Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor - Page 3

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 13:50:56 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>rafe bustin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:02:47 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Really? Maybe canon has slowed but those new sony sensors sure look nice..
>>
>>
>> Maybe I'm not following the market as
>> closely as you are. What Sony sensors
>> are you refering to and what's so great
>> about them?
>>
>>
>
> Isn't that who's making the sensor for the new "flagship" nikon?


Dunno. I haven't been following it.
What's their flagship nowadays? D70?
D2Hs? D2X?

D70 isn't too impressive.. 6.1 "effective"
pixels, same old 15x23mm sensor. Ho hum.

When I can get the equivalent of a Canon
1D MkII at, say, $1500, I'll be very interested.

Till then I'll be shooting with my old
10D and scanning film. Some of which
will be shot in my trusty old Nikon
(film) SLRs.

Still waiting to receive that Pentax 67
I bought on eBay a week ago.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Since you are fond of Leica sources:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c001.html
>>>
>>> Hmm looks like someone's (Erwin Puts) personal site and opinion, like
>>> your own? Hardly a "Leica source" as you put it.
>>
>> Calling Erwin Puts anything other than a "Leica source" would be pretty
>> odd...
>
> So he works for their design department or is an optical engineer for them?
> Being a "Leica user" doesn't make him an optical expert.

Erwin Puts is the author of the Leica Lens Compendium, and is widely
considered to be one of the authoritative sources on Leica history and
optics.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> Why because Alan says it is? I could just as easily say K-M is against a
>> wall with their lenses being able to deal with higher pixel densities
>> than their 6MP camera now is able to deal with.
>
> And you'd be wrong. At least with respect to the better Minolta lenses
> which are every bit as good as the better Nikon, Canon, Pentax and
> Olympus lenses.

I'm sure they are yet I've found the new ZD lenses are better than the best
OM film lenses. I suppose you could then argue that the OM film lenses
aren't good? Since you don't have anything but film lenses to compare to,
you'll never know if something else might be better..
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

>
> Well, one thing they did that is now being emulated by others,
> bringing out lenses specifically for digital cameras. I think the
> spec calls for light rays to hit the CCD perpendicularly.

I still won't buy one. I still use film.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brion K. Lienhart wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> "If a Foveon 4/3 chip design could be made (three color sensors per
>> photosite), then possibly there could be an 8 mpix / R+G+B / 12 bit
>> (or more), 4/3 sensor with a very high signal/noise ratio. I'm not at
>> all certain however that the additional noise (3 sensors/site) can be
>> managed.
>>
>> Because of that last sentence, I didn't post it. But, there it is now...
>
>
> What's going to prevent them from designing a totally new sensor with
> the same form factor? There's no reason they can't keep improving their
> sensors, the same as any other company.

You're absolutely right, that's what that's about. And we can be sure
that Oly or others will continue to develop 4/3 sensors for the format
in bayer or perhaps a foveon like approach.

But, as they are confined to that 18 x 13.5mm area for the sensor, they
will hit the noise barrier before larger sensors do, such as in the
Canon, Nikon, K-M and Pentax DSLR's for the common man.

As it is, the E-300 has more noise at ISO 800 than the 20D at ISO 1600.

They are at the wall ... and they are wailing!

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message

<snip>

> The Foveon sensor was a great idea that unfortunately didnt work well
enough
> in the real world.

This is true. Silicon color separation was a great idea, but unfortunately
it turned out to be more difficult than anticipated.

> George knows it, but wont relent until the company finally, publicly,
either
> quits selling them, or goes under from the weight of carrying on with
them.

There is no such person as George. Just has he has invented imaginary
friends, he himself is not someone named George.

In any case, Foveon's future plans do not center around sensor for D-SLRs or
compact digital cameras. They center around the embedded market for cameras.
While their sensor is not competitive in terms of resolution, color
accuracy, or noise, the one advantage it does have is that it can be
manufactured very inexpensively. It doesn't need a state-of-the-art fab,
with the most expensive wafers, the X3 sensors were manufactured on a rather
ancient 0.18u line (Intel uses 90nm for their latest CPUs). So for
applications where top quality isn't the primary concern, they may have a
niche.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> > > Reality check: there simply isn't a problem with (retrofocus)
wide angle
> > > lenses. None, zip, nada, zilch.
> >
> > Talk to people trying to stich images from them.
>
> No problems here. Not even stitching with images at 13mm.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/43504169/large
>
> (Oops: I didn't leave enough room so the top of the building at the
left got
> snipped and the welder at the bottom left is too close to the edge of
the
> frame. Sigh.)
>
> The idea that retrofocus lenses are any more problematic on digital
sensors
> than they are on film is simply bogus FUD.
>
> > As far as "far better" I know that the =ONLY= factor you judge an
image by
> > is it's grain/noise (even with film..)
>
> When you are wrong on the facts, attack the messenger. Bad form,
Stacey.
>
> Nope. Sharpness counts too. And the flatness of the digital sensors
makes
> life much easier for wide angle lenses, which have extremely limited
depth
> of focus.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote:

>I'm just not that excited by new sensors
>that are formed by divying up the same
>tiny piece of silicon into more and
>more photosites.

Makes sense if the lenses you own don't resolve enough to use them.


>
> So while you're collecting a kit of f/2
> digital-only lenses for your Oly,

Why would I do that? I've already got 3 that cover anything I'd ever want to
shoot with this thing. Maybe some people have a need to buy everything in
their lens mount? For "important" stuff I still have my 6X6 and 4X5
cameras, I've got no interest in hyper expensive F2 lenses..
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> RichA wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, one thing they did that is now being emulated by others,
>> bringing out lenses specifically for digital cameras. I think the
>> spec calls for light rays to hit the CCD perpendicularly.
>
> I still won't buy one. I still use film.
>


I stopped using 35mm about 8 years ago, I thought real film photographers
used medium and large format if they were interested in high quality?

Why would you be interested in shooting 35mm film since your minolta is so
great? Makes no sense to me.

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:

>>Why are you bringing the E-1 and Nikon into this?
>
>
> Because it points out the flaws in your "sensor size" arguement. Agains why
> isn't the canon a LOT noisier than the nikon if the 1.5mm smaller sensor
> size is the issue?

To make conculsions you have to isolate the variables. You're
introducing variables and obscuring findings. I'm reducing them to two
camera models that have similar performance objectives.

>>The discussion was
>>the 20D v. the E-300. DSLR's of similar pixel output.
>>
>>Let's compare comparable systems: An 8 Mpix DSLR camera v. an 8 Mpix
>>DSLR camera.
>
>
> Why stop there? You're trying to compare different size sensors using
> different sensor technologies and assuming it's the sensor size not the
> techology that makes =all= the difference.

Stop being obtuse. The issue is: "Is the 4/3 system doomed to limited
growth in pixel density because of noise inherent to its smaller sensor?"

And, to date, the answer is "hell yes, look at the noise."

>>I understand if you're frustrated,
>
>
> But I'm not at all. You're the one who seems hell bent at attacking
> something you don't own nor have ever used.. Why do you and a few others
> feel this need?

I really can't care less. What is key to understand is limits. And the
4/3 system is inherently limited due to its physical size.

This is demonstrated in E-300 ISO 800 noise that is higher than the 20D
noise at ISO 1600.

> You won't see me posting anything anti-minolta, glad your happy with your
> camera. I have to wonder if you feel this need because you're using a 6MP
> camera and need to prove that a 8MP E300 (or the optics etc) can't be as
> good or better?

Go right ahead. I've posted a webpage with what I consider negative
points about the Max 7D. But I guess that's because I'm objective and
not a brand bunny.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d6spcd$ijj$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> I really can't care less. What is key to understand is limits. And the
> 4/3 system is inherently limited due to its physical size.

That's what people said when Oskar Barnack showed them the first Leica...

Lourens

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Stacey writes ...
>
>why isn't the canon a LOT noisier than the nikon if the 1.5mm
>smaller sensor size is the issue?

Look at the areas ... the Oly is 17.3x13 mm or ~225 sq-mm, the 1.5x
(Nikon) sensors are 23.7x15.5 mm or ~367 sq-mm, the 1.6x Canon sensors
are 15x22.5 mm or ~ 337.5 sq-mm.

Calculate the ratios and Canon has a 50% size advantage and Nikon a 63%
size advantage over 4/3. This means that if the technology is equal
(ie, similar noise at same pixel pitch) Canon and Nikon will always be
able to fit significantly more pixels than 4/3 at the same pitch, or
alternatively have the same pixel counts at lower noise. Oly should
have an advantage in weight and cost but if you look at the competing
cameras it appears they are not able to take advantage of it. In some
cases the Oly lenses are much heavier and expensive than the
Nikon/Canon equivalents, for example.

The Nikon advantage over Canon is only 8% in area, much smaller. These
are for the current entry level sensor sizes ... chip processing defect
densities continue to improve and Canon and Nikon (and Minolta and
Pentax) have the option of going to larger sensors in a few years as
these chips become available, since all but the specialized digital
lenses cover a greater area. If, say, 1.3x sensors become entry level
then the advantage over Oly goes to over 2.4x. I designed IC's for 20
years and every year the defect density went down, making larger chips
more feasible. There is no reason to think this won't continue.

The other possibility is a breakthrough in packaging and assembly that
allows you to fit four chips together to make one sensor, which makes
larger sensor areas very feasible. Nikon, Canon etc are all in a
position to take advantage of this up to full-frame but Oly isn't since
they are locked in to such a relatively small sensor by the lens
designs. Big mistake. Whether it's fatal or not is the question.
It's telling that Oly's imaging division lost 24 billion yen in a bull
market for digital cameras.

Bill

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

> I designed IC's for 20
> years and every year the defect density went down, making larger chips
> more feasible. There is no reason to think this won't continue.

Exactly. Not only that, but the wafer cleaning/clean room/etc. technologies
developed for the smaller feature size processes can be applied to the far
larger feature size sensors, reducing defect counts even further. The CMOS
and CCD sensors are rather low-tech compared to the latest generation CPUs.

I don't expect to see US$1500 full-frame cameras for a long time, but the
Kodak is already going for just a tad over US$3000 and US$2500 should be
possible within a year or so.

> The other possibility is a breakthrough in packaging and assembly that
> allows you to fit four chips together to make one sensor, which makes
> larger sensor areas very feasible.

Four sounds unlikely, by two should be possible. Wasn't there already at
least one camera that did this? The original Canon 1D, maybe? My bet,
though, is that Canon will have the 1Dsmk2 sensor line tweaked and
production volume way up about the time the market for the 1Dsmk2 itself
becomes saturated<g>.

> Nikon, Canon etc are all in a
> position to take advantage of this up to full-frame but Oly isn't since
> they are locked in to such a relatively small sensor by the lens
> designs. Big mistake. Whether it's fatal or not is the question.

The 4/3 idea isn't a bad idea at all. It should be a lot better than the P&S
cameras and only slightly worse than the 1.6x cameras. There ought to be a
niche for it.

Arguing that they're better than low-end 1.6x dSLRs is, of course, quite
silly and the "telecentric" marketing BS is unfortunate, but Stacey's point
that the Fillfactory sensors are noisier than Canon sensors is quite right:
the difference really shouldn't be anywhere near as large as it is (at least
if Roger Clark's analyses in this area are as correct as they appear to be).

> It's telling that Oly's imaging division lost 24 billion yen in a bull
> market for digital cameras.

I suspect that that's in the P&S area. Oly was one of the pioneers in this
area, and cameras like the 2020, 2100, E-10/E-20, and 700 series were
classics. Unfortunately for Oly, there are a lot of other players nowadays.
(It sounds as though the other players have been more effective at capturing
the attention of the mass (non-photographer) market.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:

>> Stacey writes ...
>>
>>why isn't the canon a LOT noisier than the nikon if the 1.5mm
>>smaller sensor size is the issue?
>
> Look at the areas ... the Oly is 17.3x13 mm or ~225 sq-mm, the 1.5x
> (Nikon) sensors are 23.7x15.5 mm or ~367 sq-mm, the 1.6x Canon sensors
> are 15x22.5 mm or ~ 337.5 sq-mm.
>
> Calculate the ratios and Canon has a 50% size advantage and Nikon a 63%
> size advantage over 4/3.

This assumes you're only printing 3:2, many people don't.


> It's telling that Oly's imaging division lost 24 billion yen in a bull
> market for digital cameras.
>


Yea and since olympus has always been a small player in the dSLR market you
think this amount was lost in dSLR sales? Yea right. Let me guess you're a
canon shooter?

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 24 May 2005 00:54:06 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


>This assumes you're only printing 3:2, many people don't.


I don't give much thought to print size when
I'm taking the picture. Is that strange?

I mean... whatever the print ends up being,
you cut a mat to fill the space to whatever
frame you want. How hard is that?

Haven't I heard you over on the MF group
arguing the benefits of a square format?

Using the aspect ratio to bolster the
"effective" pixel count seems a bit of
a stretch to me. I'd rather throw away
paper than pixels.


>Let me guess you're a canon shooter?


I'm a Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Mamiya and
Shen-Hao shooter. I think that mostly
covers it <grin>.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 May 2005 00:54:06 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This assumes you're only printing 3:2, many people don't.
>
>
> I don't give much thought to print size when
> I'm taking the picture. Is that strange?

I suppose it isn't for you..

>
> I mean... whatever the print ends up being,
> you cut a mat to fill the space to whatever
> frame you want. How hard is that?

I think 8X12 prints matted to an 11X14 frame look odd, but that's maybe just
me? I don't have a large house so most of my prints are done 8X10 in 11X14
frames..

>
> Haven't I heard you over on the MF group
> arguing the benefits of a square format?

I like square so I don't have to hold the camera sideways, also gives a
touch of shift if needed. I'm a fan of the waist level finder on medium
format which makes 6X6 easier to deal with. I do hate throwing away that
much of the image area, not a whole lot more than what is thrown away for
3:2 on a 8X10 crop is it? The smaller the format, the more it hurts
throwing away part of the captured image..

>
> Using the aspect ratio to bolster the
> "effective" pixel count seems a bit of
> a stretch to me. I'd rather throw away
> paper than pixels.

I'm not trying to bolster effective pixel count, it's just I see the crop
factor on these as being more along the lines on 1.7X than 2.0X since I
wouldn't be using the long side of 3:2 anyway. The 2.0X crop comes from
measuring the long direction.

>
>
>>Let me guess you're a canon shooter?
>
>
> I'm a Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Mamiya and
> Shen-Hao shooter.



Well I'm a olympus, minolta, rollei, kiev, super graphic, mamiya shooter
myself.. Plus a few others I don't use often enough to list! :-)

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:44:06 -0400, rafe bustin <rafe b at speakeasy
dot net> wrote:

> A bee woulda been nice, but a fly? Yewww.
> . . .
> Don't get me wrong, Stacey. We both agree
> digital is the cat's meow. But there's more
> than one way to gather pixels.

Whew! I thought you were about to say "But there's more than one
way to skin a cat." Yewww.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

>In article <smak-71CF94.01034624052005@news.euronet.nl>,
>Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>In article <d6spcd$ijj$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I really can't care less. What is key to understand is limits. And the
>>> 4/3 system is inherently limited due to its physical size.
>>
>>That's what people said when Oskar Barnack showed them the first Leica...
>
>And they were right - three quarters of a century later, cameras using 120
>film still deliver vastly superior image quality.


On that basis, we should all be using 4x5" film, because all the more
popular formats are vastly inferior ...

The truth is that, in the pre-digital world, 35mm was more than good
enough for >90% of photography, and it still is. Yes, 120 roll film
is better, and 4x5" is much better, but 35mm is still more than good
enough for the vast majority of purposes. Barnack was right.

And so it is with Four Thirds. At ISO "speeds" up to 400, the Olympus
E1 and E300 (E-VOLT) produce essentially noise-free images at 5 MP and
8 MP respectively. The E1 is essentially noise-free at ISO 800.

Why is there a sudden need for ISO 1600? I suggest that this demand
comes from people using consumer-grade lenses with small maximum
apertures, who simply must have high ISO in order to achieve the
shutter speeds they need.

Those using Four Thirds have less need for higher ISOs because the
lenses have better maximum apertures. And the next generation of Four
Thirds sensors will improve on this - either through more pixels, or
less noise at higher ISOs, or both.

No doubt there will be howls of derision from the "experts" on here,
who always value features and specifications over real world
performance, and could not recognise optical quality even if they were
repeatedly hit over the head with a top performing lens. No, it is
pixels that matter to them, and the lowest possible noise, even when
noise reduction reduces the effective resolution of their 8 MP CMOS
sensors to something far below that which is routinely achieved in
Four Thirds with a whole 3 MP less.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <a2q591p6sm297q7h78p26krda3chgl7j97@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <smak-71CF94.01034624052005@news.euronet.nl>,
>>Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>>In article <d6spcd$ijj$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I really can't care less. What is key to understand is limits. And the
>>>> 4/3 system is inherently limited due to its physical size.
>>>
>>>That's what people said when Oskar Barnack showed them the first Leica...
>>
>>And they were right - three quarters of a century later, cameras using 120
>>film still deliver vastly superior image quality.
>
>
>On that basis, we should all be using 4x5" film, because all the more
>popular formats are vastly inferior ...

Not sure where you get that idea. It is, however, still true that larger
formats (within reason) give better image quality. It was true with 120 vs
35mm 70 years ago, it's true with 120 vs 35mm now, and it's true with
digital sensors as well, and is likely to remain true. If you want the best
image quality, you need sensor area. Given the same investment, 4/3 is
always going to be at a quality disadvantage compared to the larger DSLR
sensors, just as 35mm remains at a quality disadvantage compared to 120,
regardless of how expensive ones German glass is.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Lourens Smak wrote:

> In article <d6spcd$ijj$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>I really can't care less. What is key to understand is limits. And the
>>4/3 system is inherently limited due to its physical size.
>
>
> That's what people said when Oskar Barnack showed them the first Leica...

That first Leica (and every 35mm Leica since) is still limited v. larger
film sizes. That is what's being discussed: sensor size and limitations.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>> And the 4/3 system is inherently limited due to its physical
>> size.

>Lourens replies ...
>
>That's what people said when Oskar Barnack showed them the first
>Leica...

It's also what people said about APS ... 4/3 seems a lot closer to APS
(which pretty much died) than to 35 mm to most of us.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
>>What they use depends on a variety of constraints as well as desired
>>quality. Nat Geo photographers are as "real"
>
>
> Blah blah blah..

Well, that's intelligent, Stacey...

> 35mm is a noisy mess compared to even my "noisy" dSLR
> camera on 8x10 prints. Nat Geo is still using film because of either
> storage constrants or it's just the equipment they still have around. Back
> when there was APX25, kodachrome 25 etc maybe you could eak out a clean
> 8X10? For someone so focused on image noise, seems odd you ignore it on
> film images?

Nat Geo use 35mm for field work because it is the most appropriate to
that style of photography. Very portable, flexible, wide selection of
lenses and accessories, etc. Some Nat Geo shooters use Leica, most use
Nikon and Canon. They also, as appropriate, use medium and large format.

As time goes, they are switching to digital and have done at least one
full article in digital, probably more by now.

ISO 100 prints from film, negative or slide, are virtually noiseless at
the size Nat geo is printed. (Nat Geo is mainly slide film). I print
regularly from Portra 160 to 8x12 and there is no noise in the darkest
areas of the print. I scan and print from slides, and the results are
very clean at 8x12. To that size, the only advantage of digital is the
convenience.

>>No digital image comes close.
>
>
> Yea this is a real winner as far as image quality and low noise..
>
> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/ [...] S_005a.jpg
>
> I assume this was from a slide given the directory name?

No, that was, IIRC, Kodak Royal Gold 100 (negative). That was scanned
on an older machine (Scan Dual). It would probably be somewhat noisy on
the new scanner as well in the blue area.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo [...] 06&size=lg
(Still some noise in the blues. On prints, not discernible)


> And this shot, it doesn't appear anything is in sharp focus..
>
> http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm

It's called Depth of Field, honey. Look it up. It is of course in
sharp focus at the plane of focus. That image prints very cleanly to 8x12.

>
> Those sure blow away this noisy/fuzzy shot from my E300.
>
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/fly.jpg

Lovely.

Hmm... and where are those e-mailed 100% sized images you promissed Stacey?



>>> Why would you be interested in shooting 35mm film since your minolta is
>>> so
>>>great? Makes no sense to me.
>>
>>Little seems to make sense to you. My Maxxum 9 (Minolta) is a better
>>camera than the 7D in all respects. (It's better than most any camera
>>model in all respects).
>
>
> Good thing you're not a brand bunny and are so objective.

It is objective. The few cameras that compare to the Maxxum 9 are the
EOS-1v and Nikon F5. Probably the F6. If you compare these cameras
none is absolute king, these are all crown princes.

>>I shoot 120 as well as 35mm. (That 1st sunset shot that you didn't
>>reply to, for example).
>
>
> The 'NC' one?

http://www.aliasimages.com/images/MF/D1000003S.jpg

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

> On that basis, we should all be using 4x5" film, because all the more
> popular formats are vastly inferior ...

4x5?! How could you even *consider* using 4x5, with its grainy images
and lack of resolution? No real photographer would use anything less
than full-frame 8x10"! I mean, 4x5 will always be inherently at a
disadvantage, given the too-small size of the imaging area, so why
lock yourself into a dead-end format that can never produce acceptable
results compared to REAL cameras? And the crop factor of 4x5 ruins
all my wide-angle lenses!

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>>The other possibility is a breakthrough in packaging and assembly
>>that allows you to fit four chips together to make one sensor, which
>>makes larger sensor areas very feasible.

>RIch writes ...
>
>I doubt Canon will go much bigger. Do you want to have to carry
>around an 8lb lens to support a medium format sensor ...

Well, they wouldn't go to a medium format sensor since none of their
lenses support it, but they (and Nikon and Pentax and Minolta) COULD
use a full frame 35 mm sensor if it became available at a reasonable
cost because all but a few of their lenses cover that much area. This
is where the 4/3 system is boxed in, by locking in to a sensor area
that's 28% the size of 35 mm ... they have zero flexibility for the
future unless you want to toss all your 4/3 lenses and start over.

Nikon right now has 1.0x (Kodak 14n), 1.5x (several) and 2.0x (D2x
mode) crop sensors, Canon has 1.0x, 1.3x and 1.6x crop sized sensors so
both are well-positioned for future improvements in chip manufacture,
but the 4/3 system is stuck at 2.0x no matter what happens. The
trade-off for this was supposed to be cheaper and lighter gear but so
far it's not much cheaper and it's not lighter, judging from the weight
of the E-volt vs other entry level dSLRs ... take the 300 f/2.8 lens
for an example of really poor engineering ... the Nikon 300 f/2.8
covers 35 mm film or all three of the digital crops mentioned while the
Oly 300 f/2.8 covers an area only 28% in size so the Nikon lens is much
more flexible. The Nikon is smaller (10.6" x 4.8" vs 11.1" length and
5.1" diameter for the Oly), it weighs a lot less (5.7 lbs vs 7.2 lbs!)
and costs significantly less, $3,600 vs $6,300 (after a $700 rebate).
Soon a VR version of the Nikon will be shipping as well.

As a long-time design engineer it's amazing to me that Oly could miss
their design target by this much and stay in business. But their worst
decision was locking in so early to a 2.0x sensor size ... if they
wanted to be a point-and-shoot replacement that might have made sense,
but they say they are taking on Nikon and Canon instead and they are
just too limited for that.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On that basis, we should all be using 4x5" film, because all the more
>> popular formats are vastly inferior ...
>
>4x5?! How could you even *consider* using 4x5, with its grainy images
>and lack of resolution? No real photographer would use anything less
>than full-frame 8x10"! I mean, 4x5 will always be inherently at a
>disadvantage, given the too-small size of the imaging area, so why
>lock yourself into a dead-end format that can never produce acceptable
>results compared to REAL cameras? And the crop factor of 4x5 ruins
>all my wide-angle lenses!


Size matters ...

;-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <rp5691h4tb6mob5p515pjusglq3i23d6bm@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>
>>If you want the best
>>image quality, you need sensor area. Given the same investment, 4/3 is
>>always going to be at a quality disadvantage compared to the larger DSLR
>>sensors, just as 35mm remains at a quality disadvantage compared to 120,
>>regardless of how expensive ones German glass is.
>
>
>Just as with 35mm versus larger formats, if the quality of Four Thirds
>equals or exceeds your needs, there is no need for a larger sensor.

That's quite true, but not relevant to my point, which was that a larger
area (within) reason will always gove better images. There are a subset of
users who want the highest avialable image quality - in some years time,
these people may wellbe buying 35mm-compatible DSLR systems. 4/3, however,
has locked itself out of that market forever.