How Aperture Blades Affect Image Quality (Page 2): Other than attribution, the posting has more merit than most.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Bill_de wrote:

That's true, but then the OP wouldn't look so smart.

---

Other than attribution, the posting has more merit than most.

Juy Loc: Delaware

you guys are soo welcoming to post . I think his intention was to educate the uneducated, so what is wrong with that? Now if the info is a down right wrong then yes call them out but, to fault him because you don't like or it's in the wrong section , well that's just childish.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

Before I sold all my Carl Zeiss Hasselblad lenses I seem to recall my C150mm had a curved pentagon shape with (I assume) only 5 blades. Back then the word bokeh was not even in the vernacular as I recall, but I produced many beautiful portraits in spite of that pentagon shape.

srt101fan

Juy wrote:

you guys are soo welcoming to post . I think his intention was to educate the uneducated, so what is wrong with that? Now if the info is a down right wrong then yes call them out but, to fault him because you don't like or it's in the wrong section , well that's just childish.

You're ignoring the main criticism expressed by responders: plagiarism 🤔

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Rongnongno wrote:

You mean, we cannot copy/paste like they do to get a PhD nowadays?

Copy/paste is acceptable in academia as long as a citation is included.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Juy wrote:

you guys are soo welcoming to post . I think his intention was to educate the uneducated, so what is wrong with that? Now if the info is a down right wrong then yes call them out but, to fault him because you don't like or it's in the wrong section , well that's just childish.

Agreed.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

So, the information quality was fair to middlin'. Hardly authoritative.

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

Rongnongno wrote:

You mean, we cannot copy/paste like they do to get a PhD nowadays?

Just at Harvard.

MrPhotog

Rongnongno wrote:

You mean, we cannot copy/paste like they do to get a PhD nowadays?

Not if you want to head Harvard

Juy Loc: Delaware

srt101fan wrote:

You're ignoring the main criticism expressed by responders: plagiarism 🤔

yes I am because he never stated it was his work. I'll bet many have done the same

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

Remember old Super 8 movie cameras and point and shoots no blades just a swinging arm withV shaped slot that acted like aperture moved by light meter!

User ID

Juy wrote:

you guys are soo welcoming to post . I think his intention was to educate the uneducated, so what is wrong with that? Now if the info is a down right wrong then yes call them out but, to fault him because you don't like or it's in the wrong section , well that's just childish.

Some of that info actually is wrong, and fairly easy to spot. With or without attribution there is no reason to see the original author as any all-knowing guru. But overall its just fluff and not worth arguing about.

srt101fan

Juy wrote:

yes I am because he never stated it was his work. I'll bet many have done the same

Many have done the same and they shouldn't have. He didn't say it was his work, but the implication is there.

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

paulrnzpn wrote:

How Aperture Blades Affect Image Quality

I never really paid much attention before, but I thought that I would stop and check my most frequently used lens.

My standard lens for my Sony a6500 is the Sony f3.5-5.6 18-135mm lens = 7 blades

My Sony f4.0 10-18mm lens = 7 blades

My Tele-Astranar f6.3 400mm lens = 12 blades

My 7Artisans f2.8 60mm Macro lens = 10 blades

Note that the last two lens are manual lens, which means that the aperture mechanism is not as complex, so perhaps they opted for more blades because of that.

Note that I have two other Sony lens for my APS-C cameras, a Sony f3.5-5.6 16-50mm and a Sony f4.5-6.3 55-210mm (they were the kits lens when I bought my Sony a6000), which I don't really use much anymore, and they both have 7 blades (seems like that's the standard for Sony lens of this class).

BebuLamar

User ID wrote:

Some of that info actually is wrong, and fairly easy to spot. With or without attribution there is no reason to see the original author as any all-knowing guru. But overall its just fluff and not worth arguing about.

In this case I can't fault the OP because he might not read the whole article before he copied and pasted and made it seems that he wrote it.