Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
 

On 12/20/2018 12:07 AM, RichA wrote:
[...] I like the reach you get with smaller sensors. Often, I've been able to frame-fill wildlife shots with m4/3rds while others couldn't owing to lack of long enough lenses, plus I avoid the bulk of larger-sensor equipment. [...]


Comments such as this puzzle me. Are you under the impression that the
smaller sensors convert your normal-range lenses into telephoto lenses
because of the cropped view?

--
best regards,

Neil

Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
 

On 12/21/2018 3:21 AM, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 20 December 2018 18:31:07 UTC-5, Neil wrote:
On 12/20/2018 12:07 AM, RichA wrote:
[...] I like the reach you get with smaller sensors. Often, I've been able to frame-fill wildlife shots with m4/3rds while others couldn't owing to lack of long enough lenses, plus I avoid the bulk of larger-sensor equipment. [...]


Comments such as this puzzle me. Are you under the impression that the
smaller sensors convert your normal-range lenses into telephoto lenses
because of the cropped view?

--
best regards,

Neil

No, but until FF hits 80mp, on average I'll get closer to an animal or bird and get more pixels (and more detail on it) on it than someone with a FF camera. Leaving off wildlife photo experts who hide in blinds all day that is. I've seen this happen on more than once.

In your example, I doubt that m-pixel density is the most important
factor since someone with a telephoto can walk closer to the subject,
too, if the subject is willing to stay put. I'd go with lens quality
over m-pixels in this situation, and there are several excellent
telephoto lenses available that will easily outperform normal lenses for
wildlife photography.

--
best regards,

Neil

Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
 

In article , Neil
wrote:

[...] I like the reach you get with smaller sensors. Often, I've been
able to frame-fill wildlife shots with m4/3rds while others couldn't
owing to lack of long enough lenses, plus I avoid the bulk of
larger-sensor equipment. [...]


Comments such as this puzzle me. Are you under the impression that the
smaller sensors convert your normal-range lenses into telephoto lenses
because of the cropped view?

No, but until FF hits 80mp, on average I'll get closer to an animal or bird
and get more pixels (and more detail on it) on it than someone with a FF
camera. Leaving off wildlife photo experts who hide in blinds all day that
is. I've seen this happen on more than once.

In your example, I doubt that m-pixel density is the most important
factor since someone with a telephoto can walk closer to the subject,
too, if the subject is willing to stay put. I'd go with lens quality
over m-pixels in this situation, and there are several excellent
telephoto lenses available that will easily outperform normal lenses for
wildlife photography.

moving closer changes the perspective.

Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
 

On 12/21/2018 11:13 PM, RichA wrote:
[...]

It's possible for a spectacular lens to produce a nicer-looking image while having less resolution than a lesser, longer lens. Also, fewer megapixels means the camera will be less on a lens's quality and will produce a superficially better looking image. Kind of like how a lens used on a 10mp camera looks sharper than one shot at 16mp.

Generalizations such as "...nicer looking..." and "...superficially
better looking..." aside, a lens' resolution is a matter of optics, not
megapixels in the camera. All the camera can do is render that
resolution. Of course, I'm not talking about crappy cameras or lenses.

--
best regards,

Neil

Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
 

On 12/22/2018 6:26 PM, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 07:22:24 UTC-5, Neil wrote:
On 12/21/2018 11:13 PM, RichA wrote:
[...]

It's possible for a spectacular lens to produce a nicer-looking image while having less resolution than a lesser, longer lens. Also, fewer megapixels means the camera will be less on a lens's quality and will produce a superficially better looking image. Kind of like how a lens used on a 10mp camera looks sharper than one shot at 16mp.

Generalizations such as "...nicer looking..." and "...superficially
better looking..." aside, a lens' resolution is a matter of optics, not
megapixels in the camera. All the camera can do is render that
resolution. Of course, I'm not talking about crappy cameras or lenses.

--
best regards,

Neil

By nicer looking I mean mostly bokeh. They've purposely produced lenses with lower resolution and aberration-control to enhance bokeh. However, you mate that lens to a high megapixel count camera, and the output will have higher resolution than a better lens mated to a camera with fewer pixels. This is why (as an example) Olympus scores lower on a site like DXO even though it probably has a much better corrected lens than what is on some FF camera with 40mp.

This is still a quality of the camera, not the lens. A good quality lens
will probably have good bokeh, and whether that bokeh is rendered by the
camera is not determined by the lens. This is hardly a new phenomenon
restricted to digital photography, by the way.

--
best regards,

Neil

Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
 

In article ,
RichA wrote:

By nicer looking I mean mostly bokeh. They've purposely produced lenses with
lower resolution and aberration-control to enhance bokeh. However, you mate
that lens to a high megapixel count camera, and the output will have higher
resolution than a better lens mated to a camera with fewer pixels. This is
why (as an example) Olympus scores lower on a site like DXO even though it
probably has a much better corrected lens than what is on some FF camera with 40mp.

dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more
to do with how much a particular company paid dxo.

Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
 

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:20:19 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
RichA wrote:

By nicer looking I mean mostly bokeh. They've purposely produced lenses with
lower resolution and aberration-control to enhance bokeh. However, you mate
that lens to a high megapixel count camera, and the output will have higher
resolution than a better lens mated to a camera with fewer pixels. This is
why (as an example) Olympus scores lower on a site like DXO even though it
probably has a much better corrected lens than what is on some FF camera with 40mp.

dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more
to do with how much a particular company paid dxo.

Is there any evidence to support that claim?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more
to do with how much a particular company paid dxo.

Is there any evidence to support that claim?

yes.

Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
 

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 08:44:02 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more
to do with how much a particular company paid dxo.

Is there any evidence to support that claim?

yes.

What is it other than rumour or gossip?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more
to do with how much a particular company paid dxo.

Is there any evidence to support that claim?

yes.

What is it other than rumour or gossip?

it's neither of those.