STOP PUTTING SO MUCH GLASS IN FRONT OF YOUR SENSORS https:/

File: 1470160505803.jpg (120KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x768px

Stop putting so much food in your belly.
This guy is the Jack of Photography.

>>3034789
He blocked me because I proved him wrong a couple of times.

>>3034794
nice blog post.

Still can't believe this fat fuck managed to date isi for a while. Fuck!

>>3034799
literally who? also who cares?
>being jealous and salty about other people dating

>>3034797
:>

>>3034789
This guy is a phoney.

I hate that he's full of tats yet he's some aloof bubbly nasally nerdy old bald Uncle

just goes to show tattoos are meaningless and even pansies are sleeving up.

Someone should tell him, that unless it's a 330 para, having an umbrella makes you a complete amateur bongo.

File: 2000px-ZeissTessar-text.svg.png (432KB, 3924x2228px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 3924x2228px

but less glass is better

Glorious Tessar 4 elements
Shitty Otus 11 elements

>>3034789
But he is right, even with the best coating you still have like 2-4% reflection for each glass

>>3034819
Yeah, the more air the better. You need to let the light breathe before it's applied to film/sensor.

>>3034824

Why do you think they call it focus breathing?

>>3034827
KEK I laughed hard.

>>3034789
>I'm a guy that knows a lot about field theory
has he finally gone off the deep end?

>>3034871
he has gone off the deep end a long time ago you fucking retard. and you don't seem to care because you still keep watching yet it has never not been shit.

File: brave little hobbit.jpg (32KB, 678x392px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 678x392px

>>3034789
>air is exactly like GCKLASS
p. exploitable desu

>>3034874
oh I never watched. my only exposure to this retard is through this forum. I think he's gotten more extreme with the pseudoscience babble though

>>3034877
But it is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices

>>3034883
no I just meant at 1:35 where his voice breaks
that's the voice of a man who will murder you and bury you in the woods
his stupidly reductive argument is another matter entirely

>>3034887
>that's the voice of a man who will murder you and bury you in the woods
he's just being silly on purpose, wtf are you on about?

also the shit he's saying is actually true

>>3034793
Hate to be that guy, but she's actually drinking just a regular protein shake. It's NOT horse cum.

so don't anyone come around asking for "sauce"

>>3034893
stop this meme. she's well known for bestiality porn

>>3034811

Tattoos are for literal faggots and losers

>>3034890
rayleigh scattering is not the only source of optical deficiency in camera lenses. it is defects in glass that participate in rayleigh scattering, not the glass itself (particles are too large). it is simply wrongheaded to equivocate between the two.
optical engineering is actually really complicated. trying to reduce lens design to a single number is the reason this guy is in the youtube business and not in the engineering business. he knows just enough to convince the uneducated and gullible that he knows what he's talking about.

How does he afford all his gear? I doubt his donation begging goes very far.

>>3034789
>it's gonna be nice and short
>it goes on for 11 minutes

>>3034902
>the only source of optical deficiency
that's not what he claims retard.

>>3034916
all right, what do YOU think he's trying to say?

>>3034932
>think
I don't have to guess. it's all in the fucking video. it's not about it being the ONLY source. retard

File: isi and ken.jpg (64KB, 383x503px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 383x503px

>>3034799

>>3034879
because he keeps getting attention

>>3034909
Wan't he claiming somewhere he was repairing cameras/lenses? That might be it.

So is his whole argument he conveyed in 11 minutes: glass and air absorbs blue light?
And therefore glass elements in lenses are bad, right?
How much blue light can be absorbed by couple centimeters of glass when sunsets are shifted to red by 300 kilometers of atmosphere?

>>3035039
i like the way you think.

Is field theory really not a thing?

>>3035039
>>3035041

w-what... go search about Rayleigh effect please.

File: flat-lens-02.jpg (192KB, 650x483px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 650x483px

>>3035039
But he's right. The more elements you put to correct chromatic aberration, the less light will pass through

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:02:19 12:53:46
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	650
Image Height	483

>>3035071
less light seems negligible and easily corrected for. but on the other hand, isn't chromatic aberration just as easily corrected in post-processing?

>>3035071
But how much light is blocked? Is there any quantification because he wasn't providing one, he was just ranting and raving.

>>3035104
It can be corrected easily if there's small amount of CA to begin with. I have old minolta 70-210 which has massive amount of chromatic aberrations and sometimes it's pointless to even try to fix it.

>>3035328
That's why you have T-stops.

>>3035328
>>3035342

Exactly.

Just compare f-stops to t-stops and you'll see it's only a minor issue.
Aberrations are a much bigger issue, therefore more elements is better.

*shock* lens makers actually do know better than a YouTube lunatic.

>>3035344
But you loose contrast. Glass is evil.

>>3035039
somebody calculated the loss @ dpr to be around 15% in worst case scenario (nikon 70-200 2.8)

>>3034789
This is fucking retarded,
stop posting this shit please

>>3035414
But that is a good thing. You can add contrast in post or use higher contrast film.

>>3035443
this post is retarded, stop making these retarded posts. this is not your personal blog.

>>3034789
Why does he spend 11 minutes barging about how smart and right he is? He is acting like a child.

>>3035478
why did you spend an entire post going on about how you're triggered by an 11m long youtube video?

>>3035479
Im sorry that I didn't like your video dude, just get to the point next time

>>3034789
Rick Harrison?

>>3035480
>implying if you don't hate a video, you are the creator

>>3035484
yes

>>3034934
that's the only source he mentions. And he attributes zeiss pop to this phenomenon. thanks for wasting my time with your retarded, content-free blathering.

>>3035481
Who?

>>3034894
Oh fuck off back to /b/ with that nonsense. You know damn well the forced meme is posting that pic and saying it's bestiality.

Go ahead and say I'm taking the b8 by replying to you, IDGAF.

>>3034902
So he is like man made global warming scientists, and Al Gore.
Actually it is not all that complicated. I have ground glass for years for my other hobby astronomy. I have done both refractors, and mirrors, as well as made a few eyepieces. You just decide what you want to do, and that determines the figuring of the glass. Also you select the glass elements that cancel out the aberrations of the previous element. You can correct fairly good without any coatings.

>>3034820
>>3035071

So?

Let's say you lose an entire half stop - which isn't likely. So?

We're not shooting ISO25 film anymore. I find half stops in my couch cushions and throw them out at this point.

>>3035466
MUH MICRO-CONTRAST!!!

He knows more than you stupid idiots on this 'photography forum'

>>3035566
are you butthurt because you don't like the truth?

>>3035832
Plus he has fingered more cameras and lenses in his life than the entire /p/ together.

>>3034789
what point is he trying to make?
also he doesn't actually understand scattering lmao

>>3036008
Do you understand?

>>3035832
>anon thinks knowing pointless gearfag bullshit is more important than taking actual photos
Every photo ever posted in the Recent Photo Toilet is better than anything this bald cunt has produced

/r/ing Ken's Wheelers old flickr account that was posted by anon in the last Ken thread

>>3036018
You're missing the point what bothers Ken is the missinformation spread by the likes of the fro guy and the cuck northrup and anyone else that believes in DxO bullshit.

>>3036033
you're missing the point what bothers scientifically literate people is the complete bullshit spouted by the fat man. if you think he's any more informed than northrup or frofro you ARE the problem

>>3036130
>fro guy
>cuck guy
>informed

into the trash it goes

Fatass has brain problems.

File: 1358134819745.gif (64KB, 360x357px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 360x357px

>>3034916
>>3034934
The Bald fat shilling is real.

Multiple elements are a meme created by jews to sell overpriced glass.

>>3036006
Was this through their pretty pink cases that he did the fingering?

>>3036633
Oh, he does more than just finger those.
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1489146858242.webm

I'm still convinced some of his videos do provide some insightful information here and there. And he's less biased towards individual pieces of gear, except Sony and Sigma, than the youtubers who advertise the gear while downplaying the criticisms. Thus when it comes to the gearfaggotry his opinion is worth more to me than the others' even though I still don't agree with him on a few topics. Haven't seen him produce a single photo that could've been classified as art though.

>>3036875
his whole youtube channel could be considered as outsider art

>>3035104
>isn't chromatic aberration just as easily corrected in post-processing?

Lateral CA yes
Longitudinal CA nope

>>3034908
I honestly think that he gets decent to okay lenses, calls them "The tits, better than sex, silk, and honey, etc" and then sells them once enough people believe him.

>>3035071
A lot of his mindless rantings start to make sense when applied to things like deep space or microscopic imaging (like the whole thing where magnetism can distort light waves, which is true with phenomena like pulsars and black holes), but you soon realize that he's just ranting about shit that he read on Wikipedia without accounting for real life examples. In a real life scenario like portraits or landscape, half or a quarter of a stop lost to glass elements is within reason when you gain things like sharpness and less aberration.

File: 33024221740_2b9111ffb7_b[1].jpg (202KB, 1024x773px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1024x773px

>>3034789
>glass is evil
>make 1-element pinhole lens held together by duct tape
>slap it onto a $1500 camera
>produce picrelated
>perfect