Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor - Page 4

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

Chris Brown wrote:

> 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.

This truth is very uncomfortable to the 4/3rds adherents.

--
-- 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?)

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


The size of the sensor is of academic interest only. What matters is
the image quality, and nothing else.

Many people express opinions on Usenet about Four Thirds based on what
other people say or write without ever trying the system. That is
very sad, because most people who actually use Four Thirds are
absolutely delighted with the image quality - the E1 is capable of
producing outstanding results which, when printed, can be favourably
compared with images from cameras with larger sensors and higher pixel
counts. But people who have never used the system cannot possibly
know that.

The same people make the assumption that high pixel count sensors with
low noise at high ISOs are never going to be attainable using the Four
Thirds sensor size. That is very sad too, because experience shows a
remarkable improvement in CCD and CMOS sensors of all sizes over the
last few years. Why is this demonstrable technological improvement
going to be denied to sensors of one particular size?

You only have to look at the improvements that have been applied to
"full size" 24x36mm sensors. The Contax N Digital had 6 MP with
severe noise at anything above ISO 100. But Canon managed over 10 MP
with much lower noise and now 16 MP with noise levels that are still
lower. Yes, it is expensive, but no more expensive than the hugely
disappointing Contax N Digital.

Look at the progress that has been made in APS size sensors. Similar
levels of improvement can be expected in other formats, including Four
Thirds.

The next generation of Four Thirds sensors will show significant
improvements over the current Kodak sensors. Two new Olympus E System
bodies are in the final stages of development.

We will be in a better position to judge the future potential of Four
Thirds when these bodies have been fully developed and released to the
market. It is too early to judge that now, on the basis of a 5 MP pro
body that is over two years old - a very long time in DSLR history.

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If I was shooting at 800-1600ISO, I'd have bought a canon hands down
>>> but I
>>> don't, so why should I care about that "feature"?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's precisely the point.
>>
>> But discussions on here are purely theoretical. Practical
>> considerations such as not needing high ISOs are never considered,
>> because this is a pissing contest, and 8 MP is *always* bigger than 5
>> MP, regardless of the real world quality of the results.
>
>
> And 8 MPix is the 'standard' of today but will be considered a bit
> milquetoast in the not distant future.
>
> And Oly will be forced to follow the Mpix fight, and as they do, the
> "acceptable" threshold of noise will be at ISO 200 ... then 100,
>
> That's what's being discussed ... the long term benefit of the 4/3
> format given that low noise is one of the great things about digital.

You sure have a lot of knowledge about things that haven't happened yet.

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote:
> Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>>If I wanted to shoot at high ISOs I would have bought Canon, however
>>Canon's aggressive noise reduction reduces the effective resolution to
>>a level far below what should be obtained from an 8 MP sensor. For
>>example, the Canon EOS 350D has such strong noise reduction that its
>>effective resolution is inferior to the EOS 300D.
>
> So the in-camera noise reduction (that I assume can't be adjusted)
> actually reduces high frequency (fine) detail to the point where it
> is less than the 300?

I'm pretty sure Polson's simply dead wrong here. I've never heard of Canon
doing pixel-to-pixel (NeatImage type) noise reduction in-camera in any dSLR,
including the 350D. The 350D uses the same IC (DIGIC II) as the 20D.

> That's a bit of a pain. I guess then it makes
> a great deal more sense to go for the 20D?

Everything I've read says that the 20D has a few more pixels, a bit more
weight and bulk (the 350D's a really tiny camera: much smaller and lighter
than the 20D or even the E300), two command dials, LCD on the top; but that
the 350D coughs up essentially the same image quality.

Read the reviews, not vitriol from Canon bashers.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

On 24 May 2005 08:41:01 -0700, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:

>>>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.

Would be funny if the Olympus lens was much better than the Nikon,
hence the price difference, and they didn't have the digital quality
to make use of it.
>
>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.

People make it sound like it's a problem, making lenses for the 4/3
only. But it's not. Designing and constructing a prototype lens,
even a big 400mm only costs about $50,000-$100,000. That isn't much.
Olympus could turn around and just do what the others are doing
without too much financial pain. Where they have felt the pain isn't
in sales, it's in the grinding down of digital camera prices across
the board. Nikon isn't doing very well either. Canon, by sheer
innovation has produced products that have held their prices (to this
point) but many consumers are driven by numbers and if the E-300 has
8 megapixels and costs only $700 as a kit, Joe Average is going to
go for it over the Canon at $900 for the kit. But, Olympus will lose
unless they and the other camera makers can halt the slide in prices
or do what they did in the 1980s; Raise prices. The realized they
weren't making enough off accessories so SLR bodies not only cheapened
in construction quality, their prices went up. Now, every prosumer
has a 5-12x zoom, built in flash, etc. Where do they make additional
money? The DSLRs are the profit cows right now, given that people
feel compelled to buy more lenses, other accessories for them. Nikon
doesn't even provide their raw software when you buy their most
expensive DSLR, you have to pay for it!
-Rich

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

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

>The same holds with digital. A sensor with X big pixels is going to make
>better images than one with X small pixels. 4/3 has cut itself off from ever
>being seen as being able to play in the major league in terms of image
>quality, just as 35mm has.


So what?

35mm survived, indeed prospered, despite bigger and "better" formats
remaining available for 80 years so far, and still counting.

In film, 35mm was as much as most of us ever needed. I think Four
Thirds will occupy a similar position in digital; always theoretically
"inferior" to larger formats, but more than good enough for its users.

Just like the criticism of Barnack over the 35mm format, criticism of
Four Thirds is theoretically correct, but ultimately pointless, and
for exactly the same reasons.

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:
> So that means the nikon dSLR's are the camera of choice since the canon
> sensors are smaller?

The size difference between the Nikon and Canon small DSLR sensors isn't
enough to care about. The size difference between the EOS-1DS sensor
and the Nikon DX sensors is substantial and people pay the big bucks
for EOS-1DS's for a good reason.

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

Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <ecu691h5o7fc3d5jee4i08bchqqhe6qn9q@4ax.com>,
> Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>The size of the sensor is of academic interest only. What matters is
>>the image quality, and nothing else.
>
> Quite, and as I've already said, one major factor in that is area. The
> 120vs35mm argument came down in favour of 120 seven decades ago as it does
> now, and for the same reasons.


The difference is decades ago (say 40+ years) film wasn't nearly as good so
getting even a good 8X10 print from a 35mm neg wasn't likely to happen.
Everyone (even the press) was shooting with 4X5 because they had to. Even
120 was considered too small by most people at that time. As film improved,
the viability of smaller formats increased, to the point it's hard to see
the difference in 4X5 and medium format until you're making HUGE prints..
Yes at some point you'll need the larger sensor area to get say a clean
30X40 print but how many people would ever need that? it's the reason most
people have never bothered shooting 4X5, the recording medium is good
enough that you don't need it for most uses to get excelent results.


The whole "image area trumps" arguement can be disproven by the fact a 20D
with smaller photo sites is cleaner than an E1. It doesn't appear to me
that these small differences in size is the major factor at work.


>
>>The same people make the assumption that high pixel count sensors with
>>low noise at high ISOs are never going to be attainable using the Four
>>Thirds sensor size. That is very sad too, because experience shows a
>>remarkable improvement in CCD and CMOS sensors of all sizes over the
>>last few years. Why is this demonstrable technological improvement
>>going to be denied to sensors of one particular size?
>
> It's not - that's precisely the point, the bigger sensors will get it too.

That's like assuming everyone can get the same sensors that canon uses. It's
why the larger sensors in a nikon aren't as clean as the canons, even a 6MP
nikon CCD is noisier than a smaller sensor canon at 8MP. I know this
"larger sensors rule" is a popular position, I just don't buy it's the only
major factor to consider.


> Whatever quality 4/3 can obtain in the future, they'll always be able to
> do better, just like 120 vs 35mm.

The difference is the exact same film is avalible in both sizes, with
digital that isn't the case. If say one likes the colors an olympus
produces, they can't just get this from a larger sensor camera like they
could with film..

--

Stacey

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

Chris Brown wrote:

>There are a subset of
> users who want the highest avialable image quality - i

So why did you use 35mm rather than medium format?

--

Stacey

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>>>
>>>eh? Lenses are lenses.
>>
>>
>> Yea, sure they are......
>>
>>
>>
>>>The only difference with the E series lenses is
>>>that they project a smaller image circle.
>>
>>
>> This is like saying the only difference in a mamiya 645 lens and a 35mm
>> lens is a smaller image circle. Ever bothered to look at the MTF graphs?
>> 35mm zooms don't perform like this, maybe some of the better primes do?
>
> Med format lenses generally are not as sharp as the better 35mm primes
> from the OEM's. They don't need to be.

Bingo


> Or rather, the 35mm lens
> makers, in order to sell to serious photographers and make them choose
> 35mm over med format, have to try harder.


Again you seem to understand, yet can't fathom that the APS sized sensors
are also going to need higher resolving lenses to compete with larger
formats?

>
>
>>>Given the resolution limits of your camera, there is no way you can
>>>"find" how good these lenses are
>>
>>
>> Hmm It's pretty obvious, shoot with a OM lens, shoot with a ZD lens and
>> the results of with the ZD lens are sharper.. Then again I guess you know
>> all about this since you've used one of these yourself?
>
> Show me examples.
>

Watch your regularly scheduled programming for future examples..


>> Given even some of the the L glass has been shown to be lacking on a 20D,
>> I have no doubts that film lenses are reaching the limits of what they
>> can deal with.
>> At 6MP I'm sure your minolta lenses are fine. Next when
>> they go to 8-10MP you'll be telling people that 6MP is all you need
>> because the 8-10MP results look no better or maybe blame it on the
>> sensor?
>
> I have no doubt that 4 of my 6 lenses will perform brillantly to at
> least 12 Mpix, possibly 16.

Because...... you hope they will?

I seriously doubt you're right on this one.


>> Sure it hasn't improved, keep repeating that over and over as you shoot
>> with 20 year old designs..
>
> They have improved, yes, but no miracles. Most of my lenses are 'up to
> date' with respect to glass.
>

Sure they are.. they were designed when?

--

Stacey

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:

>>>I really can't care less.
>>
>>
>> Really now, you sure seem to spend an inordinate amount of time bashing
>> these for someone who couldn't care less.. Seems you could care quite a
>> bit less to me! You posted 11 times in this one thread.
>
> Only in reply to your irrational defence of the E300 despite clear
> evidence against what you're saying.

??? This was your first coment in this thread about a camera you have never
used..

"So, I urge you to escape to K-M, Nikon, Canon or Pentax at your earliest
convenience."


>
>>
>>
>>>This is demonstrated in E-300 ISO 800 noise that is higher than the 20D
>>>noise at ISO 1600.
>>
>>
>> If I was shooting at 800-1600ISO, I'd have bought a canon hands down but
>> I
>> don't, so why should I care about that "feature"? IMHO the colors the
>> canon produces aren't very appealing (I used one for a couple of weeks
>> before I bought my OLY), didn't like the way it handles, didn't care for
>> the focus screen/viewfinder and the highlights seem to be fairly easily
>> blown out. So I should ignore all of that in favor of better ISO1600
>> performance I'd never use? Or don't subjective judgements apply to
>> photography anymore, only high ISO noise performance matters?
>
> No. OTOH I find your claims regarding Canon color and highlights to be
> noise, rather than objective fact.

Who said it was "objective"? I said it was -SUBJECTIVE- or does that not
matter anymore? I suppose some people can only decide things like this
based on graphs, charts and someone else's opinion?



>
>> BTW you don't for a second believe there is no NR being done with the
>> CMOS sensors do you? How do you think they got the inherantly higher
>> noise levels lower than the CCD sensors to start with? Back to my earlier
>> question, think about why the E1 is noisier than a 20D yet the E1 has
>> larger photosites... Here's a clue, it's the sensor design and on chip
>> processing not the size that is causing most of this noise.
>
> Of course there is noise reduction. But again, the more S/N in the
> sensor, the less NR is required and less 'smoothing' of the image
> occurs. eg: the image is most true where NR is least applied.

Bingo, now think about what you just wrote and then think again why a 20D
with smaller photosites is less noisy than a E1 is.. Hint it's not the size
of the photosites or the sensor. Here's another clue, why is the smaller
sensor canon with 8MP less noisy than your 6MP minolta?

>>>But I guess that's because I'm objective and
>>>not a brand bunny.
>>
>>
>> So you didn't buy the minolta digital because you already owned some of
>> their products? Yea right..
>
> That's precisely why I bought the 7D.

NC..



--

Stacey

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> I print
>> regularly from Portra 160 to 8x12 and there is no noise in the darkest
>> areas of the print.
>
> BS I can see grain from medium format using that film printed that size..

ROFL. And you complain about me worrying about grain? You are a piece of
work.

If you are seeing grain in 8x10s from MF, you are doing something seriously
wrong. It's really hard to get a bad 11x14 from MF. Sheesh, 11x14 from a
4000 dpi scan of 645 is over 600 ppi! If you can't get a grainless 11x14
from 645, you are truly incompetent.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

"Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> writes:
> And what's the market share of 120 vs 35mm?
> I'm not saying that the 4/3rds systems won't bomb.

120 vs 35mm is like D70-level DSLR's vs point and shoot digicams (1/2"
sensors). D70-level vs 4/3" is like 35mm vs APS SLR's. APS SLR's
totally bombed out.

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

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

> On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:01:37 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The key to me is: Can I see the difference in the size prints I make? If
>>not, why would I care? This is the reason I don't shoot 4X5 much anymore,
>>in an 8X10 to 11X14 print I'm -really- hard pressed to see any difference
>>between it and medium format.
>
>
> That's not what you were saying a year ago, though.
>
>


Guess I've stopped looking at prints with a loupe :-)

--

Stacey

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> If you are seeing grain in 8x10s from MF, you are doing something
> seriously wrong. It's really hard to get a bad 11x14 from MF. Sheesh,
> 11x14 from a 4000 dpi scan of 645 is over 600 ppi!

Never figured out how to set the PPI on my enlarger...
--

Stacey

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you are seeing grain in 8x10s from MF, you are doing something
>> seriously wrong. It's really hard to get a bad 11x14 from MF. Sheesh,
>> 11x14 from a 4000 dpi scan of 645 is over 600 ppi!
>
> Never figured out how to set the PPI on my enlarger...

If you are seeing grain in 8x10s from 645, you are doing something seriously
wrong. Plus-X in Microdol X never gave me any trouble at 11x14 with an Omega
B22XL. And that _was_ 40 years ago.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

On Wed, 25 May 2005 14:41:57 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:


>"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you are seeing grain in 8x10s from MF, you are doing something
>>> seriously wrong. It's really hard to get a bad 11x14 from MF. Sheesh,
>>> 11x14 from a 4000 dpi scan of 645 is over 600 ppi!
>>
>> Never figured out how to set the PPI on my enlarger...
>
>If you are seeing grain in 8x10s from 645, you are doing something seriously
>wrong. Plus-X in Microdol X never gave me any trouble at 11x14 with an Omega
>B22XL. And that _was_ 40 years ago.


What's a B22XL worth these days?

I recently retrieved one from my parent's
house a couple of weekends ago. It's got
the original lamphouse and a color head
as well. I don't really intend to use it,
but didn't have the heart to abandon it.

Last time I used it was at least thirty years
ago. My Dad used it for another few years
after that, but then the darkroom was abandoned.

There was a film strip still in the carrier.
Obviously the last frames my Dad ever printed.


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

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:


>
> But the grain ain't bad at all:
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40577328/original
>

How can you judge grain looking at it on a piece of rock?

>That would be grain free in a (carefully processed) 9x enlargement

So now 9X enlargements are good enough? ;-)

--

Stacey

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
> > The size difference between the Nikon and Canon small DSLR sensors
> > isn't enough to care about. The size difference between the EOS-1DS
> > sensor and the Nikon DX sensors is substantial and people pay the big
> > bucks for EOS-1DS's for a good reason.
>
> But is that reason just image quality, or more likely is it because you
> have full use of the lenses?

It depends on the usage situation for the particular photographer.
For a fair number, it's just image quality. The 1DS has replaced
medium format in many applications.

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
> If you can see grain in an 8x10 from 645, even up close, you are either
> halucinating or doing something seriously wrong. Pick one, because 8x10s
> from 645 are incredibly beautifully detailed things that hold up easily to
> inspection with an 8x loupe.

An 8x10 from 645 is about the same magnification as a 4x5 from 35mm.
Grain is visible in those.

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

Paul Rubin wrote:

> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
>> If you can see grain in an 8x10 from 645, even up close, you are either
>> halucinating or doing something seriously wrong. Pick one, because 8x10s
>> from 645 are incredibly beautifully detailed things that hold up easily
>> to inspection with an 8x loupe.
>
> An 8x10 from 645 is about the same magnification as a 4x5 from 35mm.
> Grain is visible in those.


David has recently decided to argue ANYTHING I post. This is another
example.

Do a search of his posts and you'll see he's argued many times in the past
8x10's from 35mm are iffy at best, now they are high quality and grainless?
--

Stacey

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

In article <7x7jhnu7dc.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
>> If you can see grain in an 8x10 from 645, even up close, you are either
>> halucinating or doing something seriously wrong. Pick one, because 8x10s
>> from 645 are incredibly beautifully detailed things that hold up easily to
>> inspection with an 8x loupe.
>
>An 8x10 from 645 is about the same magnification as a 4x5 from 35mm.
>Grain is visible in those.

You using Kodak Super Zoom 800 Floor Sweepings or something?

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

In article <Y8udnad9bfXpmQnfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Brion K. Lienhart <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:

>> It's not - that's precisely the point, the bigger sensors will get it too.
>> Whatever quality 4/3 can obtain in the future, they'll always be able to do
>> better, just like 120 vs 35mm.
>
>And what's the market share of 120 vs 35mm?

Pretty much as you'd expect when you have a mass market product that is
"good enough", and a premium product that gives you that extra bit of
quality that you can't obtain with the mass market product.

35mm never was, and never will be the premium product because 120 was, is,
and will be better. 4/3 will never be the premium product because larger
sensors were, are and will be better.

>I'm not saying that the 4/3rds systems won't bomb. But, if they do, it
>will be factors like too expensive, not enough selection, NOT any
>complaints about noise or picture quality.

I don't think you'll find me making any comments on picture quality of 4/3
in this thread beyond saying that it'll never be as good as the images from
larger sensors based on contemporary technology.

>There are already signs that the MegaPixel Madness is slowing down.

That seems to be the case.

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

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> writes:
> >An 8x10 from 645 is about the same magnification as a 4x5 from 35mm.
> >Grain is visible in those.
>
> You using Kodak Super Zoom 800 Floor Sweepings or something?

If I remember right, when I shot 35mm it was mostly Neopan 400 and
Ilford Pan F, with D76. Grain is even visible with Pan F at 4x5 if
your eyes are good and you look real carefully. Neopan was finer
grained than Tri-X but it was still a 400 film. If I ever shoot film
again I want to try some Agfa Copex or Kodak Microlink with the new
Spur developer. That stuff caused a big stir in what's left of the
submini world.

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

In article <3fi8baF7v4bkU3@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:
>
>>There are a subset of
>> users who want the highest avialable image quality - i
>
>So why did you use 35mm rather than medium format?

I've never used 35mm in preference to medium format when I wanted the
highest available image quality, and I never claimed to be part of that
subset. HTH!

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

Alan Browne wrote:

>
> 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.
>
Hmmm... are you sure?
"For more than a hundred years the name National Geographic has been
synonymous with excellence in photography. Now many of our photographers
are joining the digital revolution, making them among the world's top
authorities in the field."
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/celebrate/tips.html

I have the May 2005 National Geographic in front of me now. It contains
several two-page spreads by photographer Lynn Johnson. These appear to
me to be digital images shot at high ISO. Maybe she uses the E-1
featured on the back cover.