you may have mentioned it once or twice

just a quick mention for Noiseninja.

I used to use Neatimage under Windows, but there is no Linux version so when I made the switch I had to look for another option. Noiseninja does not have a fully functional free version like NI, but it does have a demo version which is enough to evaluate the product.

My experience is that its auto profiling is much better than that of Neat Image, and it also seems to be less destructive to image detail

It also has the option to "paint" the noise back selectively if you want to, so that if detail has been removed it can be manually restored.

it's a good system, and for the quantity of photography I do it is more than enough.

I agree with the above comments, I use my DL2 side by side with my K10D. The DL2 has the 18-55 lens on nearly all the time while the K10D has whatever specialist lens I might think is useful for the days shooting, either a macro or a long tele.

Since most of my work is either macro or long telephoto the 10D gets more use, but I don't hesitate to pull out the DL2 if a wide angle shot presents itself. Except for some specific situations, the DL2 is just as capable of producing a good shot as the K10D, at least in my hands anyway.

PS that last phraise is supposed to berate my abilities with the 10D rather than inflate those with the DL2, before George comments.

it's not bad design, its a matter of physics

our eyes and photographic film respond logarithmically to light, CCDs respond linearly. Unless someone manages to produce a digital sensor with a logarithmic light response (and as I understand it that would need to be drastically different from any current system) it's something we are just stuck with.

hi Liam, interesting thread that, populated by people with a far deeper understanding of relativity and QM than I have! Glad to see I was at least close to right.

actually talking about the photon's rest mass is misleading since a photon can never come to rest, they have to be doing the speed of light all the time and in all frames of reference (and no, c is not a variable, but PLEASE don't make me go into relativity, that I really will have to go look up)

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle puts a limit on how accurately certain pairs of things can be measured, but I don't think it will ever come into play in camera design. As was mentioned earlier, we don't need to know either energy or position particularly accurately by quantum standards. You'd have issues with diffraction limits in the lens long before you hit Heisenberg limits in the sensor.

OK my optics is good, my quantum mechanics less so but if I recall correctly this is the deal:

light is really neither particle (photon) nor wave, these are just two ways of thinking about it which fit certain properties. No one has yet come up with a satisfactory way of thinking about radiation which explains all it's properties, which is why we are stuck with the messy "wave-particle duality" description.


Thomas (who I note is still not rhyming, although rhyming in quantum mechanics is not easy ) is quite right, the energy of a photon corresponds to the wavelength of the light via

wavelength = (plancs constant x the speed of light)/Energy in electron volts

so even if you only catch one photon, if you measure it's energy you can get the wavelength of the light and thus the colour. Of course catching single photons presents issues with measuring light intensity, but if it's that dim TBH it's probably time to put the camera away anyway.

I agree with George, but bear in mind that this will certainly void your warranty so if anything goes wrong you will have made the GX-10 into a very expensive paperweight.

If my understanding is correct (and I have a first in the physics of optics which suggests that it is at least close), then the coating would have to differ not only between lens designs but between optical elements in the same lens.

The original SMC coating which provided such good results on normal optical glass would be useless and possibly even detrimental on any of the modern special glasses used in lens construction. These glasses have different refractive indices from normal glass, and the required composition of an effective multi-coating scheme would have to compensate for this. Even the fairly modest 50-200 contains at least one ED glass element to earn it's 50-200 ED designation.

aha at last we have someone who has seen both lenses at the same time. Good old John!

sounds like the coatings are the same then, and if they are the same between those two lenses it is reasonable to assume they are on all of them.

I think Mannesty probably has it right with his theory about Samsung not being allowed to make a big deal about it.

yup, Dan has it right, and without my physics mumbo jumbo