Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor - Page 5
Forum Digital Camera : Digital Camera General - Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor
Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Frederick wrote:
> 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.
Lol...
Checked some of her images from that edition...
She seems to frequently use a Leica M6 with iso 400 film :-)
Some other (cleaner and sharper) images in that article were taken by
another photographer who uses a D70.
This seems to have been National Geographics foray into a totally
digitally shot with D1x and D100 for the dec 2003 edition:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.co [...] index.html
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>In article <tsf791limfhcejulv2n8u2g5k1e1gsb0kk@4ax.com>,
>Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>>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?
>
>So those saying 120 was superior to 35mm 70 years ago were right then, and
>they're right now. Do keep up!
35mm film was more than adequate for over 90% of all photography,
which is the reason it dominated the market. Yes, 120 roll film is
superior. 4x5" sheet film is even better. But if we apply your silly
(digital) argument to film, we should all have been ignoring 35mm film
because there were "superior" alternatives available.
I'm glad you weren't around to give "advice" when I chose 35mm.
;-)
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>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.
Whatever makes you think that Four Thirds was ever intended to be the
"premium product"? Do you really think that Olympus, Kodak (and now
Panasonic) were unaware of the limitations of the sensor size?
You talk as though you are the only person who ever realised this, and
that Olympus et al. were fools.
There was never any chance that Four Thirds could compete directly
with full size 24x36mm sensors. That was never the point of Four
Thirds, yet you criticise Four Thirds for being unable to do that.
There is absolutely no logic in your criticism.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Tony Polson 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.
Noise is part of image non-quality. 4/3 has a fixed sensor size. As
pixel densities go up, the noise will go up. As prev. stated, this is a
long term concern for 4/3.
<SNIPPED>
>
> 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.
Don't ignore the facts: whatever improvement is made at a given size is
available to larger sizes. So, 4/3 will always be compromized. As APS
sized sensors get to higher pixel densities, 4/3 cannot follow and
maintain acceptable noise. 4/3 is already limited to a lower ISO range
as an initial symptom of the overall problem. This will only get more
constrained over time as pixel densities grow.
> 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.
The E300 at 8 Mpix shows the deficiency already. At ISO 800 it is
noisier than the 20D at ISO 1600. Does not bode well for the next
"professional body" from Olympus at any size.
Do you still have your deposit down on an E-2, Tony?
;-)
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:
>> 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.
It's not "knowledge" as much as a concern. At 8 Mpix, the E300 is
already noisier at ISO 800 than the 8 Mpix Canon 20D is at ISO 1600. As
pixel counts go up, Oly will have a harder and harder time keeping noise
reasonable.
Even the proponents of it here have stated that they only use it at ISO
100 to 400 and that's all they need. That's fine I suppose for them.
I get a less noisy image at ISO 800 from my 6 mpix camera than the 5
mpix pro E-1 gets at ISO 200.
Does not bode well for the future of 4/3 growth. Pixel growth that is,
as they can't make the sensor larger.
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?)
RichA wrote:
> 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.
Or for similar (or less) amounts of money, update their 35mm lens line
and make a 1.5 to 1.0 DSLR body for them.
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?)
RichA wrote:
>>>http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm
> What was the actual size of the area of the plant that was 2.7mm x
> 1.2mm on the slide film?
I don't recall. Not particulalry small. Probably an inch or so.
But before you comment on the blowup of that section, remember that it
comes from a slide at the size of the image at the top of the page.
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 wrote:
> 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.
Very good point. Time will tell.
--
-- 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 (More info?)
On Wed, 25 May 2005 16:42:05 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>Sheesh! I'm defending 35mm<g>.
In terms of historical significance, I'll bet a good
portion of the most memorable and significant images
from the 20th century were recorded on 35 mm.
Good enough for Cartier Bresson, Capa, Galen Rowell,
Art Wolfe, etc. I accept grain as an essential part
of photography.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Stacey wrote:
> Chris Brown wrote:
>
>
>>In article <rp5691h4tb6mob5p515pjusglq3i23d6bm@4ax.com>,
>>Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>
> So that means the nikon dSLR's are the camera of choice since the canon
> sensors are smaller?
The difference between the Nikon (1/1.5) and Canon (1/1.6) is miniscule
compared to the difference between either and 4/3. The 20D is almost
40% larger than 4/3, and the D70/7D/*istD are over 50% larger. More
signal/noise.
Canon are also the leaders in full frame 35mm DSLR. An area Oly cannot
even attempt to approach with 4/3. An area that challenges medium format.
> 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.
When you have situations that require higher ISO, and as the pixel
densities increase, then at medium print sizes (around 10" +) , the
noise will be apparent in the print.
This is not a problem today, it is a problem that Oly risk with 4/3 for
the future.
Keep in mind that the only good reason for higher pixel counts is to
make larger, clean prints. So, it would be a shame to have the pixels,
but they are too noisy to exploit on the larger print size.
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?)
Stacey wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Four Thirds with a whole 3 MP less.
>>
>>Wonderfully argued, as always, Tony. But the fact remains, that the E-1
>>and E-300 are noiser ISO for ISO than cameras with similar pixel counts.
>>
>
>
> So explain again how the 20D with smaller photo sites than the E1 has less
> noise if this is the case? And that the D70 with a larger 6MP sensor than
> the canon 20D doesn't have a huge noise advantage?
The 20D has 25000 p-sites/mm^2 / the Oly has 23,000 / mm^2. Hardly a
large advantage. So, as you've stated before, the Kodak sensor is
likely a good part of the problem.
I do hope that Oly improve in this regard, but again, as densities
increase, they have less and less means to catch up. Hopefully their
relationship with Kodak will end.
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 <3nr891tkvrk8a7trlnvod1a0ob2t9v2kmi@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <tsf791limfhcejulv2n8u2g5k1e1gsb0kk@4ax.com>,
>>Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>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?
>>
>>So those saying 120 was superior to 35mm 70 years ago were right then, and
>>they're right now. Do keep up!
>
>
>35mm film was more than adequate for over 90% of all photography,
>which is the reason it dominated the market. Yes, 120 roll film is
>superior. 4x5" sheet film is even better. But if we apply your silly
>(digital) argument to film, we should all have been ignoring 35mm film
>because there were "superior" alternatives available.
I haven't suggested that anyone should ignore anything, simply that smaller
formats put themselves at a disadvantage if they want market penetration in
that part of the market that considers image quality paramount.
>I'm glad you weren't around to give "advice" when I chose 35mm.
If you chose 35mm on the basis of wanting the best available image quality,
then you made a poor decision. If you chose it for reasons such as
convinience, portability with an image quality that was "sufficient", then
you probably made a good decision. Most people buying cameras don't rate
image quality as that high a concern, that's why P&S digitals do well,
that's why 35mm did well.
The problem that Olympus have is that 35mm had a lot going for it, which
compensated for it being the poor-relation in terms of image quality.
Portability and convinience were major points in 35mm's favour. There
doesn't seem to be an analogy with 4/3 though. It's a smaller format, but
its just as bulky, clunky and pricey as its larger format cousins, and that
might be a barrier to its long-term viability.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Stacey 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?
Most amateurs use 35mm film as it is low cost and convenient in all
senses compared to med format.
But no matter how strenuously you argue the point, the fact remains that
the 4/3 will have a signal/noise deficiency over the larger sensors, and
all in a camera system that is only marginally cheaper at the body level
and not cheaper at all at the lens level.
BTW: Has anyone used an adaptor with the 4/3 to use older Oly lenses?
How well does this work out?
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 <p2s891t8somnunniiqorspodlsj5p9sqms@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
>Whatever makes you think that Four Thirds was ever intended to be the
>"premium product"?
DSLRs *are* the premium end of the digital market. The mass marekt wants
smaller, more convinient, and cheaper. DSLRs have certain advantages for
users with particular needs, and for this they command a premium.
If Olympus didn't intend to build a product that was competitive in that
market segment, then building a camera that looks, works and is priced as
though it belongs there might have been a bit silly, don't you think?
>You talk as though you are the only person who ever realised this, and
>that Olympus et al. were fools.
Time will tell if they were fools. They were faced with being left behind as
the world went digital, and made a decision about how they could compete.
It's entirely possible that the other guys, especially Canon, but also Nikon
and Pentax, have wrong-footed them by changing the rules in the meantime.
The big selling point of 4/3 right at the beginning was its more convinient
size, but the other cameras have got smaller than they apparently expected,
faster than they apparently expected, and the other lens mounts have proven
more than capable in accomodating smaller "made for digital" lenses.
>There was never any chance that Four Thirds could compete directly
>with full size 24x36mm sensors. That was never the point of Four
>Thirds, yet you criticise Four Thirds for being unable to do that.
If that were the only problem, then it would be a viable format. The problem
that 4/3 seems to have is that increasingly, it can't compete directly with
22*15mm sensors, and the increasingly pocketable cameras that house them.
That's a problem.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Stacey wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>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...
>
> As intelligent as your coment was.
>
I stated a fact about NatGeo photography. You replied "blah, blah, blah".
I guess you *really* don't understand signal to noise ;-).
>>
>>ISO 100 prints from film, negative or slide, are virtually noiseless at
>>the size Nat geo is printed.
>
>
> BS
Nope. NatGeo is printed at a fairly small size. Where images are
contrasty and shot with low speed film, the noise level is not
perceptible in the printed magazine.
NatGeo of course don't limit themselves to bright, contrasty scenes, and
a variety of high speed film is used as well. So there will be images
printed with high grain. And that is good as that was the situation
when the image was taken.
>
>>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..
> It's not objectionable but there is no way you can claim there is no grain.
> Now a 4X5 neg printed that size is practically grainless.
BS yourself.
>
>
>>>>No digital image comes close.
>
>
>>http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1231406&size=lg
>>(Still some noise in the blues. On prints, not discernible)
>
>
> I didn't think the results in print mattered, only the results viewed at
> 100%? Of is that just for other people's shots?
Where did you get that idea?
To objectively see noise we do have to 'zoom in'. Printing, for all of
us, is much more forgiving. (Just less so for 4/3 in the future).
>
>
> No it's called a shoft shot, I don't see anything sharp even at the focus
> point. Of course the DOF is limited (for whatever reason I'm not sure..)
> but the focus point isn't sharp either.
It sure is, but you have no idea what you're talking about. That shot
was a closeup with a 100mm lens. Not much DOF.
>
>>Hmm... and where are those e-mailed 100% sized images you promissed
>>Stacey?
>
>
> You already blasted one 100% crop I posted so why bother? You're not going
> to be objective unless it was shot with your type of camera.
I haven't seen a single 100% crop from 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.
>
>
> Sure it is...
It is. Show me how the Maxxum 9 is not one of the best SLR's ever made.
You can begin your quest at www.photozone.de where most of the spec is
laid out. You can begin by trying to find other SLR's with the
brightest 100% viewfinder. And 1/300 sync speed. And 1/12,000 shutter
speed (including HSS to 1/12,000). And all metal body. And very fast
AF. etc. Once you winnow that list down, there will remain only a few
bodies like the F5, F6 and EOS-1v/n. Each will have particular
advantages over the other. But few other bodies will come close these
cameras.
>
> NC.
What does "NC" mean?
>
> Well maybe one, is that an eyelash on the film in the bottom center?
Cold be. Or a stick in the mud. That was a test scan on a Fuji
Frontier which was disappointing to say the least.
But the point of that matter was spot metering. Using my Maxxum 9 as a
spot meter, I opened up 2 stops from the bright spot above the tree line
just right of center. I spot metered again off the blue patch in the
water to confirm that it was within the -1.7 to +2 range of the film.
There is no way an incident metering would have been of any use in this
shot. The shutter speed on this lens is 1/500 to 1/1 and "B". This
shot was "steamboated" (Around 4 or 8 seconds, IIRC, no notes).
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?)
Stacey wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>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?
And that's easier with smaller glass than larger. Or at least cheaper.
But, as the 4/3 is smaller, then being able to resolve finer MTF
(higher pixel density) will be soured by ever increasing noise.
>>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?
Because they happen to be very sharp, contrasty lenses.
>
> I seriously doubt you're right on this one.
Instead of doubt, tell me specifically why?
>
>
>
>>>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?
Most of mine are designs from 1995 +/- a couple years. They employ APO,
AD-glass, special optical coatings, etc.
I know you know little about Minolta lenses, but surprising to you might
be that they do have top of the class lenses.
100 f/2.8 macro: sharpest 35mm lens v. Canon, Nikon (photodo).
80-200 f/2.8 G: sharpest high end zoom v. Canon, Nikon (photozone
compilation of several tests). Since then, other lenses have come out,
incl. Minolta, so Minolta may not be the 'top' anymore, but they are
certainly in the top area of these high end leneses.
17-35 f/3.5. Sharper than Canon, Nikon. (Caveat, the Nikon and Canon
are a bit faster for this lens)
20 f/28. Sharper v. Canon, Nikon.
And more...
But I don't consider any of this "miraculous" just the evolving pursuit
of improved performance.
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?)
Stacey wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>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."
Yep. Or rather, if you bought into Oly, good luck! If you haven't,
then don't!
(And yes I have "used" the E300. Though just to get a 'feel' for it
(too small for my hands, but that applies to many SLR's). I never saw
the images except on its somewhat tiny monitor. Viewfinder was not very
bright.).
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>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?
I apppologize if you said 'subjective' and I missed it. But frankly,
you're about the only person I've ever heard object tot he Canon color
palette. Perhaps you should look into Sigma?
>>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?
At 3200 down to 200, the 7D is less noisy. At 100, the 20D is slightly
less noisy.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ko [...] -graph.gif
> NC..
"NC"?
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?)
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>Me, I like my 10D, but I'm well aware that it doesn't give me the image
>quality that I get from my film stuff for most applications
What? You only have an EOS 10D? And you have the cheek to criticise
Four Thirds?
How can an APS size sensor possibly be good enough?
I thought you would be using at least a Canon EOS 1Ds. Why aren't you?
;-)
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Frederick wrote:
> 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
Sure. "Many" does not mean most. They have over 100 full time and
assignment photogs. 10 could be many. 50 could be many. What does
"many" mean? They are making a switch over as my 2nd para above says.
But, most of their photography up until last year was still film. I
don't know when (if) they passed the 50% mark. I've writtn to them in
the past regarding film choice and gotten a fuzzy reply, so you could do
the same regarding digital.
> 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.
It's possible.
A long standing (and very false myth) about Nat Geo was that they used
Canon exclusively or that the magazine tried to get the photogs to use
Canon. The myth was based (I think) on the lovely Canon advertisements
in the mag [endangered spieces photos with the ads]. Likewise, the
photogs choose the film (likely in discussion with the photo editors).
The photogs use what they want. What the Nat Geo field photogs want is
Canon, Nikon, Leica. I don't know what Lynn Johnson used as a film
camera, but if it's Canon or Nikon, than that is most likely what she
uses as a digital body as well.
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 wrote:
> There was never any chance that Four Thirds could compete directly
> with full size 24x36mm sensors. That was never the point of Four
> Thirds, yet you criticise Four Thirds for being unable to do that.
>
> There is absolutely no logic in your criticism.
There's no logic in Oly taking the riskier path of a smaller sensor when
they had a full frame camera and lens base to work from.
They can be applauded for taking the innovation route and blazing a new
trail. It may prove for naught.
And, BTW, they can't compete with cropped sensors for noise, never mind
full frame.
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 <0c6991lkebrk66drvgm0ta7tcr6irr387p@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>>Me, I like my 10D, but I'm well aware that it doesn't give me the image
>>quality that I get from my film stuff for most applications
>
>
>What? You only have an EOS 10D? And you have the cheek to criticise
>Four Thirds?
I think you're reading what you want to read in my posts, rather than what
I've written.
I'm unconvinced by the marketability of the 4/3 system - they have an uphill
battle against the established players, which they seem to be struggling
with. As with many cameras, they produce image quality which is "good
enough", but the market segment they compete in isn't one where "good
enough" is likely to sell many cameras - there are loads of much cheaper
cameras that are "good enough". DSLRs sell on being better than "good
enough".
The main selling point of 4/3 was that it was going to be like the other
DSLRs, but smaller and lighter. That was the compesnation for the small
sensor. It's lost even that advantage though.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <0c6991lkebrk66drvgm0ta7tcr6irr387p@4ax.com>,
> Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>What? You only have an EOS 10D? And you have the cheek to criticise
>>Four Thirds?
>
>
> I think you're reading what you want to read in my posts, rather than what
> I've written.
Nothing new there.
--
-- 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?)
On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:53:07 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>RichA wrote:
>
>>>>http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm
>> What was the actual size of the area of the plant that was 2.7mm x
>> 1.2mm on the slide film?
>
>I don't recall. Not particulalry small. Probably an inch or so.
>
>But before you comment on the blowup of that section, remember that it
>comes from a slide at the size of the image at the top of the page.
>
>Cheers,
>Alan.
This aside, I think that photogs have more of a problem with the
kind of noise digital produces compared to film grain. Nice, even
grain never seemed too objectionable to photographers, especially
since many shot Tri-X, which I always thought was inferior to HP-5,
especially when it came to grain and being "pushed."
-Rich
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
RichA wrote:
>
> This aside, I think that photogs have more of a problem with the
> kind of noise digital produces compared to film grain. Nice, even
> grain never seemed too objectionable to photographers, especially
> since many shot Tri-X, which I always thought was inferior to HP-5,
> especially when it came to grain and being "pushed."
I've seen many gold/flesh/beige color photos in soft light / soft focus
with prominent grain that I would LOVE to emulate with a scantilly clad
beauty. Likewise with B&W, but that specific color palette really lends
itself to a film made grainy finish.
That aside, and analogous to the notion that you make a sharp lens soft,
but you can't make a soft lens sharper ...
....you can make the image from a quiet sensor noisy; but you can't make
the image from a noisy sensor quieter (without undue softening, anyway).
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 <ta2cm2-gth.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> in some years time,
> these people may wellbe buying 35mm-compatible DSLR systems. 4/3, however,
> has locked itself out of that market forever.
What market is that? The "market" of people that want to use all their
old lenses? sounds like a great idea, if your business is selling as
many lenses as possible.
Lourens
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In article <p2s891t8somnunniiqorspodlsj5p9sqms@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
> Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
>
> Whatever makes you think that Four Thirds was ever intended to be the
> "premium product"?
They did intend that. It is spec-wise remarkably similar to the Nikon
D1x, the top-of-the-line Nikon up to 2 months ago. But the E1 is a lot
cheaper, and better in many ways. (yeah I have used both)
> Do you really think that Olympus, Kodak (and now
> Panasonic) were unaware of the limitations of the sensor size?
There are also actually benefits about a smaller chip-size. That is why
ALL manufacturers apart from Canon, use a smaller size. (one of the
important benefits is a lower price, but still)
Lourens
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In article <d71ud4$gfv$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> As
> pixel densities go up, the noise will go up.
Funny, so far this statement has been terribly wrong. What makes you
think it will be true in the future?
Lourens
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Alan Browne wrote:
>
> A long standing (and very false myth) about Nat Geo was that they used
> Canon exclusively or that the magazine tried to get the photogs to use
> Canon. The myth was based (I think) on the lovely Canon advertisements
> in the mag [endangered spieces photos with the ads]. Likewise, the
> photogs choose the film (likely in discussion with the photo editors).
>
I didn't look very hard, and found three Nat Geo photographers using
DSLRs, all Nikon, and all 6mp. D1x, D2H, D100, and D70. I'm sure some
will use other brands too. These days they would be fools not to carry
a good quality compact digital camera in their pocket.
> The photogs use what they want. What the Nat Geo field photogs want is
> Canon, Nikon, Leica. I don't know what Lynn Johnson used as a film
> camera, but if it's Canon or Nikon, than that is most likely what she
> uses as a digital body as well.
>
Leica M6 seems to be her weapon of choice.
Forgetting any technical debate, why would any photographer who is
shooting film and getting published (which pays the bills) regularly
want to consider such a significant change? I think that it would be a
natural reaction to resist change.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Lourens Smak wrote:
> In article <d71ud4$gfv$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> As
>> pixel densities go up, the noise will go up.
>
> Funny, so far this statement has been terribly wrong. What makes you
> think it will be true in the future?
>
Because it fits his arguement?
--
Stacey
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <3fi8baF7v4bkU3@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>Chris Brown wrote:
>>
>>>There are a subset of
>>> users who want the highest avialable image quality - i
>>
>>So why did you use 35mm rather than medium format?
>
> I've never used 35mm in preference to medium format when I wanted the
> highest available image quality, and I never claimed to be part of that
> subset.
:-)
--
Stacey
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In article <d71usg$itg$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> I get a less noisy image at ISO 800 from my 6 mpix camera than the 5
> mpix pro E-1 gets at ISO 200.
Please post something, I could use a good laugh.
Lourens
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In article <smak-9BC116.01134226052005@news.euronet.nl>,
Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>In article <ta2cm2-gth.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
> Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>> in some years time,
>> these people may wellbe buying 35mm-compatible DSLR systems. 4/3, however,
>> has locked itself out of that market forever.
>
>What market is that?
The one that was discussed in the rest of the paragraph, the bit of context
that you snipped, the bit that answered the question that you therefore
didn't actually need to ask.
>The "market" of people that want to use all their
>old lenses? sounds like a great idea, if your business is selling as
>many lenses as possible.
I'll wager that Canon, Nikon, Pentax et al are selling far more lenses as a
result of their DSLR business than Olympus are.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Frederick wrote:
> I think that it would be a
> natural reaction to resist change.
Pro cyclists are the same way. They were the last to adopt the clipless
pedal systems, the hyperglide chains and many used downtube shifters WAY
past when you could even buy them on a new bike.
--
Stacey
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Alan Browne wrote:
>
> I know you know little about Minolta lenses, but surprising to you might
> be that they do have top of the class lenses.
>
> 100 f/2.8 macro: sharpest 35mm lens v. Canon, Nikon (photodo).
>
How did I know you'd rate lenses reading photodo?
--
Stacey, who didn't realise you were this clueless
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3fl0ncF896jqU2@individual.net:
> How did I know you'd rate lenses reading photodo?
Photodo's tests are very simple and not very credible among real
professionals.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> NC..
>
> "NC"?
>
I'm being kind, it means "No coment"...
--
Stacey
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Alan Browne wrote:
> Stacey wrote:
>>
>>
>> No it's called a shoft shot, I don't see anything sharp even at the focus
>> point. Of course the DOF is limited (for whatever reason I'm not sure..)
>> but the focus point isn't sharp either.
>
> It sure is, but you have no idea what you're talking about. That shot
> was a closeup with a 100mm lens. Not much DOF.
The focus point is obvious and equally obvious that the focus point isn't
sharp. There isn't a single point in that shot that is sharp!
>
>
>>
>>>Hmm... and where are those e-mailed 100% sized images you promissed
>>>Stacey?
>>
>>
>> You already blasted one 100% crop I posted so why bother? You're not
>> going to be objective unless it was shot with your type of camera.
>
> I haven't seen a single 100% crop from you.
-------------
Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.gazeta.pl!news.gazeta.pl!not-for-mail
From:
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca>
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Subject:
Re: corrected link
Date:
Wed, 18 May 2005 09:41:05 -0400
Organization:
"Portal Gazeta.pl -> http://www.gazeta.pl"
Lines:
18
Message-ID:
<d6fgl6$q7$1@inews.gazeta.pl>
References:
<nsrh811c042qph290nnoe4ol67eo1ijmrn@4ax.com> <3eshhfF4q000U1@individual.net>
<3esskpF4rim8U1@individual.net> <3et4dvF4rmfmU5@individual.net>
<d6cpe3$3h$1@inews.gazeta.pl> <3evi4vF58qarU1@individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:
modemcable182.11-130-66.mc.videotron.ca
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
X-Trace:
inews.gazeta.pl 1116423655 839 66.130.11.182 (18 May 2005 13:40:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
usenet@agora.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date:
Wed, 18 May 2005 13:40:55 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
<3evi4vF58qarU1@individual.net>
X-Accept-Language:
en-us, en
X-User:
abrowne
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804
Netscape/7.2 (ax)
Xref:
uni-berlin.de rec.photo.digital.slr-systems:18604
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stacey wrote:
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/200 [...] lkcrop.jpg
I'm underwhelmed.
============
And this was a sample from the cheap kit lens..
And in responce you posted a picture of a dollar bill, interesting
composition Alan..
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Sure it is...
>
> It is. Show me how the Maxxum 9 is not one of the best SLR's ever made.
Why would I care?
>>
>> NC.
>
> What does "NC" mean?
NC as in I'm being kind not to say what I think..
>
> But the point of that matter was spot metering.
Good, I hope you weren't posting it as an example of an interesting image..
--
Stacey
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Stacey wrote:
> Frederick wrote:
>
>
>> I think that it would be a
>>natural reaction to resist change.
>
>
> Pro cyclists are the same way. They were the last to adopt the clipless
> pedal systems, the hyperglide chains and many used downtube shifters WAY
> past when you could even buy them on a new bike.
>
I would expect that successful riders of the old school would wage a PR
campaign designed to convince the race authorities not to allow such
changes.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>I think you're reading what you want to read in my posts, rather than what
>I've written.
On the contrary, what is in your posts is ill-informed, prejudiced
nonsense. But it is highly entertaining, if somewhat hypocritical.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In article <ai4b91pr5qnms7275ghr75qut5bu67r13b@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>>I think you're reading what you want to read in my posts, rather than what
>>I've written.
>
>
>On the contrary, what is in your posts is ill-informed, prejudiced
>nonsense.
The main thrust of my post is that 120 gave superior results to 35mm at
inception, and it does now. I think that if you research the matter, you may
find that it's actually quite a mainstream opinion, with lots of evidence to
back it up. YMMV.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>In article <ai4b91pr5qnms7275ghr75qut5bu67r13b@4ax.com>,
>Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I think you're reading what you want to read in my posts, rather than what
>>>I've written.
>>
>>
>>On the contrary, what is in your posts is ill-informed, prejudiced
>>nonsense.
>
>The main thrust of my post is that 120 gave superior results to 35mm at
>inception, and it does now. I think that if you research the matter, you may
>find that it's actually quite a mainstream opinion, with lots of evidence to
>back it up. YMMV.
I don't doubt the superiority of 120 over 35mm. I use 120 film most
days, plus I shoot 4x5" sheet film several days in an average month,
so I know what "superior image quality" really means. But 35mm is
more than good enough for 90% of film photography, just as Four Thirds
is more than good enough for 90% of digital.
The main thrust of your post is that you are a hypocrite. You
criticise Four Thirds yet you use a Canon 10D, which in terms of image
quality is inferior to either of the Olympus Four Thirds bodies. There
is much more to image quality than counting how many angels (pixels)
can dance on the head of a pin.
You are arguing only for the point of arguing, and repeating your
arguments over and over again (and again, and again some more) proves
only that you are repeatedly a hypocrite.
No doubt you will argue some more, so welcome to my kill file, and
have a nice day.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Lourens Smak wrote:
> In article <d71ud4$gfv$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>As
>>pixel densities go up, the noise will go up.
>
>
> Funny, so far this statement has been terribly wrong. What makes you
> think it will be true in the future?
Please be specific.
One example:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page20.asp
It's remarkable, that given the slightly increased density that the
noise is only so-slightly higher in the 20D (V 10D). But it is higher.
And here, the noise of the Oly E300 is terrible.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Ol [...] -graph.gif
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Ol [...] -graph.gif
Many will rightly attribute this to the Kodak sensor, but even if Oly
had access to the Canon sensor technology, 'stuffing' it into a smaller
area everything else being equal, the noise will be higher (or rather
the signal will be less... but in the end SNR will be low).
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?)
Frederick wrote:
> Forgetting any technical debate, why would any photographer who is
> shooting film and getting published (which pays the bills) regularly
> want to consider such a significant change? I think that it would be a
> natural reaction to resist change.
It depends on many factors.
The photojournalist preference for digital is time based. But
assignments at Nat Geo have photo production deadlines that end many
months before the edition is published, and the assignemnt itself can be
many months to over a year long. So there is no time pressure benefit
to digital over film.
Leica shooters (Lynn Johnson [if that's all she shoots], David Alan
Harvey, others) at Nat Geo have their own ways of working in the field
that matches Leica to their style. They are not likely to be fast
'jumpers' to digital.
The Canon/Nikon crowd have the path of least resistance to jumping to
digital. It's just some bodies. And they can maintain film shooting if
appropriate.
When I bought my digital SLR, it was so much like my film body that I
was making good phots literally immediately after I pulled it out of the
box. (I had read the manual electronically beforehand, and I had played
with various other DSLR before...). The only area where I haven't
completely bridged the gap is metering. Using an incident meter in most
situations, the setting will underexpose by about 1 stop v. a neutral
slide film in most cases. Using the camera spot meter for the placement
of highlights has proven to be unreliable (eg: I haven't found the
recipe yet). It's close, just not what I expect every time.
Yesterday, photographing some flowers, I had a case of the histogram
appearing to be well to the left of saturation, yet there were blown out
areas. (This confirms again what JPS has said about how in camera
histograms are generated based on only one color channel).
The saving grace of digital transition is the instant feedback. For
tricky lighting, a couple test shots, and you know you're taking away
the images. Film forces unnecessary bracketing.
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?)
Lourens Smak wrote:
> In article <d71usg$itg$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>I get a less noisy image at ISO 800 from my 6 mpix camera than the 5
>>mpix pro E-1 gets at ISO 200.
>
>
> Please post something, I could use a good laugh.
I don't have an E-1 handy, so sorry.
But, the following should set you clear:
E-1
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Ol [...] ma3200.gif
(@ ISO 200, the noise figure is about 2.0)
7D
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ko [...] -graph.gif
(@ ISO 800, the noise figure is about 1.8)
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?)
Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <smak-9BC116.01134226052005@news.euronet.nl>,
> Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>The "market" of people that want to use all their
>>old lenses? sounds like a great idea, if your business is selling as
>>many lenses as possible.
Lourens: as you know perfectly well: brand loyalty, in particular
Nikon's, is based in large part on legacy. That is far from ngligible
and encourages buyers to continue their lens investments in the brand.
> I'll wager that Canon, Nikon, Pentax et al are selling far more lenses as a
> result of their DSLR business than Olympus are.
Maybe not on a camera by camera basis ... you must buy their lenses!
Most of the other DSLR buyers are using their existing lens sets.
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?)
Stacey wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>> I know you know little about Minolta lenses, but surprising to you
>> might be that they do have top of the class lenses.
>>
>> 100 f/2.8 macro: sharpest 35mm lens v. Canon, Nikon (photodo).
>>
>
>
> How did I know you'd rate lenses reading photodo?
It's the only neutral site for MTF tests that I know of. Unfortunately,
it's no longer maintained or updated with new lenses. As I've stated to
you in the past, the main attraction of such sites is that they are not
OEM influenced. One test bench. One methodolgy. So, you can compare
across brands.
The tests measure MTF and in most cases measure the distortion of the
lens. There is no evaluation of build quality or other aspects of the
lens characteristic (vignetting, coloration, etc.). So it is but one
source of information. Also, as they use "samples of one", there is no
averaging of results to better reflect the real world.
OTOH, unlike OEM MTF graphs the lens tested is not the lab-honey from
engineering.
I also cited photozone.de (which you snipped here), but it obfuscates
the data by making it a compilation (average?) of several magazine
sources. This is both good (better set of samples) and bad (different
measuring criteria and technique).
I haven't seen a Chasseur D'images test of the Oly E system lenses, but
I don't look at the magazine racks very often, so may have missed it.
If you have an international news stand near you, you might look into it
as they do very complete lens and camera tests and with the advent of
digital cameras they have redesigned their test system around a
consistent, repeateble tool set and methodology. You have to put up
with their somewhat effervescent editorial style, so it helps if you
can't read French. The graphs speak for themselves.
But that aside, Stacey, you should not be shocked that each OEM does
have stellar or exceptional lenses. Including Minolta, Pentax, Oly,
Nikon, Canon and a few others. Even Sigma and Tamron have a few
magnificant lenses. Each OEM strives for qualities and makes tradeoffs
within the available constraints. So no OEM has complete coverage of
being the best at all lenses. Won't happen in the SLR market.
Leica of course can win any pissing contest across a high number of
lenses, but for some reason few people buy into it.
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?)
George Preddy wrote:
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3fl0ncF896jqU2@individual.net:
>
>
>>How did I know you'd rate lenses reading photodo?
>
>
> Photodo's tests are very simple and not very credible among real
> professionals.
Even if they were 1 / 10, you'd be a 0.0001 / 10.
--
-- 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?)
Stacey wrote:
>
> Stacey wrote:
>
>
>>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/walkcrop.jpg
>
Not great, but then I don't see the 'whole thing'. Now that you post
that, I do remember it. And I'm just as unimpressed now, as then.
I'd rather see the entire, 100% image of the red flower with the bug on
it, for example. Please e-mail it (RAW preferably) to: alan dot browne
AT videotron dot ca . Likewise the shot of the couple at the bench.
You said you would.
> And in responce you posted a picture of a dollar bill, interesting
> composition Alan..
That was immediately after buying the DSLR and only for the purpose of
demonstrating the resolution and contrast.
Don't read into things what isn't there.
>
>
> Why would I care?
Then don't dispute it if you don't care to prove it.
> Good, I hope you weren't posting it as an example of an interesting image..
I think it's fine for what it is. Esp. when you consider the way the
dock caught the coloration. I rarely think of any sunset photo as
interesting except for the colors generated.
And I haven't seen your sunset shots. You like to pick and choose
things to attack, but you don't expose much of your own photography.
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?)
Chris Brown wrote:
> find that it's actually quite a mainstream opinion, with lots of evidence to
> back it up. YMMV.
Tony is always short on evidence (especially of his own capability
despite a proclaimed shooting pace of 50 rolls of film per average *week*.)
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 wrote:
> so welcome to my kill file.
The last gasp of a losing argument.
--
-- 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 <4lgb919bhru3n0lfreuerr2p3qi6dibea2@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>I don't doubt the superiority of 120 over 35mm. I use 120 film most
>days, plus I shoot 4x5" sheet film several days in an average month,
>so I know what "superior image quality" really means. But 35mm is
>more than good enough for 90% of film photography, just as Four Thirds
>is more than good enough for 90% of digital.
You seem to feel that I should be arguing against this. This suggests that I
was right - you really haven't been reading what I've written.
>The main thrust of your post is that you are a hypocrite. You
>criticise Four Thirds yet you use a Canon 10D, which in terms of image
>quality is inferior to either of the Olympus Four Thirds bodies.
I think that's probably extremely debatable, but nevertheless, this is yet
more evidence that you haven't actually read my posts - I'm already on
record as saying that the 10D is what I use when I want convinience, not
quality.
>You are arguing only for the point of arguing,
Well duh! This is Usenet. If you're investing any more than casual interest
in this thread, then you're probably wasting your effort.
>and repeating your
>arguments over and over again (and again, and again some more) proves
>only that you are repeatedly a hypocrite.
Repetition of the actual point I've been making stands to reason when your
responses indicate that you keep thinking I'm arguing for something that I'm
not actually arguing for. You're still doing it, so we'll try again:
120 had a quality advantage over 35mm at inception. It still has it.
This quality advantage comes from the capture area.
Increased capture area, for a given capture technology, will (within reason)
always give you better image quality.
35mm cameras sold on factors such as convinience, not image quality.
4/3 has the smallest capture area in its market segment (digital SLRs), and
so will struggle to match its competitors for image quality.
Unlike 120 vs 35mm, the 4/3 systems on sale don't really have a compelling
advantage analogous to the increased convinience of 35mm cameras over 120
cameras.
The market segment they play in is, in many ways, the "medium format" of the
digital world - it's a segment that provides relatively bulky, inconvinient
cameras, and for this you get image quality.
Lagging in image quality, and missing a compelling advantage in convinience,
size, price, etc., 4/3 may well struggle to remain viable.
That's it - simply that. At no point have I suggested that 4/3 can't produce
images that aren't "good enough", it demonstrably can. Where it deserves
criticism is in its marketing and conception. In a lot of ways, it probably
seemed like a good idea at the time - it *was* supposed to have a compelling
advantage over the other DSLR systems, namely size and the whole "designed
for digital" lens range thing, but in the time since then and 4/3 systems
becoming available on the market in significant numbers, events have rather
overtaken it, and the compelling advantages disappeared when the other guys
proved they could do it all too, but with bigger sensors and their existing
lens mounts. That's a shame, but it's a tough world.
Maybe 4/3 can carve out a niche for itself and remain viable long-term.
remains to be seen, but if you were going to compete in the digital SLR
market, you wouldn't want to start from here, unless you're some kind of
moron.
>No doubt you will argue some more, so welcome to my kill file, and
>have a nice day.
There's not much point in you seeing my posts if you're just going to use
them as a launchpad for tilting against imagined windmills anyway. If it
helps you to see me as some kind of sworn-enemy of the 4/3 system and all
its works, then feel free to do so. Doesn't affect me one way or the other.
There are 13 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
