A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #321  
Old May 31st 05, 02:30 AM
Basic Wedge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #322  
Old May 31st 05, 05:55 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:

unless you have HSS on your flash/camera.



It does..

--

Stacey
  #323  
Old May 31st 05, 06:47 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/


I really don't think there is a whole stop between 4/3 and APS, especially
printing 8X10 perspective though.


--

Stacey
  #325  
Old June 1st 05, 08:36 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Diane Wilson wrote:

In article , 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
  #326  
Old June 2nd 05, 02:47 AM
Patrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
Lourens Smak wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

I really can't care less. What is key to understand is limits. And

the
4/3 system is inherently limited due to its physical size.

That's what people said when Oskar Barnack showed them the first

Leica...

And they were right - three quarters of a century later, cameras using

120
film still deliver vastly superior image quality.



On that basis, we should all be using 4x5" film, because all the more
popular formats are vastly inferior ...

The truth is that, in the pre-digital world, 35mm was more than good
enough for 90% of photography, and it still is. Yes, 120 roll film
is better, and 4x5" is much better, but 35mm is still more than good
enough for the vast majority of purposes. Barnack was right.

And so it is with Four Thirds. At ISO "speeds" up to 400, the Olympus
E1 and E300 (E-VOLT) produce essentially noise-free images at 5 MP and
8 MP respectively. The E1 is essentially noise-free at ISO 800.





In bright light where ISO 800 is not needed, yes, but in low light, it is
very noisy. With the noise filter on, not so bad.

I own 2 of them, and try my hardest not to go over ISO 400.

The other aspects are what draw me to the E1. Reliability, durability,
build quality, sharp optics, beautiful color, little post processing
required, and there are fast zooms, faster than anything put out by Canon &
Nikon, 2 lenses that give an effective FOV from 28mm - 200mm, we're talkin'
a constant F/2, on the horizon. THe lenses are light weight, which is
important to me.


Patrick


  #327  
Old June 4th 05, 11:19 PM
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George Preddy 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


  #328  
Old June 5th 05, 02:17 AM
Darrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
George Preddy 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


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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thoughts on sigma tamron nikkor macros Fred B. Digital Photography 2 October 31st 04 07:56 PM
Thoughts on sigma tamron nikkor macros Fred B. 35mm Photo Equipment 2 October 31st 04 07:56 PM
My Sigma camera and lens collection Giorgio Preddio Digital Photography 65 July 7th 04 10:03 PM
My Sigma camera and lens collection Giorgio Preddio 35mm Photo Equipment 63 July 7th 04 10:03 PM
FS-- Sigma 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 AF II Lens Minolta + Camera Bag James Cloud 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 June 23rd 04 03:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.