• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Not rolling over. fuck you, make me.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

Fear or fury? The choice is ours.

America is going up in flames. The NYTimes fawns over MAGA celebrities. No longer a real newspaper.

Mediocre white men think RFK Jr’s pathetic midlife crisis is inspirational. The bar is set so low for them, it’s subterranean.

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

“woke” is the new caravan.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

This fight is for everything.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

President Musk and Trump are both poorly raised, coddled 8 year old boys.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

Let’s bury these fuckers at the polls 2 years from now.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

“But what about the lurkers?”

You’re just a puppy masquerading as an old coot.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Not all heroes wear capes.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

The desire to stay informed is directly at odds with the need to not be constantly enraged.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Pet Blogging / Dog Blogging / Your perfect lens sucks

Your perfect lens sucks

by Tim F|  October 11, 201111:40 am| 53 Comments

This post is in: Dog Blogging, Science & Technology

FacebookTweetEmail

Fun photography fact! You might not know that the human eye works basically the same as a 100-megapixel digital camera with autofocus. The main difference is in that we have two different types of pixel: R/G/B cone cells for color vision and grayscale rod cells that let us see in low light. The ‘pixels’ are also a lot denser at the middle point where we focus (the fovea) than further out in the peripheral areas.

Fog and dobe
Pic taken with the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7, a not quite aberration-
free lens with intangible image qualities that micro four thirds camera
owners love.

Our firmware also presents an interesting question. For example, the eye focuses just like my E-P1: it hunts back and forth until it finds a sharp edge. We call that contrast-detect autofocus (CDAF). Traditionally CDAF kind of sucks. One problem is that you cannot tell whether blur is too close or too far away, so half the time the lens starts hunting in the wrong direction. Even if it starts well it always overshoots and then will hunt back and forth over the ideal spot. A second kind of autofocus traditionally works faster, phase-detect autofocus (PDAF), but evolution never gave us a phase prism so that is not an option.

A few months ago Olympus announced a new version of my camera that made a few small things better plus one big thing: they claimed the fastest autofocus in the world. Chat boards predictably went a little bit nuts, since you cannot add a phase prism to this kind of camera. That means hey made a CDAF faster than PDAF, and that’s like neutrinos beating photons. Weird and a little disturbing. Though, in this case, not wrong.

Then some rumors board found an obscure Olympus patent that pointed to an answer. Maybe they seeded some infrared-sensitive pixels into the sensor and used the difference between the normal light image and the IR image to tell whether blur is too close or too far and by how much? It was a great idea, but wrong. Olympus just beefed up their processor and put faster motors in the lenses.

The eye, on the other hand, does work like that mythical Olympus sensor. We can tell whether blur is too far or too close.

Wilson Geisler and Johannes Burge, psychologists at the Center for Perceptual Systems at the University of Texas, Austin […] attempted to mimic how the human visual system might be processing these images by adding a set of filters to their model designed to detect these features. When they blurred the images by systematically changing the focus error in the computer simulation and tested the response of the filters, the researchers found that they could predict the exact amount of focus error by the pattern of response they observed in the feature detectors. The researchers say this provides a potential explanation for how the brains of humans and animals can quickly and accurately determine focus error without guessing and checking. Their research appears online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The key bit is even more interesting. Geisler and Burge found that lens defects change the blur in small ways that make it easier for the brain to figure out which way to focus, so it’s better to have a slightly off lens than one that makes a flawless image. People who have corrective eye surgery, whose eyes are (one hopes) a lot more perfect than they were before, thus spend a while with serious focusing problems. I don’t know whether defects need to be significant to work best, but if so then the blazing fastest lenses of the future might have a slight circus mirror effect to them.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Super-Sized Nothingburger
Next Post: About That Liberal Media Thing »

Reader Interactions

53Comments

  1. 1.

    Guster

    October 11, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Velvety.

  2. 2.

    Raven (formerly stuckinred)

    October 11, 2011 at 11:51 am

    I assume this does not impact my Panasonic Luminex? It there a good place online to learn how to do more than point and shoot with this thing?

  3. 3.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    October 11, 2011 at 11:56 am

    the human eye works basically the same as a 100-megapixel digital camera with autofocus.

    Yes but it doesn’t have zoom. And on top of that, my nipple nut doesn’t seem to be working. No matter how hard I twiddle it I can’t seem to pick up Jazz FM.

  4. 4.

    PeakVT

    October 11, 2011 at 11:59 am

    Nikon has put PDAF on the sensor used in its new “1” system (boo on the name).

  5. 5.

    Tim F.

    October 11, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    @PeakVT: Also boo the sensor. It’s tiny. Plus the proprietary flash mount is a joke.

  6. 6.

    Social Outcast

    October 11, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    @Bill E Pilgrim: Wait till you try to recharge your batteries. You’re going to need an adapter.

  7. 7.

    Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen

    October 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    You might not know that the human eye works basically the same as a 100-megapixel digital camera with autofocus.

    Or in my case, one of those Kodak disposables that’s been dropped a few times.

  8. 8.

    Villago Delenda Est

    October 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Blah, blah, pixels, blah, blah.

    Bottom line here is Max is one good looking dog.

  9. 9.

    Villago Delenda Est

    October 11, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    People who have corrective eye surgery, whose eyes are (one hopes) a lot more perfect than they were before, thus spend a while with serious focusing problems.

    Could it possibly be that “perfect” is in the eye of the beholder?

    Nah, that can’t be it…

  10. 10.

    trollhattan

    October 11, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    @Raven (formerly stuckinred):

    “Lumix”? That’s Panny’s brand for all their digicams, from entry level to top of the line. Would have to know more about the model and how much user control one has. Some offer gobs of user control while others assume Stevie Wonder is in charge, in which case they Just Don’t Care what you think.

    There are a gazillion photo web sites that cover everything from camera operations to composition to lighting to post processing, as well as two gazillion user forums. DP Review or one of the others may have reviewed your model, in which case it will run you through all the controls and give some guidance at to strengths and weaknesses.

    My advice: Go out and shoot. Lots. Evaluate what works, what doesn’t work and where you’d like to get better.

  11. 11.

    dmsilev

    October 11, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    So let me guess. You had the camera in one hand, and a nice meaty bone or something in the other hand.

  12. 12.

    RP

    October 11, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    I have the 20/1.7 and love it.

  13. 13.

    deep cap

    October 11, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Here here! I just want to rub those adorable ears!!

  14. 14.

    dmsilev

    October 11, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    @Raven (formerly stuckinred): Which specific Lumix do you have? That brand name covers a wide swath of models, some of which are basically full-auto only and some of which can be manually controlled and tweaked to your heart’s desire.

  15. 15.

    Linda Featheringill

    October 11, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Nice picture of Max. Lots of very fine detail.

    And yes, Max is a pretty boy.

  16. 16.

    lamh32

    October 11, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    If any of Romney’s rivals really want to stick it to him tonight, then this should give them some ammunition right?

    “Records show senior White House officials met with Romney advisers on health care law – @NBCNews

    …Records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts. One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show.

    “The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,” said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. “They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.”

  17. 17.

    Paul in KY

    October 11, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    I would like to buy a compact auto-focus camera (digital) with a good zoom feature & will act like ASA 400 speed film does in a 35mm (stop motion in someone running/jumping).

    Any good recomendations?

  18. 18.

    John Cole

    October 11, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    The thought of that big wet nose being shoved into my armpit or side while sound asleep is enough to give me nightmares. That dog has a honker.

  19. 19.

    Raven (formerly stuckinred)

    October 11, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    @dmsilev: Sorry , PanasonicLumix DMC-Z310 MP
    I shoot tons of pics with it and my Kodak Z740 but I’n not sure I’m getting all I can since I normally use auto.

  20. 20.

    Raven (formerly stuckinred)

    October 11, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    @trollhattan: I realize there are a gazzilion which is why I posted the question. I hoped someone might narrow it for me. I use Steve’s Digicams for buying advice.

  21. 21.

    deep cap

    October 11, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    @John Cole: This is why dogs are better when your friends have them. You can play with them and then when the fun is over you can send them home. No cold noses in the morning.

    (Same can be said for children, come to think of it.)

  22. 22.

    Yutsano

    October 11, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Bottom line here is Max is one good looking dog.

    This ad infinitum.

  23. 23.

    mistermix

    October 11, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    @Tim F: I swear that my old manual-focus SLR camera coupled with my eye was, overall, more likely to give me well-focused shots than either of the new auto-focus DSLRs I’ve used. Autofocus is continually hunting and often focusing on the wrong damn thing, and since the manufacturers now consider the viewfinder as an composing device rather than a focusing device, they give us a viewfinder that is far too dark and lacks the focusing aids they used to have. And the lenses don’t have a nice big grip to use for manual focus.

  24. 24.

    trollhattan

    October 11, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    @Raven (formerly stuckinred):

    For how-to stuff I like Luminous Landscape and The Online Photographer. Not really tailored to beginners but inspiring as to what’s possible. DP Review is piling up quite an article collection, having once concentrated on reviews they’re expanding the brand (since Google bought them).

  25. 25.

    Roger Moore

    October 11, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Geisler and Burge found that lens defects change the blur in small ways that make it easier for the brain to figure out which way to focus, so it’s better to have a slightly off lens than one that makes a flawless image.

    A lot of people like the slightly off lenses, too, especially for portraits. If you have a perfectly corrected lens, out of focus points are blurred into evenly lit circles, or polygons if your aperture stop is noticeably polygonal. If you slightly undercorrect for spherical aberration, though, the out of focus points behind the subject have a brighter center and dimmer edge, which makes them less visibly obtrusive. The penalty is that out of focus objects in front of the subject have brighter edges and dimmer centers, which is distracting. Fortunately, OOF objects in front of the main subject are less common than ones behind, so it’s generally seen as a price worth paying.

    A lot of famous portrait lenses are designed to take this into account and deliberately leave in a little bit of spherical aberration to give the lens a nice defocus character. My favorite Nikon 105/2.5 portrait lens is even designed so that it’s well corrected when at infinity focus but develops more and more spherical aberration (and hence a blurrier background) the closer you focus. Nikon also makes a couple of “defocus control” lenses where the spherical aberration correction can be dialed in with a separate lens ring to fine-tune the effect.

  26. 26.

    Warren Terra

    October 11, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    What about the new camera technology in the news a few weeks ago that takes a sort of multifocus picture – a picture in which you can adjust the focus after it’s been taken?

  27. 27.

    Raven (formerly stuckinred)

    October 11, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    @trollhattan: I’m on it like white on rice! thx

  28. 28.

    trollhattan

    October 11, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    @mistermix:

    You forgot “And you kids stay off my lawn!”

    My first dslr has a “pentamirror” instead of a real pentaprism and a focusing screen designed to brighten the view, as pentamirrors are quite dim. I soon learned it’s completely hopeless as an optical focusing aid (with long or very fast lenses), forcing the use of live view zoom, which is painfully slow.

    Add to that the fact that focusing and DOF scales have been dropped from most dslr lenses and you’re depending on the camera to make up your mind for you on focus.

    So yeah, an entry level film slr focuses manually much better than many, if not the majority of dslrs. (I upgraded to a dslr with proper pentaprism and focus screen, which allows me to use legacy MF lenses.)

  29. 29.

    catclub

    October 11, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    @lamh32: All the hugs that Obama is giving to Romney now, in hopes that it will sink him with the GOP, will come back to bite him when Romney wins the nom and attracts independents because he is ‘knowledgeable’ about healthcare (Obama said so!).

  30. 30.

    Roger Moore

    October 11, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    @mistermix:

    they give us a viewfinder that is far too dark and lacks the focusing aids they used to have. And the lenses don’t have a nice big grip to use for manual focus.

    The problem with dimness is usually because people are using slow lenses, not because the viewfinder is inherently dim. The focusing screens are actually optimized to give the brightest possible* image at the expense of being good for manual focus. If you really want to manual focus with a good focusing aid, you might want to look at something like a KatzEye replacement focusing screen.

    *For lenses that are up to about f/2.8. Faster lenses don’t produce a brighter viewfinder, which also means you can’t get a really fine focus with them, either.

  31. 31.

    Lockewasright

    October 11, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Most of the dogs that I have known have turned out to be better people than most of the people that I have known, and I like people.

  32. 32.

    gogol's wife

    October 11, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    @Yutsano:

    I saw this post earlier and thought, this is a technical post about cameras, which I know nothing about, so I can’t go on there and say “I wuv Max.”

    But I can.

  33. 33.

    WereBear

    October 11, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    Mr Handsome boy! Yes he is!

    That’s all. I still have a ten year old digital camera with a built in flash that I use to take cat pics. Though quality has certainly gone UP and the prices have gone down.

  34. 34.

    Yutsano

    October 11, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    @gogol’s wife: I’m totally fine with letting the techies geek out. I have my priorities here. :)

  35. 35.

    Roger Moore

    October 11, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    @Warren Terra:
    The multi-focus idea looks kind of cool, but it comes at the expense of pixel count. As I understand it, they’re basically taking a bunch of pictures with different focus distances using the same sensor, which lets them interpolate the focus to any point inbetween. The problem is that this means that if they are taking, say, 16 different focus distances they wind up with 1/16 as many pixels at each focus distance. It’s still a neat technology, but it has drawbacks.

  36. 36.

    PeakVT

    October 11, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    @Tim F.: I disagree that the sensor should be booed for its size. Nikon isn’t trying to make a system that appeals to people who need a bazillion pixels because they make large prints, or who just like having a bazillion pixels. Instead, it is trying to make a system that provides excellent picture-taking ability for the non-pro. 10MP is enough for how most people use their shots. Keeping the pixel count down makes it easier to do fancy in-camera processing, and of course keeping the sensor size small makes the bodies and lenses smaller. There are always compromises and Nikon’s mix isn’t unreasonable – unlike the Q, which is too small. I commend Nikon for taking this approach, though the market may not agree (or may not agree at the price points Nikon has set, which are too high IMHO).

    That said, I think if Nikon had been an early entrant into the mirrorless market it probably would have developed a different system. But m4/3 already covers the next logical size down from APS-C, at about 1/4 the size of a FF sensor.

  37. 37.

    SRW1

    October 11, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    I kind of have trouble to believe that you shot that pic of Max at f1.7 (and you probably didn’t mean to say that you did).

    I went for a Nex-5 (which has an even larger sensor than 4/3) because it allows me to attach my old Minolta lenses via an adapter. Of course focusing is manual, but the old MD 50mm f/1.4, which becomes a 75 mm equivalent, and the old 250mm f/5.6 mirror tele, which becomes a 375 mm equivalent, can do nice things on that camera.

    In between my old analog camera (Minolta XD-7) and the Nex-5 I had a Canon A640. When I learned that it was using ND filter to mimic different f-stops, my heart got a crack over that absence of any control over depth of field.

  38. 38.

    DFH no.6

    October 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Damn.

    So I’ve gone this long, practically till my sixth decade, with no (well, not much, till recently) reason to do anything corrective about my natural vision (lucky bastard, yes I know) and now that I’ve finally decided to get some corrective eye surgery (no glasses, no thank you), I read here that doing so means that I will “thus spend a while with serious focusing problems”.

    I had not heard that before, nor did any such thing come up in the several consultations I’ve had leading to the first of a couple surgical procedures on both eyes I’m scheduled for, starting next week.

    Guess I’ve got one more question for the good doctor…

    Very cool comparison in the post, by the way, between human vision and camera technology.

  39. 39.

    imonlylurking

    October 11, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    People who have corrective eye surgery, whose eyes are (one hopes) a lot more perfect than they were before, thus spend a while with serious focusing problems.

    I had laser eye surgery years ago-it’s been close to a decade by now-and I never experienced any kind of focusing problem post-surgery.

    My colleague just had both eyes done about 10 days ago. She is experiencing focusing difficulty in one eye because she had a more difficult procedure in that eye, but the other eye is fine.

    (Yes, I know-anecdata.)

    What studies or surveys have been completed to determine what percentage of post-surgical patients experience focusing problems?

    ETA: DOGGIE!

  40. 40.

    Roger Moore

    October 11, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    @PeakVT:

    I commend Nikon for taking this approach, though the market may not agree (or may not agree at the price points Nikon has set, which are too high IMHO).

    I suspect that the higher price point for the Nikon cameras largely reflects the very powerful processing engine they’ve put in the 1 Series. The Expeed 3 is capable of processing 600 MP/sec, which is way faster than anything else out there, including the dual processor setups in the top pro models like the D3 or 1D Mark IV. That has to cost, especially because they’re the first cameras to use the new processors. Once Expeed 3 works its way into all of Nikon’s models, I expect it to come down in price and the 1 Series to come down with it.

    That said, I think if Nikon had been an early entrant into the mirrorless market it probably would have developed a different system. But m4/3 already covers the next logical size down from APS-C, at about 1/4 the size of a FF sensor.

    History says otherwise. Nikon has apparently been working on the 1 Series for at least 5 years, and targeting the 1″ class sensor the whole time. We know this both from what Nikon has said publicly and from the patent filings for some of their new lenses. Obviously, though, there are still a lot of people who are hoping that Nikon will have a new mirrorless camera with a DX or FX sensor to complement their existing DSLRs.

  41. 41.

    trollhattan

    October 11, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    @PeakVT:

    We shall see whether Nikon is clever or too timid with where they slotted the new cameras. It’s clear they want to avoid parasitizing their own dslr sales, but the risk lies in whether dslr sales have peaked regardless, and are now on a permanent downhill slide. If so, Nikon will have made a poor bet. OTOH if they can snag compact digicam and phonecam owners AND dslr owners willing to invest in a second system, then the bet will pay off. I’m sure they’re scratching their heads at Fuji’s recent successes.

    Completely agree they’re late to the game. The only company stodgier is Canon, who are really embarrassing themselves with having completely misunderstood mirrorless’ market potential.

  42. 42.

    DFH no.6

    October 11, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    @catclub:

    All the hugs that Obama is giving to Romney now, in hopes that it will sink him with the GOP, will come back to bite him when Romney wins the nom and attracts independents because he is ‘knowledgeable’ about healthcare (Obama said so!).

    I don’t know.

    I’m all for any obstacle that hinders Willard getting the fascist nomination, since he would be Obama’s most formidable opponent for a good half-dozen reasons.

    Health care reform a la “Obamacare” is obviously a huge issue for the rightwing, and thus there’s good reason the Mittster has been performing perhaps the mother of all “flip-flops” with regard to the amazingly-similar “Romneycare”.

    So I believe tying Romney to his own health care reform in MA is a much bigger negative for him in the primaries then any “credit” he could claim for such would be in the general.

    C’mon Perry – show the fascists tonight that you truly can be “Bush III – You Know You Want It Again!”

    No one else in the clown car has a ghost of a chance beating Romney to the nom. And if they did, so much the better.

  43. 43.

    bystander

    October 11, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    I don’t know jack about cameras, and I know only a bit more about how the human eye functions, but I do know that Max is one very handsome Dobie.

  44. 44.

    DFH no.6

    October 11, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    @imonlylurking:

    Good to know. I’m feeling a bit less anxious, now.

  45. 45.

    imonlylurking

    October 11, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    @ DFH no.6

    We’ve been talking about laser eye surgery a lot in my office lately-my boss just had a detached retina and had to have emergency eye surgery (they laser-welded everything back together)-that was right before my colleague had hers done.

    Are you doing the surgery that makes one eye distance and one eye close-up?

  46. 46.

    Xenos

    October 11, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    @catclub:

    when Romney wins the nom and attracts independents because he is ‘knowledgeable’ about healthcare (Obama said so!).

    And you don’t expect this to have an effect on Teapartisan voter turnout? And you don’t expect his Mormonism to have an effect on Evangelical turnout?

    Obama is setting Romney up for a very unhappy, very unpredictable time in Tampa should he win the nomination. I expect we will see something very similar to the Dole convention being fubared by Pat Buchanan, but increased by an order of magnitude. Popcorn city.

  47. 47.

    DFH no.6

    October 11, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    @imonlylurking:

    No, mine will be keratectomy with a new lens in each eye. Each lens will have near and far distance (like bi-focals, is the way it was described).

    Gotta say I’m nervous. Maybe I should have just gone the glasses route (too proud, my wife says, and as usual she’s right).

  48. 48.

    PurpleGirl

    October 11, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    MAX! (that is all)

  49. 49.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    October 11, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    I think it’s a lot like music; ‘computerized’ music has a perfection to it that makes it unappealing to an ear tuned to the nuances of musical instruments played by imperfect humans. We’re not perfect and when we see or hear something that is ‘too perfect’, it seems unnatural. Maybe non-human even.

    That’s all I gots on it. :)

  50. 50.

    BruceFromOhio

    October 11, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    The beautiful animal pictured here wants to know, “Why are human beings such complicated creatures?”

  51. 51.

    JR in WV

    October 11, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    My Dad had thick lenses for glasses all his life – he never knew trees had leaves (or at least that most folks could see them) until he got glasses late in elementary school. People thought he was a snob because he never waved at passers by across the street, when in fact he couldn’t see them.

    Then he had cataract surgery – 20-15 vision a couple of hours after the operation, Rite-aid reading glasses if he wanted. I think that’s the way to go for surgical correction, not cutting away irreplaceable tissue with a laser, for crikey’s sake!

    I saw a Panasonic Lumix (with Lietz kigt lens) back in – what, 2007 or 2008 – co-worker took a picture of a little 5 cm fossil, blew it up into wallpaper for a 32 inch monitor, no blur, beautiful photo, hand held, office lighting from the front, with Cal shading it, outdoor north light for backlight, it was on a windowsill. Amazing lenses!

    But I already had a big $$ investment in Nikon, so there I am.

  52. 52.

    Paul in KY

    October 12, 2011 at 8:22 am

    Appreciate the help, camera people.

  53. 53.

    Ryan Brenizer

    October 12, 2011 at 11:10 am

    It’s getting hard to keep track of which ones are my photography blogs and which ones are my politics blogs!

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by MomSense (5/21.25)

Recent Comments

  • rikyrah on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 8:09am)
  • Gloria DryGarden on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 8:08am)
  • espierce on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 8:05am)
  • pattonbt on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 8:04am)
  • They Call Me Noni on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 8:04am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!