Scotland NG Gathering 2016: Projects

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I got an idea. Thanks, Dave.

[Frank Fremerey]

Simone & Simone ... Ok Ok, we can leave the scientifical nitpicking out of the way and just have fun.

My point is, that lens (and sensor) character is so different that equivalence cannnot be achieved, because there is no equivalens.

I have seen in several threads here the different drawing characteristics of lenses with the same angle of view, taken from the same point of view (= perspective), that I seriously doubt any assumption of some

50mm f=1.0/1.4 on a m43 sensor being "more or less the same" as a 100 f=2.0/2.8 on a 24x36 qmm sensor or a 75 f=1.4/2.0 on an APS-C

The sensors are of different character ("which sensor of that size?"), the lenses are of extremly different character ("which lens of that focal length?").

My personal take is that if you managed to fundamentally disprove (e.g. get an opposite effect or be off by orders of magnitude) the predictions of 'equivalence' (within the narrow scope it was originally intended for, and written by experts on optics), you might as well rewrite everything which has been written about optics since Newton. Most of the time people get confused because they cannot keep track of all the assumptions. Plus, any practical use of the concepts will always be only a rough approximation because you can never get the 'ceteris paribus' part exactly right unless you design all lenses and sensors from scratch to spec. Therefore I would expect very little insight from this sort of experiment. Personally, if I find myself in the situation of having to take almost the same photograph with two different formats (this rarely happens) I know what I have to do, and it works to the extent that I can actually control every variable (I usually cannot). What more do you need? We could try to do that for one shot, it would not take too long. Actually you only need one zoom lens and one camera, and the crop feature and you are set.

[simsurace]

Simone & Simone ... Ok Ok, we can leave the scientifical nitpicking out of the way and just have fun.

My point is, that lens (and sensor) character is so different that equivalence cannnot be achieved, because there is no equivalens.

I have seen in several threads here the different drawing characteristics of lenses with the same angle of view, taken from the same point of view (= perspective), that I seriously doubt any assumption of some

50mm f=1.0/1.4 on a m43 sensor being "more or less the same" as a 100 f=2.0/2.8 on a 24x36 qmm sensor or a 75 f=1.4/2.0 on an APS-C

The sensors are of different character ("which sensor of that size?"), the lenses are of extremly different character ("which lens of that focal length?").

Of course fun and science can very well go together, but I'm all in favor to think carefully about the question we are addressing.

The points you mention are of course way beyond the simplified theory. There wouldn't be a lot of merit in using them to disprove the basic theory since we all know its limitations. It would be akin to 'disproving' quantum mechanics by tossing around apples and oranges, anyone already knows that those objects don't qualify as microscopic. Anyway, most of us don't get to build our own dream lenses and sensors, we simply pick and choose what's available and gets us close enough to what we want. Obviously, some special lenses with special characters have no 'equivalents' in other formats, which makes the world a more interesting place. I don't believe that anyone disputes that.

[Frank Fremerey]

For the off-topic-detectors: this is a metaphorical rant on photography!

If a scientific theory is only "laboratory right" and has no merit in real life it is not wrong per se, it is just meaningless?
I recently learned that the correct treatment of soil is often tested in a lab with homogenized and/or sterilized soil.
In real life soil is full of microorganisms, fungi/mycelium, nematodes, worms, plants and other life and it is out in the open.
No meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the sterilized test, except for greenhouse cultures growing in such conditions.

Analogy:

If I setup a photographic quality control scheme in a factory assembly belt I will do anything to exclude external interference factors.
If I am to take photos in the field I choose my tools carefully to be able to achieve the desired pictorial effect, either clean or wild to my liking.
For the first application, the "laws of equivalence" might be useful, for the field they are not.

[David Paterson]

Three views of Killin.

[chris dees]

David, did you already warn everyone in Killin for the NikonGear gang?

[Jakov Minić]

The NG bandits 

[Andrea B.]

We should all wear black leather jackets.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I plan to use my high visibility vest - perhaps back it up with a black leather jacket?

[David Paterson]

The NG bandits 

I believe that the sheriff and his deputies have already fled in a panic into the hills. And the bounty-hunters are gathering. 

[rosko]

The NG bandits 

 

[Akira]

We should all wear black leather jackets.

Yeah, and rent a bunch of Harley-Davidsons!

[Jan Anne]

I believe that the sheriff and his deputies have already fled in a panic into the hills. And the bounty-hunters are gathering. 

And what about the virgins

[Jacques Pochoy]

Last time I was in Mallaig (north of Fort William) The full kilted sheriff had a Lee-Enfield rifle... :-) Those were the times when they thought they had also a monster in Loch Morar and musical seals in Loch Nevis (that came to hear whatever music you had on a radio set) !
It was also the first time I saw a telephone post sporting branches and leaves :-) Of course, as a Frenchman I was reminded of the "Auld Alliance" !
I'm sure the NG team will be very well welcomed !

[David Paterson]

And what about the virgins

The kelpies had the last few, years ago.

So, since there are no virgins left, here is another of Killin's star attractions - a museum of how country folk lived in the 19th century, or, in this case, until 1968; Moirlanich Longhouse -  exterior and an interior. (originally it would have been thatched.)