fantom Loc: Colorado

Sure they do when something humorous is posted. Silly nonesense is usually not amusing.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Have you ever heard of the Hasselblad camera, maybe before your time? The lens shade (hood) on a 2/1/4 sq camera is square and the most effective for that format. You seem to be making a generalization that the only format is 35mm DSLR type camera. As I previously said lens shades are designed for the optimum performance of the lens and most likely by the same manufacturer, not a third party . Think about it, there's a reason that Nikon and Canon, just to name two different brands that both use round lens shades on all their long lenses without any vignetting problems.

The tulip shaped lens hoods are somewhat new and work because of their shape very well on wide angle and most zoom lenses but they're not the only game in town.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

More worthless attic fodder, this thread is one of the worst that I've seen in a long time, and even a few of the better posts are highly questionable...

However, rather than select "unwatch", it helps me identify those that are worth paying attention to, and those that, shall we say, belong to other categories....

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

This is a good response. Form follows function, and if the format is square, or for example 16:9, then the lens hood should be optimized appropriately.

In longer lenses, even for 35mm / 3:2 ratio images or wider, the differences between a tulip-shaped hood and a round hood may be so small that manufacturing an optimized hood would be pointless.

Now that zoom lenses are the norm, and primes are rarer, more specialist things, tulip hoods make sense for 3:2 ratio cameras or in fact, other non-square format cameras, up to a certain point.

It is also important to consider the impact of computer design capabilities, the availability of sophisticated materials, the cost of design and production and the available market for certain products.

If we look at the lens hoods for super-tele Canon primes - which are typically costly beasts - the market is small, the hoods are round, and they are still very pricey things, making the design and manufacture more costly doesn't make any sense, practically or commercially.

This is a discussion about lens hood design criteria, not about vendor implementations, and a number of contributors to this post have demonstrated their ignorance and in some cases just asinine contributions.

We all know who they are, and the worst self identify with the first syllable of asinine.

RRS, thank you for a well considered and informative set of responses.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Thank you. I've been at the practice of photography since 1954 when I bought my first camera at a yard sale. Still learning and made the switch to digital about 6 years ago. Over the years I've obtained a formal education in photography and the switch to digital went smoothly. I don't teach any more in a controlled environment or shoot weddings but still enjoy talking with people and or groups while out photographing wildlife or doing power point presentations. I've always tried to help people with their photography. Have a great day , it's Sunday! :)

MtnMan Loc: ID

Because your sensor isn't round.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Because your sensor isn't round.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

Worthless fodder......You sound like an engineer, so I'll help you out,

My comment was in response to a "worthless or antagonistic comment" or possibly a funny comment from a Nikon owner.

My response was in regards to "this" and this comment only, which happens here from time to time. I doubt this individual wanted to start a discussion regarding lens hoods.

And the engineers at both Canon and Nikon have already taken care of the lens hood designs that we have, but your comments regarding this subject are appreciated.

Rufus Loc: Puget Sound area, WA

MtnMan: You explained 'WHY' in five words better than I did in ~50. Incidentally, my first job out of school was designing optical systems for the Navy.

For amusement, I just calculated the difference in angles of view to a corner and to the center of a side of a full-frame sensor. The difference is truly trivial so a round hood is just fine on any lens near that focal length.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Well, I'm not an engineer, although I do have some technical depth, so neither of your comments are actually helping me. If you go back and look at the comment of yours that I responded to, it may not convey what you intended it to, so it appeared at least to me as yet another "worthless or antagonistic comment".

Communication via posts, e-mail, text or whatever lose many attributes and are very frequently interpreted very differently from their original intent.

Perhaps if you were to expand upon your thesis that "Canon's require "light" in order to work, Nikons do not" [sic] then us mere mortals may be able to form a better understanding of your revelation...

Without context it presents as another asinine brand oriented dismissive comment. My apologies if that wasn't your intent, but I still cannot comprehend what you were trying to express.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

You even commented on the post that my comment refers to!

And Apparently, you didn't think that there was a problem here, as you stated that the writers comment was "definitely photography related" .................. I'm not sure you know what is "asinine".

I'm real curious here, how was this "comment" "definitely photography related"?




I'll throw out my thoughts. . . because you use a Canon. It doesn't have to make sense. Nikon is quality, it's like a tool that was made for the serious photographer. Canon, always trying to make the grade, does stuff like "tulip lens hood" to make it sound . . . special. Just my thought on it.

Wm Lee

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

We are getting way off base here, or at least wildly inaccurate.

I did not say that a specific comment was "definitely photography related", but that the thread - in it's entirety - was "definitely photography related". The quote that you and I both referenced is one that I consider, shall we say, less than helpful or meritorious.

You seem to be very good at making inaccurate assumptions. You suggested that I sound like an engineer. Perhaps I do at times, but I am not an engineer, although I do and have worked with many. You then misquoted what I had originally posted, so it seems your attention to detail is somewhat lacking. You then suggested that apparently I didn't see a problem. Well, if you read the entire thread and my comments I think your assumptions are once again off base.

Next is the issue of your attached graphic, which is a marriage of two separate screen shots. The upper part of the image was the second comment in the whole thread. The lower part, my comment came on the third page. By combining the the two in that manner you are implying a direct time based relationship which is both inaccurate and misleading. I hope that you were not doing that to intentionally mislead, because if you were then your entire argument is invalid, null, and void. In other words, intentionally deceitful and being used for manipulative effect. I wonder if that strange smell is troll?

Also, you question my use of the word asinine. Do you understand its meaning? I do.

Finally, you still haven't addressed the question about your own somewhat abstruse comment that was rather lacking in contextual relevance.

No offense meant, but your contributions seem to be making less sense rather than clarifying the situation.

Either way, I think we both agree that the specific comment in question was inappropriate. I still fail to comprehend what your original comment was intended to convey, and it is still possible to interpret it in a way that may not have been intended, but could be seen as a negative slur on a vendor.

I hope we just have a "failure to communicate" here.

Can you explain your original comment "Canon's require "light" in order to work, Nikons do not" , please?

Finally, try to quote and represent other people's contributions accurately, not through misquotes, or selective cutting and pasting.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

************************************

My original comment was sarcastic, due to the negative or meant to be funny comment made regarding Canon Camera's. You do remember the post, don't you?

And we're not, or I'm not way off base here. I copied your direct response to that comment in question, and pasted the original post and your response, so how could you have been misquoted????

I copied your response to the comment,

"I'll throw out my thoughts......because you use a Canon. It doesn't have to make sense. Nikon is quality, it's like a tool that was made for the serious photographer. Canon, always trying to make the grade, does stuff like "tulip lens hood" to make it sound...... special. Just my thought on it"

No misquoting was done.

Now I suppose that you could call my sarcasm "asinine", but you've completely overlooked the original post that was the reason for it.

I did address my response for you. It was sarcastic. But you still to this point have overlooked the post to which it refers to.

Now I'm glad we agree that the posted comment in question was inappropriate. And my comment didn't make alot of sense due to the fact that it was sarcastic, and meant to convey the fact that NO, there's nothing wrong with Canon Camera's, and I don't have a problem with Nikons either.

The original post either was ranking Canon camera's, or jesting to as such. I hope this clarifies this matter for you.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Mostly, we are into pedantic semantics here, but you did actually misrepresent my post by specifying "comment" as opposed to "thread" in relation to my first contribution. The thread is the entire exchange, a comment is typically a single post or response. Go look, I said "thread".

You did make and assert several incorrect assumptions, and you definitely selectively modified the graphic to show a juxtaposition that does not exist in reality. And no, I have not overlooked the original contribution that we are both responding to. I have referenced it several times.

Although you may have intended your contribution to be sarcastic, that certainly wasn't clear to me, and if it wasn't intended to make sense, then how were others supposed to interpret it?

As for the use of asinine, some comments were, in my opinion, but I do not think I made specific reference to any particular contribution originally. However, I did find your initial contribution lacking in much value as a result of its incomprehensibility, hence saying that it could present as asinine as a result of its abstruse nature. That is however, just my own personal interpretation.

Anyhow, I hope we are done with this, I clearly misinterpreted your intent, and you may have misinterpreted mine.

Plus, there have been a few good contributions about lens hoods, but taken in its multi-page entirety, I still think this is not one of the better threads on UHH.

Thanks for your explanations, maybe I'll understand your initial comment one day!

Take care!

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

********************************

pedantic semantics.....Oh your a mathematician! OK, but this is not a "thread." It's a discussion group. And most in here don't do Calculus.

You won't find a bylaws or definitions section here with word definitions. And it's a "Topic" or a "Comment", not "thread" or comment. But you stated:

"and you definitely selectively modified the graphic to show a juxtaposition that does not exist in reality."

These are your words, look at the double talk. All I did was quote and show what you said in response to my post.

You said that you couldn't understand my comments, but look at your own comments.

I don't care for folks who have to downgrade the brands of others. No, you did not do this, but it may well be the intent of the original comment contributor.

I'm a Canon man. A few years back, I was going to buy a Nikon film camera, but I'm glad I never did then. It would be a paperweight now! Yes, so would a Canon film camera.