Canon "could" dominate in the high end

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Of lenses, if they wanted to.
Why?
Canon owns Optron.
Optron makes the best calcium-fluorite lens
material you can get.
Calcium-fluorite still works better than
hybrids (otherwise known as ED, or Super ED,etc)
glasses to control chromatic aberration and allows
shallower curves on lenses which means better control
of other aberrations.
But, calcium-fluorite is costly, a few times more costly
than the best (FPL-53) ED glass and, it's softer and harder
to work. That's why a lithographic lens for the semiconductor
industry (they use CaF2 because it's transparent in the ultraviolet)
costs upwards of $1,000,000. They use CaF2 elements almost 14" in
diameter. But of course, a camera lens elements wouldn't have to
be that large.
But, in terms of fast lenses, if this material was incorporated
it would be possible to produce 400mm f2 and 600mm f2.8 lenses given
current lens manufacturing technology. What would one cost?
About $25,000-$30,000.
But that isn't out of the realm of possibility for camera lenses.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:06:53 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:51:50 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Of lenses, if they wanted to.
>>Why?
>>Canon owns Optron.
>>Optron makes the best calcium-fluorite lens
>>material you can get.
>>Calcium-fluorite still works better than
>>hybrids (otherwise known as ED, or Super ED,etc)
>>glasses to control chromatic aberration and allows
>>shallower curves on lenses which means better control
>>of other aberrations.
>>But, calcium-fluorite is costly, a few times more costly
>>than the best (FPL-53) ED glass and, it's softer and harder
>>to work. That's why a lithographic lens for the semiconductor
>>industry (they use CaF2 because it's transparent in the ultraviolet)
>>costs upwards of $1,000,000. They use CaF2 elements almost 14" in
>>diameter. But of course, a camera lens elements wouldn't have to
>>be that large.
>>But, in terms of fast lenses, if this material was incorporated
>>it would be possible to produce 400mm f2 and 600mm f2.8 lenses given
>>current lens manufacturing technology. What would one cost?
>>About $25,000-$30,000.
>>But that isn't out of the realm of possibility for camera lenses.
>>-Rich
>
>What do you think Canon uses in it's "L" series?
>
>http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Fluorite
>
>http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html
>
>http://bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/eosfaq24/2nomenclature.html
>
>They use it now and have for a long time.

Maybe. But there have been cases where companies have claimed
to be using pure CaF2, but instead are using ED glass.
Probably Canon is using CaF2.
The only way to tell is to take a green laser pointer,
shine it through the glasses. If the beam is visible
going right through the lens, it's glass. If you don't see
a beam going through the lens, it's fluorite.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:06:12 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:27:16 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:06:53 GMT, John A. Stovall
>><johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:51:50 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of lenses, if they wanted to.
>>>>Why?
>>>>Canon owns Optron.
>>>>Optron makes the best calcium-fluorite lens
>>>>material you can get.
>>>>Calcium-fluorite still works better than
>>>>hybrids (otherwise known as ED, or Super ED,etc)
>>>>glasses to control chromatic aberration and allows
>>>>shallower curves on lenses which means better control
>>>>of other aberrations.
>>>>But, calcium-fluorite is costly, a few times more costly
>>>>than the best (FPL-53) ED glass and, it's softer and harder
>>>>to work. That's why a lithographic lens for the semiconductor
>>>>industry (they use CaF2 because it's transparent in the ultraviolet)
>>>>costs upwards of $1,000,000. They use CaF2 elements almost 14" in
>>>>diameter. But of course, a camera lens elements wouldn't have to
>>>>be that large.
>>>>But, in terms of fast lenses, if this material was incorporated
>>>>it would be possible to produce 400mm f2 and 600mm f2.8 lenses given
>>>>current lens manufacturing technology. What would one cost?
>>>>About $25,000-$30,000.
>>>>But that isn't out of the realm of possibility for camera lenses.
>>>>-Rich
>>>
>>>What do you think Canon uses in it's "L" series?
>>>
>>>http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Fluorite
>>>
>>>http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html
>>>
>>>http://bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/eosfaq24/2nomenclature.html
>>>
>>>They use it now and have for a long time.
>>
>>Maybe. But there have been cases where companies have claimed
>>to be using pure CaF2, but instead are using ED glass.
>>Probably Canon is using CaF2.
>>The only way to tell is to take a green laser pointer,
>>shine it through the glasses. If the beam is visible
>>going right through the lens, it's glass. If you don't see
>>a beam going through the lens, it's fluorite.
>
>Hey toll, you must not own any "L" lenses.
>
>They do use it and it's in the definitive work on Canon lenses, _The
>Eyes of EOS_.
>
>In fact the design diagrams show which elements are the calcium
>fluorite elements.

Is Canon also calling them "UD" elements?
If so, it's possible they are no longer
pure Calcium Fluorite but mixture composed
of a glass and CaF2.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:16Dae.12059$sp3.11632@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1m0j61hppk8nvmuvg39jjgps34dvjnlfe3@4ax.com...
>
>> What do you think Canon uses in it's "L" series?
>>
>> http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Fluorite
>>
>> http://photonotes.org/articles/beg [...] enses.html
>>
>> http://bobatkins.com/photography/e [...] ature.html
>>
>> They use it now and have for a long time.
>
> This is one of the main reasons that Canon now dominates in the high end.
> Nikon countered with ED (Extralow Dispersion) glass, but it isn't as
> sharp,
> and doesn't provide the same level of color correction, that you get with
> calcium-fluorite. Nikon's rational is that the calcium-fluorite is too
> sensitive to cracking and to temperature (one of the reasons for the white
> color of the Canon lenses with calcium-fluorite is to minimize temperature
> changes), but it's really just sour grapes.
>
>

Would it be possible to have your bias be any more obvious?
The repetitiveness of your posts is truly getting tedious. Have you ever
tried non agenda-driven, informative posts only?
I thought not.
Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:cbFae.15737$44.11492@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Robert Brace" <rlbrace@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:BCEae.1122356$6l.820207@pd7tw2no...
>
> <snip>
>
>> > This is one of the main reasons that Canon now dominates in the high
> end.
>> > Nikon countered with ED (Extralow Dispersion) glass, but it isn't as
>> > sharp,
>> > and doesn't provide the same level of color correction, that you get
> with
>> > calcium-fluorite. Nikon's rational is that the calcium-fluorite is too
>> > sensitive to cracking and to temperature (one of the reasons for the
> white
>> > color of the Canon lenses with calcium-fluorite is to minimize
> temperature
>> > changes), but it's really just sour grapes.
>
>> Would it be possible to have your bias be any more obvious?
>
> Stating the facts about a subject is not bias. Statements such as yours,
> which provide no information, but simply attack the person who posts the
> facts (while not even attempting to dispute the facts), are the true
> definition of bias.

"True definition" of bias??? Your statements have long since departed from
most people's definition of "true" and have landed firmly in the
neighborhood of pitifully agenda-driven.
You are now so biased and minutia-driven as to cause anyone with a germ of
interest to discount your repetitive drivel as irrelevant and nonsensical.
It's too bad because it further lowers the bar of this site for those trying
to learn "the digital way" and sort out the wheat from your chaff.


>
> Nikon tries to dismiss the advantages of calcium-flourite, with claims of
> fragility, and temperature sensitivity (on their web site), when in
> reality
> both of these issues have been mitigated not only by Canon, but by many
> other manufacturers of high-end optics (used in telescopes). Similar to
> how
> they try to dismiss the proven advantages of larger pixels, and bigger
> sensors. It's an attitude of 'we don't have it, we can't get it, so we'll
> make up stories of why it's no good.' Not a very effective marketing
> technique, and sour grapes is an accurate description of their effort to
> play down the advantages of calcium-flourite.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:x7Qae.12526$go4.1712@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Robert Brace" <rlbrace@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:kZOae.1127855$6l.866185@pd7tw2no...
>
>> You are now so biased and minutia-driven as to cause anyone with a germ
>> of
>> interest to discount your repetitive drivel as irrelevant and
>> nonsensical.
>> It's too bad because it further lowers the bar of this site for those
> trying
>> to learn "the digital way" and sort out the wheat from your chaff.
>
> The truth upsets some people. I make no effort to try to spare the
> feelings
> of anyone by trying to rationalize the problems with any camera, be it
> Nikon, Canon, or other. Unlike some sites, where "Recommended" is almost
> always the lowest rating they'll give a camera (it has to be truly awful
> to
> get lower than "Recommended" I strive to not mince words, even though it
> obviously upsets some people.
>
>

"The truth", as you refer to it is always relative. It is relative in its
importance to the audience and, most of all it only becomes relevant to the
audience when the presenter (you in this case) couches "their truth" in
terms that respect the audience.
Your "the truth upsets some people" comment truly shows the disdain in which
you hold the people who, by now, are still listening. Never mind the few
who still believe your drivel.
As much as I agree with your comments about "some sites", most people are
intelligent and recognize BS when they step in (or read) it. You do them a
disservice to think otherwise.
Your "I know better than you all" and "its for your own good, just listen
carefully" comments serve only to alienate your audience. I certainly don't
want to insult your obvious high level of innate intelligence, but you do
need to get a grip on the reality of human nature.
Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:BbSae.12704$go4.41@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Robert Brace" <rlbrace@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:ZgRae.1127288$8l.611841@pd7tw1no...
>
>> Your "the truth upsets some people" comment truly shows the disdain in
> which
>> you hold the people who, by now, are still listening. Never mind the few
>> who still believe your drivel.
>
> I don't know how to measure who believes me. From the e-mail feedback I've
> received, as well as the affiliate revenue that my site has generated, I'd
> say that you're in a very small minority. I don't think that people who
> are
> upset at the content on my site would be clicking through to the affiliate
> links (I never click through links on the sites that I believe are biased
> or
> insulting, and I would think that the same applies to people visiting my
> sites).
>

Being in a "Small Minority" (caps mine) will always be my goal if the
alternative is to be one of "the sheep" following "those in the know" who,
above all, don't understand why the world doesn't rise up in unanimous
approval of their pontification. I think your estimate of approval by
affiliate revenue is at the least overblown and a severe underestimation of
people's innate curiosity. The old "this site is obviously cr*p, let's get
on and see if the links lead to anything useful" adage, I believe is in full
play here.


>> As much as I agree with your comments about "some sites", most people are
>> intelligent
>
> Too many people get caught up in defending whatever purchasing decision
> that
> they have made, or whatever system they have adopted. I can't believe that
> there are still arguments over the Nikon lens mount, after all these
> years!
>
>

See, there you go again with the old "I obviously know better what is good
for you and you just don't have the intelligence to understand my position
being how it is so far above your ability to comprehend" verbiage again even
"after all these years". That old narcissus is still well and in full
bloom, I see.
Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"McLeod" <cerveza@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:rc1o61p52cuoj3375qvvqjj7naqueumdd4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:49:09 GMT, "Robert Brace" <rlbrace@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>> Too many people get caught up in defending whatever purchasing decision
>>> that
>>> they have made, or whatever system they have adopted. I can't believe
>>> that
>>> there are still arguments over the Nikon lens mount, after all these
>>> years!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>See, there you go again with the old "I obviously know better what is good
>>for you and you just don't have the intelligence to understand my position
>>being how it is so far above your ability to comprehend" verbiage again
>>even
>>"after all these years". That old narcissus is still well and in full
>>bloom, I see.
>
>
> Exactly. He has repeated the myths about the problems with the Nikon
> lens mount so often that he believes them, yet will not supply any
> real facts about the problem with them, just anecdotal evidence and
> reasons which make little sense. I use Nikon on a daily basis and my
> personal camera is a Fuji S3, apparently a hobbyist camera by his
> standards, but I probably would have bought Canon last year if not for
> my investment in glass. This year, with the D2x I probably would have
> regretted it.
> The bias on his website, not only against any other brand but Canon,
> but against common sense is revealing. Apparently a large number of
> the images coming from places like Iraq and Afghanistan are amateur
> images since they haven't been taken with professional
> cameras(Canons). Even a lot of photojournalists and documentary
> photographers using small point and shoots like the Olympus C series
> should be told they should change their job status I guess. I have
> only been seeing his posts because you included them in yours. I
> deleted him awhile ago when I realized that he believes the camera
> makes the image. As Peter Turnley was quoted in last month's PDN (I
> am paraphrasing since I don't have the article in front of me): People
> will only take photographers as serious artists or journalists when
> they stop asking each other what camera they used.

It's really too bad he (and others) can't seem to get over this hill of
"mine is better than yours". The emphasis should be on the results, not the
means to them. If you've got an impediment in the way of getting the images
you want, find a solution. Seldom will the solution be the dwelling upon
the minutia that seems to rear its head in a lot of discussions.
It certainly tends to reveal where the old adage of "those that can, do, and
those that can't, teach" comes from.
Too bad, because we all lose the ability to learn from each other when we
killfile those who tend to "teach".
Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

> The facts have been repeated ad-nauseum for many years, including a web site
> that details the issues.

What's the URL?

> In fact, it is the opposite of what you state, in terms of anecdotal
> evidence, since every time the issues are brought up they are not disputed,
> they are rationalized away anecdotally, i.e. 'I never would need the lenses
> that are not possible with the Nikon mount, therefore there is no issue."

Okay. So, then, what are these lenses that would not be possible with the
Nikon mount, and why would they not be possible?

> On my site, I try to not assume that everyone has the same wants and needs,
> and encourage people to look at both major and minor features of each model,
> rather than rationalizing away the limitations of any model.

Actually, you insist more than just about anyone I have ever seen that your
priorities should be everyone else's as well.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com