in 2024 will probably buy fewer total bodies than the local newspapers in only NYC, Chicago, and L.A. combined typically bought per year in 2002-2003-2004 when the leading newspapers began converting to digital for their rank-and-file photogs. The number of full-time photojournalists working with agency issued gear is miniscule compared to the same number 20 years ago. The target customer base for "flagship" bodies has shifted from working pros to well heeled enthusiasts.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yet here you are, claiming to know what my thought process was when I originally divided 800 by 5.6, got 142.857... and decided to round up to 150mm rather than round down to 135mm because those are two common measurements used in 135 format photography.

You can argue, and may even be correct by some folks' standards, that such a decision was incorrect or invalid.

What you can never know nor never prove is what my thought process was leading to posting the result that you consider an error.

Yet you repeatedly have falsely insisted that you know better than I what I did (you claim, for instance, that I did not use a calculator when I most certainly did - unless one considers the calculator app in Windows 10 to not be an actual calculator).

Your refusal to admit that you are completely, totally incorrect about the way I know how I arrived at the number I did is the elephant in the room here.

You continually browbeat me that there's no way I could have arrived at 150mm in the way I know I did.
You continually browbeat me over the fact that I refuse to agree with you about how you theorize I chose 150mm.
You continually make the same error over and over and over again while criticizing me for making what you consider to be a singular error in rounding by insisting, incorrectly, about how I must have arrived at that number, even though I have explained exactly how I know I arrived at that number.

Who's the one being most stubborn about admitting they are wrong?

Your thought process, of lack thereof, is irrelevant. If you thought long and deeply and concluded that 1 + 1 = 3, you would be wrong.

 

[AlanF]

Your thought process, of lack thereof, is irrelevant. If you thought long and deeply and concluded that 1 + 1 = 3, you would be wrong.

I had the opportunity this evening of asking a world expert on vision and perception whether it is possible to tell if people perceive colours differently because of different spectral responses of their opsin receptor components resulting from different amino acids in them. Apparently, you can interrogate peoples individual colour spaces by asking such questions as getting them to compare say red and orange together with blue and green together and asking them which is the brighter in each pair. You can get different answers from people with different spectral responses of their opsins.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I had the opportunity this evening of asking a world expert on vision and perception whether it is possible to tell if people perceive colours differently because of different spectral responses of their opsin receptor components resulting from different amino acids in them. Apparently, you can interrogate peoples individual colour spaces by asking such questions as getting them to compare say red and orange together with blue and green together and asking them which is the brighter in each pair. You can get different answers from people with different spectral responses of their opsins.

That aligns with the limited primary literature in the space.