Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor - Page 10

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

Alan Browne wrote:

>
> ref: http://img.villagephotos.com/p/200 [...] ashley.jpg
>
> You can stick with your perfectly centered snapshots with the blown out
> cheek, forehead and nose, no shaddow fill and wretched background, if
> that pleases you. I suppose that's "breaking the rules" as an artist?

:-)

Actually that -is- a snapshot of a friend with her new dog. Does that look
like a posed portrait to you? I thought the dog chewing her hand was cute
and liked the smile on her face..

--

Stacey

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.


*Everyone* is better off ignoring Alan Browne.

Those who take his "advice" seriously are destined to join him ...

.... in the Slough of Despond.

;-)

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

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>ref: http://img.villagephotos.com/p/200 [...] ashley.jpg
>>
>>You can stick with your perfectly centered snapshots with the blown out
>>cheek, forehead and nose, no shaddow fill and wretched background, if
>>that pleases you. I suppose that's "breaking the rules" as an artist?

> :-)
>
> Actually that -is- a snapshot of a friend with her new dog. Does that look
> like a posed portrait to you? I thought the dog chewing her hand was cute
> and liked the smile on her face..

I'm happy you took the comment above for what it is. A barb, nothing
more. I recognized it for the snapshot it is. We all make them as well
as more serious endeavours.

In all seriousness, and I won't be surprised if you already know this:
If you get a chance to shoot a similar shot and can put the subject with
the sun at their back (at about 10-11 or 1-2 O'Clock) and fill flash it
just right (about -1.5 .. -2.0), the rim lighting will be great, no
squinting, glint in the eye from flash, etc. (You may need to accept
more DOF or use an ND on such as sunny day to get down to sync speed,
unless you have HSS on your flash/camera.)

(A vertical comp could also reduce the BG clutter some while emphasizing
the person and bringing the dog up higher into prominence).

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 Browne" wrote ...

> I recall that now. I was very surprised that the 4/3 Oly 300 was so large
> v. the 35mm framed cameras considering that it should aim for a smaller
> target. One of the claims of Oly is a 'smaller lighter system' after all.
>
> It should have a very fat sweet spot and be exceedingly crisp across the
> sensor.
>
> I can understand the Oly marketing on this: "Give them equivalent to 35mm
> full frame 600mm magnification. Give them more aperture. Give them a fat
> sweet spot in the lens".
>
> So, indeed it would be worth it for pro nature and sports shooters.
>
> They could have leaned it down optimally for the sensor at the same
> aperture (f/2.8) and made it less expensive, but they chose the "ultimate"
> route. It will be interesting to see how many show up on the sidelines.

--------------------------

I shoot sports, and have just recently started showing up on the sidelines
with my new Olympus equipment. It has, naturally, attracted quite a bit of
notice, as my colleagues were very accustomed to seeing my ubiquitous white
Canon lenses. I don't have an Olympus 300/2.8 (I'm holding out for the
90-250/2.8), but I'm sure it would only further add to the shocked reactions
"I didn't know Olympus made digital SLRs!" : )

Rob

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

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

> In general I think JPG gets a bad rap. High
> quality JPG (ie., minimal compression) in my
> experience produces minimal image degradation.

I very much agree with you here: the Sony dcams produce jpegs that are
indistinguishable from their tiffs. I also (sacrilege!) archive scans as
jpegs. Scans simply have too much noise (and too little detail) to make
archiving as tiffs meaningful.

> In one sense, JPG is a good fit for images
> that come from Bayer sensors, since JPG gets
> its first level of compression by reducing
> the resolution of chroma information.

Now here I disagree. Highest quality jpegs don't do chroma subsampling, and,
IMHO, not chroma subsampling is the right thing, although this is especially
true for scans. (Also, jpeg gets its first level of compression be
re-expressing the spatial domain representation in the frequency domain.
Next is chroma subsampling, and then is throwing away bits in the frequency
domain.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:08:33 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"rafe bustin" <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote:
>
>> In general I think JPG gets a bad rap. High
>> quality JPG (ie., minimal compression) in my
>> experience produces minimal image degradation.
>
>I very much agree with you here: the Sony dcams produce jpegs that are
>indistinguishable from their tiffs. I also (sacrilege!) archive scans as
>jpegs. Scans simply have too much noise (and too little detail) to make
>archiving as tiffs meaningful.
>
>> In one sense, JPG is a good fit for images
>> that come from Bayer sensors, since JPG gets
>> its first level of compression by reducing
>> the resolution of chroma information.
>
>Now here I disagree. Highest quality jpegs don't do chroma subsampling, and,
>IMHO, not chroma subsampling is the right thing, although this is especially
>true for scans. (Also, jpeg gets its first level of compression be
>re-expressing the spatial domain representation in the frequency domain.
>Next is chroma subsampling, and then is throwing away bits in the frequency
>domain.)


See Question [75] in the JPQ FAQ, Pt. 2:

<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part2/>

In a nutshell:

1. Transform the image into a Lab/Yuv color space
2. (Optional) Downsample color space component(s)
(typically, only chroma axes are downsampled.)
3. DCT transform of 8x8 blocks
4. Divide DCT coefficients by "quantization coefficient"
5. Lossless encoding of of scaled DCT coefficients


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

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

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 03:51:30 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


>My point wasn't that jpgs in general are bad but that the ones from the E300
>don't have the detail in them that they should. Using in camera jpegs as an
>example of the resolution this camera can produce isn't showing what it's
>capable of was my point.
>
>But then again this will be just ANOTHER place people like David will attack
>this camera saying "My canon jpgs look perfect..."


Have you compared "in camera" JPGs to those
derived via post processing (eg., by "Studio"
or your favorite RAW converter)?

Is there a quality/compression setting in
the camera's menus that you've overlooked?
(Eg., Canon G2 gives three choices.)

Why would Oly choose overly-aggressive JPG
compression on a high-end DSLR? That
doesn't make much sense. Why would Oly
be particularly *incompetent* on this
one score?


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

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

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

> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 03:51:30 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>My point wasn't that jpgs in general are bad but that the ones from the
>>E300 don't have the detail in them that they should. Using in camera jpegs
>>as an example of the resolution this camera can produce isn't showing what
>>it's capable of was my point.
>>
>>But then again this will be just ANOTHER place people like David will
>>attack this camera saying "My canon jpgs look perfect..."
>
>
> Have you compared "in camera" JPGs to those
> derived via post processing (eg., by "Studio"
> or your favorite RAW converter)?

I've compared Tiffs in the camera to tiffs from RAWs developed in studio..

>
> Is there a quality/compression setting in
> the camera's menus that you've overlooked?
> (Eg., Canon G2 gives three choices.)

The E1 has a setting that fixes this (NR totally off), the E300 doesn't.

>
> Why would Oly choose overly-aggressive JPG
> compression on a high-end DSLR? That
> doesn't make much sense. Why would Oly
> be particularly *incompetent* on this
> one score?
>

It's not the jpeg compression as the tiffs have this same look. I think some
"moron" left some NR at ISO 100 in place when there is no real noise to
deal with at that ISO.. Olympus is so far claiming this isn't true, when it
has been shown that it IS true. The in camera jpegs and tiffs, while they
look fine in an 8X10 print, at 100% show lack of detail that the sensor is
capturing. The master RAW software also does this when you use "RAW
develop" but if you click the "edit" tab rather than "RAW develop" these
details appear so it IS a software issue. The ACR developed RAW are better
than the in camera results but studio is even better.

--

Stacey

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

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

> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:30:42 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It's not the jpeg compression as the tiffs have this same look. I think
>>some "moron" left some NR at ISO 100 in place when there is no real noise
>>to deal with at that ISO.. Olympus is so far claiming this isn't true,
>>when it has been shown that it IS true. The in camera jpegs and tiffs,
>>while they look fine in an 8X10 print, at 100% show lack of detail that
>>the sensor is capturing. The master RAW software also does this when you
>>use "RAW develop" but if you click the "edit" tab rather than "RAW
>>develop" these details appear so it IS a software issue. The ACR developed
>>RAW are better than the in camera results but studio is even better.
>
>
> You had been talking about JPGs -- those made
> "in camera" versus those derived from RAW
> captures. IIRC, your claim was that Alan's
> images are from "in-camera JPGs" and therefore
> unfair representations of what the camera
> could do.
>
> Now you're saying it's not really JPG, but
> some bug with noise reduction (which is what
> I presume you mean by "NR" ) -- a bug which
> you seem to know about but which Oly denies
> and Alan is unaware of.

That sums it up, the in camera processing has an "issue". Raw files don't
have this issue so the RAW files resolve more detail.

>
> Whatever.
>
>

Whatever back to ya! :-)

--

Stacey

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

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news7t9db$e99$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> George Preddy <george.preddy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I've been hearing plenty of great things about a soon-to-be released
>
> It's called "schizophrenia" and it can be treated.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfischer@sonic.net

Not if George et al won't take his haloperidol (Haldol®), fluphenazine
(Prolixin®), perphenazine (Trilafon®)
>

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

Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>Hmm, well, I like to take pictures in dark jazz clubs. For that,
>I use either an f/2.8 zoom or an f/1.8 prime. ISO 1600 comes in
>handy.
>
> http://narcissus.net/four-thirteen/
>
>I'm just one person, of course, and you may be right on the whole.

I rarely need anything over ISO 400 - I use both film and digital and
I have only rarely used film that is faster than ISO 400. But if you
need ISO 800-1600 for more than just occasional use, and need low
noise, then Four Thirds is not the way to go, unless you are prepared
to wait for the new Olympus bodies.

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

On Tue, 24 May 2005 23:28:10 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> And if this is what you shoot, then ISO 1600 performance is very
> important. If I did this type of stuff, that would have been my main
> concern as well. But for people to harp on this like EVERYONE needs this is
> absurd don't you think?

Pretty silly, yup. Also pretty silly to argue with them. It's
just round and round at this point. Pretty dull for the bystanders.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

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

Stacey wrote:


>
>
> And if this is what you shoot, then ISO 1600 performance is very
> important. If I did this type of stuff, that would have been my main
> concern as well. But for people to harp on this like EVERYONE needs this is
> absurd don't you think?

Come back to the point: As pixel densities innevitably increase, then
the 4/3 noise issue will crowd the lower ISO values. That is what you
have to be wary of.

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.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:19:19 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> Manufacturer's MTF charts are _marketing_ material and you don't know
> what assumptions, hedges, "lab darling lenses", etc. are used, not to
> mention different measuring equipment, procedures,

There's no guarantee that the mfgs' charts come from lens tests at all.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

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

On Mon, 30 May 2005 00:59:55 +0100, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> 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

DOF is inversely proportional to sensor size, isn't it? So with a
half-frame sensor, an extra stop gets you back to the DOF of 35mm film.

Have I been trolled?

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

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

In article <slrnd9mv5s.gmd.br@panix5.panix.com>, br+rpdss@panix.com says...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 00:59:55 +0100, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> DOF is inversely proportional to sensor size, isn't it? So with a
> half-frame sensor, an extra stop gets you back to the DOF of 35mm film.

DOF is a function of image magnification (mostly due to longer
focal length) and aperture. Film or sensor size doesn't enter
into it.

So if a faster lens does give you an extra F stop, then yes,
you do get more creative control over depth of field...
in the sense that if you want to go with a more shallow
depth of field, you can do it.

Diane

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

In article <3g2c2pFa8ffiU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> Diane Wilson wrote:
>
>
> >
> > DOF is a function of image magnification (mostly due to longer
> > focal length) and aperture. Film or sensor size doesn't enter
> > into it.
> >
> > So if a faster lens does give you an extra F stop, then yes,
> > you do get more creative control over depth of field...
> > in the sense that if you want to go with a more shallow
> > depth of field, you can do it.
> >
>
>
> I wish this was the case (for somethings?), but it's not. The problem is
> with a smaller sensor be if digital or film, to keep the same FOV at the
> same vantage points you use a shorter lens. The coc size needed for the
> size of the print for the given format also comes into play. 4/3 or any of
> the APS size sensors has more DOF than say a 35mm camera does at the same
> FOV and fstop.

No, it really is based on magnification. If you're comparing how
the image fills an APS sensor with how it fills a 35mm frame, keep
in mind that the 35mm frame is larger, and the image will need to
be magnified more to fill it.

Shorter lenses magnify the image less than long lenses. Shorter
lenses also have more DOF than longer lenses.

*Everything* to do with DOF is derived from basic optics. The type
and size of the sensor or film does not enter into the equation at all.

Diane

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

Diane Wilson wrote:

> In article <3g2c2pFa8ffiU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>> Diane Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > DOF is a function of image magnification (mostly due to longer
>> > focal length) and aperture. Film or sensor size doesn't enter
>> > into it.
>> >
>> > So if a faster lens does give you an extra F stop, then yes,
>> > you do get more creative control over depth of field...
>> > in the sense that if you want to go with a more shallow
>> > depth of field, you can do it.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I wish this was the case (for somethings?), but it's not. The problem is
>> with a smaller sensor be if digital or film, to keep the same FOV at the
>> same vantage points you use a shorter lens. The coc size needed for the
>> size of the print for the given format also comes into play. 4/3 or any
>> of the APS size sensors has more DOF than say a 35mm camera does at the
>> same FOV and fstop.
>
> No, it really is based on magnification.

Only on the SAME SIZE FORMAT. I understand focal length isn't the issue, but
you have to remember FOV changes with format size so to keep the same
relative image size at the SAME SHOOTING POSITION, focal length changes so
magnification changes as well.

>
> *Everything* to do with DOF is derived from basic optics. The type
> and size of the sensor or film does not enter into the equation at all.
>


Sorry Diane you're wrong here..

Go shoot with a 4X5 and then come back with examples of how a macro shot of
a acorn -full frame- on 4X5 shot at F8 has the same DOF as the same acorn
-full frame- on a APS dSLR at F8. I've done both and it's not EVER in the
same ball park..


I suggest you spend 10 minutes and actually READ the weblink I posted.
--

Stacey