Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Downsizing  (Read 11950 times)
scooby70
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #40 on: August 27, 2013, 03:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Followed your link, it's from 2008, that's 5 yrs ago

secondly on my Mac retina it was immediately apparent which file was which. The Canon file is quite dead and lacks significant detail in the leaves... even on a 13" monitor (albeit a good one!)

so a lot has happened since 2008, a lot of new sensors are coming out, monitors are better, lenses are getting better. In summary both ends of the spectrum are improving and there are new designs that will make large format even more narrowly focused (pun intended)

Guarantee that an RX-1 or Sigma DP will blow both those cameras away on IQ... as will several C's, S's or N's

My own little tests mirror the results of the tests conducted here with no one being able to reliably or consistently pick MFT images from APS-C from FF...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml


Yes the article was written years ago but I remain to be convinced that the situation has changed. In fact I think if anything the gap between smaller than "FF" and FF systems is harder to detect.

My own tests showed that my G1 when fitted with a nice lens produces images that can be lost amongst 5D images with no one being able to tell them apart on screen or in print (A3) better than chance. The G1 images need to be cared for and coaxed a little more but they get there and I fully expect newer CSC to have if anything closed the gap a little to more modern full frame cameras.

However, I can only speak for myself and the people who couldn't tell G1 images from 5D images.

I'm happy with the performance of my quite old G1 at low to middle ISO settings, the only issues that bother me are the light output from the EVF and its limited dynamic range and being forced to use ND's more than I do with my DSLR. If these two issues (EVF and ND's) could be fixed I wouldn't pick up a DSLR again.
Logged
scooby70
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #41 on: August 27, 2013, 03:17:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I personally have no problem with ND filters...use 'em frequently on the OM-D5.

I don't care about the technological reason for the rising base ISO. I only care about the practical implication for me and it's that I have to juggle lens hoods, camera bags, ND cases and ND's. I find it a pain.

I'd have no problem with rising ISO's if the shutter speed increased too. I don't know but I assume that switching to an electronic shutter would enable faster shutter speeds that would enable me to leave the ND's at home... unless I was trying for a lower shutter speed shot.

I thought I'd left ND's behind when I sold my RF's but apparently not. I do realise I'm the only one complaining about this issue and I should just be shooting at f8 all day  Undecided
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #42 on: August 27, 2013, 04:20:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't care about the technological reason for the rising base ISO. I only care about the practical implication for me and it's that I have to juggle lens hoods, camera bags, ND cases and ND's.
There is a partial solution as I said before: permanently attach an ND filter to each lens and use a permanent exposure compensation setting. That will give you less light detected by the sensor, exactly as if (as you seem to want) the sensor were simply less efficient at detecting light in the first place, since lower quantum efficiency is the only thing that gave older sensors a lower base ISO speed.

Actually there is another option with many cameras; Olympus ones in particular: it seems that many cameras with a minimum "ISO dial" setting of 200 actually have a lower base ISO speed (measured by highlight handling), a bit over 100. So their raw files when exposed at EI 200 have about an extra stop of highlight headroom (to the horror of some forum participants.) With such cameras, you can usually safely expose at about EI 100 even if set to the minimum of 200: the in-camera JPEG's will come out too light, but the raw files will be fine with the right processing.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 07:12:04 PM by BJL » Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1417


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 27, 2013, 05:39:53 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, my brain isn't working today. Why would you need to set any exposure compensation with a neutral density filter? The in-camera meter will simply see the light as it comes through the filter, no EC needed. With a handheld meter you'd need to adjust, of course.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #44 on: August 27, 2013, 07:11:31 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, my brain isn't working today. Why would you need to set any exposure compensation with a neutral density filter? The in-camera meter will simply see the light as it comes through the filter, no EC needed. With a handheld meter you'd need to adjust, of course.
You are right; I mixed up the two scenarios: it is to exploit the extra highlight headroom of some cameras that the exposure compensation is needed! I will try to correct my previous post, which makes my "plan A" even simpler.
Logged
xpatUSA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2013, 08:33:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Have had very good experience with a Panasonic Micro 4/3" DMC-GH1. EVF, tiltable LCD and built-in flash are bonuses.

Camera, 14-45mm, 45-200mm and a Leica 45mm macro all for less than a total $1000 used.

They all fit in a 11x7x7" LowePro bag with a total weight of 4-1/2 lbs !!
Logged

best regards,

Ted
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad