Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: the so called minuature formats  (Read 19229 times)
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #60 on: October 05, 2005, 07:20:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah! It's got its advantages. Don't really know why I'm arguing this matter. Probably just trying to get a rise out of BJL  Cheesy .
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #61 on: November 11, 2005, 12:52:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

   you won't get a rise out of me by comparing lenses of equal focal length with heavy cropping with the larger format: I am comfortable that any differences there favor the smaller format. More to the point, I have no interest in using a smaller format with the same focal length choices as for a larger format. I use my FourThirds body with a 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 lens where I would use a zoom reaching 300mm or 400mm with a larger format, not any 200mm zoom with extra cropping.

At to your idea about the possibility of improving telephoto lens resolution by spending enough money: the same improvements can be applied in smaller formats too.

This fits with one clear general trend, that improvements in resolution, sensitivity, dynamic range and such reduce the visibility of imperfections in all formats, thus reducing the degree of visible image quality differences between two formats, and thus increasing the acceptability of a smaller format and reducing the number of photographers whose image quality needs and wants require a larger format. Mike Johnston has a nice essay on this sort of idea.

Any attempt to use possible future technological improvements in image quality as shifting the balance in favor of larger formats is really getting it backwards. The only way technology can work in that direction is reducing the gap in price, size and weight. But nothing can reduce the focal lengths needed to get any advantage from a larger format, because the format that counts is the size and shape of the image of the desired subject formed on the sensor, irrespective of how much surrounding area is covered with photosites whose output gets cropped away. Any given desired "image format" at a given subject distance determines needed focal length.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #62 on: November 11, 2005, 08:13:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray,

This fits with one clear general trend, that improvements in resolution, sensitivity, dynamic range and such reduce the visibility of imperfections in all formats, thus reducing the degree of visible image quality differences between two formats, and thus increasing the acceptability of a smaller format and reducing the number of photographers whose image quality needs and wants require a larger format. Mike Johnston has a nice essay on this sort of idea.

BJL,
If you tried using a 5D for a few days and saw first hand just how good images can be at ISO 3200, I think you might change your mind.

It's always struck me that you are very much a theoretician. I get the impression you have opted for the Olymous 4/3rds system primarily because of your interest in and knowledge of  optics. You've been bowled over by the undoubtedly superior optics of the Zuiko lenses but have forgotten that the final result is a 'system' result. If the rest of the system is not at least equal to the fine Zuiko lens, which it apparently isn't, then it matters not how good the lenses are. The quality is essentially wasted.

It's no doubt reasonable to expect that future 4/3rds sensors will improve in quality, but so will every other manufacturers sensors. Henry Ford would not have approved of the Olympus ethos. You don't design a system with one component being streaks ahead of the others.

I think the best thing Olympus could do is make their lenses compatible with Canon APS-C cameras such as the 20D and future upgrades. (I assume the next 20D upgrade will be a 12mp camera). The Zuiko brand could become a premium quality 'third party' lens manufacturer similar to Sigma and Tamron, but better quality and presumably more expensive.

Current Zuiko lenses might also produce better results on a 20D than Canon lenses, but lacking certain automatic functions and, in the case of some lenses, producing a small amount of vignetting.

By the way, I paid just A$4850 for my 5D, considerably less than your prediction of A$6000   .

Cheers!
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #63 on: November 14, 2005, 02:49:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BJL,
If you tried using a 5D for a few days and saw first hand just how good images can be at ISO 3200, I think you might change your mind.

I get the impression you have opted for the Olymous 4/3rds system primarily because of your interest in and knowledge of  optics. [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wonder how your opinion would be affected by experience with a Nikon D2X, or even a D200? (Compared at ISO 1600 with one f-stop difference to get equal speed and DOF of course!)

Likely my reaction to any of the three would be "Wow! I see very little reason for me to get a camera and lenses any bigger, heavier or more expensive than this." Unless I ran into ergonomic problems like excessive weight or others not revealed by the spec's, lab. measurements, and sample shots. Because I am not a "maximalist" about image quality, especially not about high shutter speed/low light image quality; I am a balancer of factors, including ergonomics and cost.


My reasons for getting the E-1 and 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 (recently joined by a 50-200 f/2.8-3.5) were actually far simpler and more pragmatic.
In my price range and for my core needs, such as convenient standard and telephoto zoom lenses, it was the best option at that time. Runner up was a Nikon D70 or D100 with 18-70 f/3.5-4/5 DX, but reviews suggested that the optical quality of that lens was not as good as the 14-54. At the time, before EF-S, Canon's best option for my budget was the D60, which did not have a convenient standard zoom (I would have made do with the 17-40 f/4) nor a convenient telephoto zoom to pair with that 17-40. I am still on the same camera (while you have changed twice in the meantime?), so it is a good thing I did not buy the D60 to use with my old Canon gear in the hope of Canon later providing lenses for the D60 adapted to the smaller image circle. A good thing too that I did not decide to stay with film until 24x36mm reached my price range, or I would still be waiting with no relief in sight.

It is not clear what I would choose from today's options, but the Nikon D200 is probably the leading contender, or the E-500 if I were willing to take a stop-gap solution. Given my interest in telephoto reach and macro photography, good sensor resolution in the sense of lp/mm would be a major factor, so my choice would not be a camera like the 5D, even at far less than its current price. With only 3/4's the sensor resolution of the D200 or 2/3's that of the bargain basement E-500, a 5D would require considerably longer telephoto lenses and higher magnification macro gear to get equally detailed images of distant or small subjects, blowing my weight and cost limits.

But I am sure it suits you needs well, as I roughly agree with Phil Askey nuanced final recommendation:
"Highly Recommended ... to anyone looking for the 'purity' of full frame (and a Canon mount) the EOS 5D would be absolutely Highly Recommended. ... For everyone else however it's a hard decision ... only history will tell if the EOS 5D is the start of a full frame revolution or simply the first of a new niche format."
[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page32.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page32.asp[/url]

And as an ex-pat I am of course glad to hear that Australian customers are not being gouged as much as they often are on camera prices compared to US prices.

Congratulations!
Logged
kbolin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 220



WWW
« Reply #64 on: November 14, 2005, 09:49:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow... this topic seems to go on and on and on.  Why?    

Unless of course you believe equipment is what delivers the final result then let the debate continue.  I for one don't.  It's a tool to deliver ones creative vision.  

Yes I do think about image quality and will buy the 5D early in the new year BUT I look at the image quality, the ergonomics of the camera (something Michael harps about), the economics, and then I buy.  From there I spend my time shooting.

I can use a Canon G5 one day or my 20D the next... depending on what I'm doing and where I'm going.  I often see some fabulous photos my 13 year old son can create using his Canon A95.  Trust me, want to learn more about photography, take your children out for a while and watch them take shots of everything with their eyes wide open.

So while all you are debating and pixel peeping... we are out shooting.

Enjoy.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #65 on: November 15, 2005, 08:05:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Some of us manage to do a considerable amount of shooting (~50,000 frames/year in my case) while actively participating here. Good gear doesn't guarantee good results, but inferior gear will always compromise the final result to some extent. Pretending otherwise is short-sighted and counterproductive.
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad