Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor - Page 9

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

Alan Browne wrote:


>
> Since you've been touting Oly lenses and Oly sensors rendering this and
> rendering that,

In normal shooting, not shooting test charts and color charts. Just show us
some tele shots you've done near infinity.... Or not. I expect the latter.
--

Stacey

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>
>> I suppose you NEVER considered it could be an optical resolution issue
>> either? I'm not seeing this problem you're having...
>
> Shoot the same foliage at ever increasing distances for the same FL and
> you will innevitably get images that are at the edge of (and beyond)
> resolution at some point.


And these also become so small in the print that they SHOULD be irrelevant
to the image itself.


> More likely due to sensor limitations than
> optical, for that matter.
>


Most likely? Seems to me either one is just as likely. It's the same reasons
details in a macro shot look sharper than details at infinity.

--

Stacey

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

Chris Brown wrote:


>
>>So what size do you feel -is- needed for a nice 11X14?
>
> Scanned 6*7 looks nice at that size.

So you've found a printer than can use/show information above 300DPI?

Optically printed 6X4.5 looks fine at 11X14 and so do the shots from 8MP
after careful postprocessing on a good inkjet. Maybe you're PS skills need
some work?

>
>>I'm sure downsampling
>>those medium format files to a file ~20% larger wouldn't make any
>>difference..
>
> Downsampling them to "consumer" DSLR resolutions would turn a sharp print
> into a soft print. That's why I don't tend to downsample them much below
> 30+ megapixels.

So again which printer are you using that can show this -huge- difference
between 240DPI and whatever DPI 30MP printed at 11X14 is.

I don't doubt that a ~17% smaller image file/information would be below that
I'd consider acceptable (especially if the lens wasn't optimal for the
format) for an nice 11X14 print.

But you seem to think 17% more resolution/detail is something to sneeze at?
That's dropping from 240DPI to 200DPI which I'm sure would be seen. In my
experience, most printers can't use the information over 300DPI to any good
use and even from 250-300 is a minor difference, maybe you've found one
that does?

--

Stacey

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>So where are they? I've seen a half a dozen excuses or test shots, where
>>>>is your photography?
>>>
>>>http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM7D/BirchBarkSnow_II.jpg
>>
>>
>> Is this another test shot or am I missing something...
>
>
> You're very bitter.

Why because a wood chip in the snow doesn't do much for me?

At least you followed your rule of thirds...

--

Stacey

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:06:29 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Chris Brown wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>So what size do you feel -is- needed for a nice 11X14?
>>
>> Scanned 6*7 looks nice at that size.
>
>So you've found a printer than can use/show information above 300DPI?
>
>Optically printed 6X4.5 looks fine at 11X14 and so do the shots from 8MP
>after careful postprocessing on a good inkjet. Maybe you're PS skills need
>some work?


Your math is a bit off, Stacey.

Your Oly's images are 3264 x 2448 pixels.

At best that's 233 dpi in the 14" dimension,
222 dpi in the 11" dimension.

By contrast, 6x7 cm film scanned at 4000
dpi gives 11000 x 9450 pixels.

Or look at it this way -- 225 square
millimeters for your Oly's sensor, versus
4200 square millimeters for 6x7 film.

The "300 dpi" figure attributed to inkjets
isn't a hard or fast number. Roger Clark
claims improvements in detail up to 600 dpi:

<http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/index.html>

And Roger's results are based on a five
year old HP desktop inkjet. I dare say
the technology has advanced a bit since then.

It's so like you to disparage and question
other peoples' skills when backed into a
corner.



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

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Only if they can portray it as a negative. All I can figure is Alan is
>pissed that 6MP is all minolta makes and it took them YEARS to do it. Why
>else would he be so combative about something he has never used?


Exactly. He has every reason to be concerned.

The best Minolta could produce was a 6MP consumer-grade DSLR using one
of Nikon's surplus sensors, but not performing to anywhere near Nikon
standards - unless you compare it with the obsolescent Nikon D100.
Even the Pentax *ist DS does far better with the same sensor.

Konica Minolta were so late with the 7D body that they were beaten by
Pentax, who were themselves tardy, yet many months ahead of Konica
Minolta. There were no digital-optimised Rokkor lenses available at
launch, and the Minolta DSLR was priced ridiculously high because of
an anti-shake system that works like a half-hearted version of Canon's
IS or Nikon's VR. No wonder its sales figures have been a disaster.

At last the camera has been discounted, but it is unlikely Minolta
will be making one penny profit on any that are sold. Minolta's new
lenses for its DSLR are not only late, they are also half-hearted
(like the body) and they are very much consumer-grade items.

All this points to a half-hearted experiment that can easily be
curtailed, just like the Konica Hexar RF. Just like the Contax MF
SLRs, the N1 and N Digital and the G1 and G2 compacts, for that
matter, the Konica Minolta (D)SLR line is one that can very easily be
discontinued without causing even a ripple in the market, and with an
instant positive effect on Konica Minolta's bottom line.

Alan knows all this, and he has every reason to be concerned. With a
lot of money invested in Minolta glass, the last thing Alan needs is
for Konica Minolta to pull the plug on the 7D. But it is only a
matter of time before they do. So there will be no upgrade path for
his DSLR body and he will be left with a collection of worthy but
ultimately worthless lenses.

Contrast this grim scenario with the dynamism and optimism that is
being generated by the exciting developments in Four Thirds.

Olympus are rapidly expanding both the Zuiko Digital lens lines (the
consumer line and the pro line) and have actively sought input from
Four Thirds system users into which lenses will be developed next.
The lenses already available include some remarkable optics; the
combination of the smaller sensor and much larger lens throat makes
telecentric designs possible at economic prices. Every single lens is
not only optimised for digital, it is purpose designed for digital,
and the results are simply stunning.

Independent lens tests have shown unprecedented optical performance,
with the zooms performing at the level previously attainable only with
fixed focal length lenses. The Zuiko Digital fixed focal length
lenses perform as well as some of the very best fixed focal lenses for
35mm film, but with apertures generally one stop faster, allowing much
greater creative control of depth of field and faster shutter speeds
to freeze motion without needing to select higher ISOs.

The Olympus DSLR bodies have met critical acclaim, with the pro level
E1 being built to standards not equalled below the EOS 1D/Ds in the
Canon range and the D2Hs/D2X in Nikon's. The consumer E300 is also
extremely well made and compares with the Canon 20D and Nikon D70 for
build quality. Both have the extremely useful ultrasonic dust
remover, which is incredibly effective. When I hear and read about
the experiences of people who have damaged their DSLR's sensors
through cleaning, or have been unable to remove dust, I wonder why
they never considered the Olympus bodies. Despite working in many
dusty environments, I have never once had to clean the sensor on
either body.

Two new DSLR bodies are in the final stages of development and they
will provide the same pro level performance and build quality of the
E1 but with more pixels and lower noise. The collaboration with
Panasonic will bring other exciting developments, with some
interesting new features, and less reliance on Kodak. While Olympus
have lost money making low-cost digital point and shoot cameras (a
problem that has already been addressed) the DSLRs and high end
compacts are profitable and have a sound future ahead of them.

Poor Alan. It is obvious that he should have bought into another
system, probably the Canon system that he so covets - rather than the
Four Thirds system that he patently does not understand - but then he
never really understood the value of truly excellent lenses and
probably never will.

He must know that he has made a big mistake. He is simply lashing out
at others who have had the sense and foresight to buy brands that have
the promising future that Konica Minolta unfortunately lacks. I feel
sorry for him, and others who have been so badly let down. They
should get out now, while their used Konica Minolta equipment can
still be sold at sensible prices. They may not have long to go.

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

Tony Polson wrote:


>
> Konica Minolta were so late with the 7D body that they were beaten by
> Pentax, who were themselves tardy, yet many months ahead of Konica
> Minolta. There were no digital-optimised Rokkor lenses available at
> launch, and the Minolta DSLR was priced ridiculously high because of
> an anti-shake system that works like a half-hearted version of Canon's
> IS or Nikon's VR. No wonder its sales figures have been a disaster.
>


I never bothered to look since I'd have no interest in owning one but, it's
$500 more than a D70? You almost buy 2 E300 kits for what that 6MP camera
costs and I bet he was an "early adopter" who paid dearly for his.. No
wonder he's so jacked out of shape.


--

Stacey

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

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

>
>
> Your math is a bit off, Stacey.
>
> Your Oly's images are 3264 x 2448 pixels.
>
> At best that's 233 dpi in the 14" dimension,
> 222 dpi in the 11" dimension.

Yes that's right.

>
> By contrast, 6x7 cm film scanned at 4000
> dpi gives 11000 x 9450 pixels.

Which IMHO is WAY overkill for a 11X14 print. I'd like to get a native
300DPI out of the camera but the ~230DPI doesn't look shabby when upsampled
in Qimage for printing. 6MP would be under 200 which is starting to be iffy
wouldn't you say?

>
> Or look at it this way -- 225 square
> millimeters for your Oly's sensor, versus
> 4200 square millimeters for 6x7 film.
>
> The "300 dpi" figure attributed to inkjets
> isn't a hard or fast number. Roger Clark
> claims improvements in detail up to 600 dpi:

Can you see any real difference over 300DPI? I haven't been able to printing
with a i9900 canon. I've scanned and printed some 4X5 chromes and don't see
any real point in files greater than 300DPI as they don't look any sharper
to my eye.

Maybe if I scanned and blew up a small portion of the print I'd see
something?

>
> It's so like you to disparage and question
> other peoples' skills when backed into a
> corner.
>


Maybe that's why he isn't getting "good" 11X14's? You don't think post
processing skills enter into this? If someone is using the wrong sharpening
tools (or doesn't use them right) it can make a huge difference in the
quality of the prints. Maybe it's the 17% increase in MP that is doing it?
Could be the optics he's using? Maybe he doesn't want to admit someone else
has had sucess doing what he can't?

I'm not going to stand here and claim I get great 11X14's straight out of
the camera. It takes some careful post processing to clean and sharpen the
images enough to get really nice looking prints that size. I am amazed how
good they can look so if he's not getting decent results in that print
size, something we are doing is different..
--

Stacey

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:31:20 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Maybe that's why he isn't getting "good" 11X14's? You don't think post
>processing skills enter into this? If someone is using the wrong sharpening
>tools (or doesn't use them right) it can make a huge difference in the
>quality of the prints. Maybe it's the 17% increase in MP that is doing it?
>Could be the optics he's using? Maybe he doesn't want to admit someone else
>has had sucess doing what he can't?
>
>I'm not going to stand here and claim I get great 11X14's straight out of
>the camera. It takes some careful post processing to clean and sharpen the
>images enough to get really nice looking prints that size. I am amazed how
>good they can look so if he's not getting decent results in that print
>size, something we are doing is different..


"More pixels" are good when all else
is equal. But it rarely is.

The old Canon 1Ds has only 40% more
pixels than your Oly, but I've seen
gorgeous and sharp 20x30" prints made
from it. Its images really do compare
to scanned 645.

I can tell you that with film scanners
it took more or less a doubling of
total pixels to make an appreciable
difference in image quality.

And on some film scanners, "dpi" ratings
mean little (I'm thinking of the Epson
flatbed scanners here.)

Post processing? My dad used to say,
"You can't turn a Volkswagon into a
Cadillac." I've used NeatImage on
occasion, but there are certain kinds
of noise that just won't go away.
(Eg., blue-channel shadow noise on
digicams.)

Bottom line, digicams make good images
with far fewer pixels than film scans --
but film still "wins" by brute force,
because of the total image area. And
so far, it appears that image area in
digicams is just as significant.


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

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

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

> On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:12:39 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>BTW what scanner/film/camera etc did you make that with?
>
>
> Nikon FE, a no-name 28-70/2.8 zoom (my favorite
> lens on this camera) on either Reala or Royal
> Gold 100. Scanned on an LS-8000.
>

Looks nice. Might have to get one of those scanners or is there something
"better" out now?
--

Stacey

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

"Tony Polson" wrote ...

> There were no digital-optimised Rokkor lenses available at
> launch...

I was present when a Minolta rep told a group of photographers some
Konica/Minolta lenses were actually relabeled Tamron lenses. That same rep
also told the group that the K/M optical stabilization system had a dust
reduction effect similar to Olympus' ultrasonic system. That got quite a
good laugh from the audience, and it makes me wonder how much these guys
really know about their products.

Rob

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

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

> On Sun, 29 May 2005 23:52:04 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


>>Looks nice. Might have to get one of those scanners or is there something
>>"better" out now?
>
>
> The Minolta 5400 may be slightly sharper,
> but it's for 35 mm only. Given that you've
> got a lot of MF, I'd look for a used LS8000
> on eBay... around $1K nowadays.
>

I'll keep my eye out. Thanx

--

Stacey

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Konica Minolta were so late with the 7D body that they were beaten by
>> Pentax, who were themselves tardy, yet many months ahead of Konica
>> Minolta. There were no digital-optimised Rokkor lenses available at
>> launch, and the Minolta DSLR was priced ridiculously high because of
>> an anti-shake system that works like a half-hearted version of Canon's
>> IS or Nikon's VR. No wonder its sales figures have been a disaster.
>>
>
>
>I never bothered to look since I'd have no interest in owning one but, it's
>$500 more than a D70? You almost buy 2 E300 kits for what that 6MP camera
>costs and I bet he was an "early adopter" who paid dearly for his.. No
>wonder he's so jacked out of shape.


You have to feel sorry for him ...

He can't criticise Nikon and Pentax because they use the same sensor
as his 7D but get much better results from it ...

He can't criticise Canon because he knows very well that Canon is the
brand he should have bought ...

So he criticises Olympus, in the hope that spreading lies and hatred
will make him feel just a little better about his own duff purchase.

You can even understand why he never takes new photographs for the SI
and repeatedly dives into his turgid "Archive" for the fortnightly
competition. It must be painful taking photos with the 7D - every
time he presses the shutter release it is yet another reminder of the
grave error he committed in buying the thing.

;-)

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

In article <3fv8n9F9np41U1@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>rafe bustin <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote:
>>
>> It's so like you to disparage and question
>> other peoples' skills when backed into a
>> corner.
>
>Maybe that's why he isn't getting "good" 11X14's?

I don't get highly detailed landscapes at that sort of size from 6/8
megapixel digital cameras for the same reason that everybody else doesn't -
there aren't enough pixiels. You can't print what can't possibly be
captured.

The digital images can be made to look very sharp if there isn't lots of
fine detail because their tonality is such that they can have excellent
acutance, but if you need them to deliver the goods on e.g. foliage shots,
they don't have it in them.

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

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I suppose you NEVER considered it could be an optical resolution issue
>>>either? I'm not seeing this problem you're having...
>>
>>Shoot the same foliage at ever increasing distances for the same FL and
>>you will innevitably get images that are at the edge of (and beyond)
>>resolution at some point.
>
>
>
> And these also become so small in the print that they SHOULD be irrelevant
> to the image itself.

That would depend. If you catch an image that is undersampled (res of
sensor too small v. subject detail) then the image making the print is
impaired. If you then print with that image at the resolution of the
sensor, then the foliage will be badly reproduced. For example, on your
camera, printing 300 dpi, ~11 x 8, printing the case above should result
in loss of detail in the print of the foliage.

>>More likely due to sensor limitations than
>>optical, for that matter.
>>
> Most likely? Seems to me either one is just as likely. It's the same reasons
> details in a macro shot look sharper than details at infinity.

Most good lenses out resolve their sensor by a good margin in 8 Mpix
cameras.

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:

> Why because a wood chip in the snow doesn't do much for me?

Maybe it doesn't for you but others have remarked on the fine detail
(print), the "white" snow/blue shaddows; the blue tones, the white of
the birch bark, the yellows and muted reds, the orange glow in the snow
from the birchbark, and esp. the form from the birch bark echoed in its
shaddow.

>
> At least you followed your rule of thirds...

eh, where? I don't follow the "rule of thirds" intentionally. My only
framing 'rule' is "consider it centered instead of off center".

The major compositional line is straight through the middle (left to
right). The bark is off center to the right to make room for the
shaddow on the left. The subject drove the framing, not any 'rule'.

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:

>
> I never bothered to look since I'd have no interest in owning one but, it's
> $500 more than a D70? You almost buy 2 E300 kits for what that 6MP camera
> costs and I bet he was an "early adopter" who paid dearly for his.. No
> wonder he's so jacked out of shape.

I'm very pleased with the camera, and for good reason. No I was not an
early adopter, I waited for the price to cool a little. And it's cooled
again since. The 'nits' I have with it are published. Compared to your
E300 toy, I really have nothing to complain about. Indeed there are
many great aspects about it:

2-3 stops of anti-shake advantage that applies to all of my lenses.
That $500 buys what you would have to pay for many times over in Canon
IS and Nikon VR lenses ... and not at all available for Olympus.

low noise performance to ISO 800. And I can shoot to ISO 3200... can you?

Very bright viewfinder. But I guess you don't need that on the E300 as
it can't shoot worth a damn in low light anyway?

etc...

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:

>
> You have to feel sorry for him ...
>
> He can't criticise Nikon and Pentax because they use the same sensor
> as his 7D but get much better results from it ...

No they don't. At best they're all about the same; and in noise the
Nikon is worse. Only the 7D has A-S, so unless the Nikon has a VR lens
it is screwed. And the Pentax doens't have that.

The D70 has a limited ISO range as well (200-1600). It does have 1/500
electronic sync which is a nice benefit.

>
> He can't criticise Canon because he knows very well that Canon is the
> brand he should have bought ...

Were I starting today, that's what I would do. But I've stated that
often enough.

>
> So he criticises Olympus, in the hope that spreading lies and hatred
> will make him feel just a little better about his own duff purchase.

What lies and hatred? I stated my opinion and defended it. You resort
to personal attacks. Talk about hatred. I guess since I pointed out a
few of your mistakes and deceptions you've really had it out for me:

-the sharpness issue wrt to aperture "generalities"
-Your BS regarding an Oly E-2.
-Your BS regarding an E-1 with an * Mpix sensor in it.
-Your BS regarding "50 rolls per average *week*"
-Your propensity to use baiting ridicule in lieu of sober argument
-You never start threads, merely respond to them, tpyically with muted
sarcasm.

I suggest you resort instead to posting some images from your vast
experience. Until then you are just hot air.

>
> You can even understand why he never takes new photographs for the SI
> and repeatedly dives into his turgid "Archive" for the fortnightly
> competition. It must be painful taking photos with the 7D - every
> time he presses the shutter release it is yet another reminder of the
> grave error he committed in buying the thing.

Au contraire. Always getting better and better images from it as I
explore its boundaries. Only regret is that it's not full frame to
enjoy my 20mm f/2.8 ... but I have the Maxxum 9 for that.

Please *do* post some images Tony. After all at 50 rolls per average
*week* you must have gotten a few more right than what you posted (oh so
disastrously) a few years ago.

At least your counterpart Stacey has posted images, some of which are
worthy. That's more than anyone has ever seen out of you, Tony Polson.

Every post you make in reference to the 7D is really an attack on me.
That's fine, have at 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?)

>>Alan wrote ...
>> I don't recall claiming the Oly lens system wasn't smaller.

>Basic Wedge replied ...
>
>That's all right Alan. We recalled it for you.

Alan, take a lQQk at the Oly 300 mm f/2.8 vs the Nikon 300 f/2.8 ...

Oly is heavier (7.2 lbs vs 5.7 lbs).
Oly is larger (11.1" L, 5.1" D vs 10.6" x 4.8" )
Oly is far more expensive ($6,300 with a $700 rebate vs $3,600 at B&H)
Oly covers only 28% the area of the Nikon. Great lens design indeed!

Bill

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

Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <3furd5F9ltq0U1@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Stacey wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> So where are they? I've seen a half a dozen excuses or test shots,
>>>> where is your photography?
>>>
>>> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/ [...] now_II.jpg
>>
>>Is this another test shot or am I missing something...
>
> That's just needlessly unpleasant - I thought that was quite an
> interesting shot of a well-observed subject.

So what's that in the background? You don't find it odd the "snow" is
totally blown into white with bright dots? Sorry if I don't find it
interesting even though he did use the "rule of thirds"..
--

Stacey

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

Ryadia@Home wrote:

> Back
> off and count to 10.
>


You're right.... I did let him get under my skin.

--

Stacey

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

In article <3g0vuaFa14idU5@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:
>> In article <3furd5F9ltq0U1@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:

>>>Is this another test shot or am I missing something...
>>
>> That's just needlessly unpleasant - I thought that was quite an
>> interesting shot of a well-observed subject.
>
>So what's that in the background? You don't find it odd the "snow" is
>totally blown into white with bright dots? Sorry if I don't find it
>interesting even though he did use the "rule of thirds"..

It was the "test shot" comment, which I just found needlessly catty.

And anyway, the snow isn't "totally blown into white" - using the
eye-dropper in Photoshop, with a 5x5 average, at the bottom right corner,
where the snow seems to be brightest, I'm getting values like 227, 225, 238
- that looks about exactly where you'd want it, and certainly not "blown
into white". The bright dots to me look exactly like the way I see sunlight
reflecting off moist snow. They are "blown into white", but you'd rather
expect reflections of the Sun to do just that. In short, the exposure looks
to be pretty much on the nose to me.

Take issue with the image on aesthetic grounds if you like - that's down to
personal taste, but I think your insinuations about its technical quality
are unwarranted.

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fv5vaF9q18tU1@individual.net...
> Tony Polson wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Konica Minolta were so late with the 7D body that they were beaten by
> > Pentax, who were themselves tardy, yet many months ahead of Konica
> > Minolta. There were no digital-optimised Rokkor lenses available at
> > launch, and the Minolta DSLR was priced ridiculously high because of
> > an anti-shake system that works like a half-hearted version of Canon's
> > IS or Nikon's VR. No wonder its sales figures have been a disaster.
> >
>
>
> I never bothered to look since I'd have no interest in owning one but,
it's
> $500 more than a D70?

They have since dropped the price, and have added a rebate, but it still
ends up at about $200 more.

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Stacey wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Stacey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I suppose you NEVER considered it could be an optical resolution issue
>>>> either? I'm not seeing this problem you're having...
>>>
>>>
>>> Shoot the same foliage at ever increasing distances for the same FL and
>>> you will innevitably get images that are at the edge of (and beyond)
>>> resolution at some point.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And these also become so small in the print that they SHOULD be
>> irrelevant
>> to the image itself.
>
>
> That would depend. If you catch an image that is undersampled (res of
> sensor too small v. subject detail) then the image making the print is
> impaired. If you then print with that image at the resolution of the
> sensor, then the foliage will be badly reproduced. For example, on your
> camera, printing 300 dpi, ~11 x 8, printing the case above should result
> in loss of detail in the print of the foliage.
>
>>> More likely due to sensor limitations than optical, for that matter.
>>>
>> Most likely? Seems to me either one is just as likely. It's the same
>> reasons
>> details in a macro shot look sharper than details at infinity.
>
>
> Most good lenses out resolve their sensor by a good margin in 8 Mpix
> cameras.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
As the ISO of a sensor increases, the ability to resolve fine detail
diminishes. Also as the size of the detail in a shot reduces, as Stacey
pointed out, the sensor is too small to resolve that detail. Many of my
shots of rare birds have to - by the very nature of the photography - be
cropped to produces a photo. This is when you discover your amazingly
clear digital camera can't come close to a film camera for fine detail.

No one seems to have any definitive data of this shortcoming but it is
is increasingly clear to me that at some point where the sensor collects
data, critical data is not able to be collected and this is related to
the size of the sensor, not it's number of pixels. This is about the
only time the "film v Digital" debate over resolution gets any motion.

It is a real enigma. The ability to enlarge a 6Mp image to poster size
with spectacular detail and the inability to record foliage and feathers
in an 8Mp image half that size.

--
Douglas...
It's traditional, painter's use it, Rembrandt used it.
Now you can put your photos on it too!
http://www.canvasphotos.com.au

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news7f6vh$n89$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "rafe bustin" <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote:
SNIP
>> The Oly E300 produces an image 3264x2448 pixels
>> on a 17.3 x 13.0 mm sensor. That's 188 pixels
>> per millimeter.
>
> The actual resolution is (1650/13) = 64 lp/mm*, and that's with
> Moire. (Actually, the problem is more a matter of color shifts than
> Moire; black lines become alternate blue/brown lines.)
>
> *: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/page28.asp

The problem with the DPreview evaluation is that the hyperbolic 9 line
patterns are meant for a visual impression, not an unambiguous
quantification. For instance, half a pixel image shift may change the
results, also depending on the efficiency of the AA-filter. The exact
limiting resolution can be arbitrarily set at different positions,
also depending on the in-camera sharpening and contrast settings.

>> What lenses do you know that can match this
>> performance? Even 1/2 or 1/3 this value is
>> considered excellent in a lens.
>
> Most decent primes will resolve that. But the contrast is pretty
> poor. If you download the chart image and look at it in PS at 1000%,
> you'll see that at the 1650 lp/h point, the green channel goes from
> 100 to 178, but from 33 to 214 in larger features. (There should be
> a way of calculating the contrast from these numbers. Bart, Dave???)
> So contrast is way down here, as well.

Strictly based on those numbers, that would still be 38% modulation,
amazing but true. Even with a correction, due to the non-sinusoidal
shape of the pattern, it still produces 30% modulation so somewhere
between those numbers
(http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html#quantitative).
Contrast is low, but modulation still significant. How much of it is
aliasing induced is impossible to quantify from that pattern.

However, there are several other problems that complicate a fair
analysis. Running the E-300 JPEG image through Imatest shows that
there are significant differences between the MTFs of the Red
(highest), Green (medium), and Blue channels (lowest). The effect is
also enhanced by the (IMO too high) level of sharpening. My experience
also shows that the Raw converter used, makes a lot of difference.
Boosting the edge contrast into halo artifacts (= camera default),
also increases visibility of aliasing artifacts.

Bart

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

Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <3g0vuaFa14idU5@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

>>
>>So what's that in the background? You don't find it odd the "snow" is
>>totally blown into white with bright dots? Sorry if I don't find it
>>interesting even though he did use the "rule of thirds"..
>
> It was the "test shot" comment, which I just found needlessly catty.

Sorry, he really got under my skin... All that harping about "send me more
100% crops" after I already showed him a couple, well whatever. Looks like
I'll be better off ignoring him in the future.

>
> And anyway, the snow isn't "totally blown into white" - using the
> eye-dropper in Photoshop, with a 5x5 average, at the bottom right corner,
> where the snow seems to be brightest, I'm getting values like 227, 225,
> 238 - that looks about exactly where you'd want it, and certainly not
> "blown into white". The bright dots to me look exactly like the way I see
> sunlight reflecting off moist snow. They are "blown into white", but you'd
> rather expect reflections of the Sun to do just that. In short, the
> exposure looks to be pretty much on the nose to me.
>

I'm sure trying to hold detail in snow that bright is a problem, but
wouldn't you think there should be some detail in the "shadow" parts of the
snow? Probably isn't an exposure issue, some dSLR's do have problems with
holding detail in this type of image. Might be how he downsampled it that
lost the detail? Sorry if I wasn't that impressed.
--

Stacey