Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor

Tony Polson wrote:
Stacey wrote:

Might as well forget it, the people argueing this are mainly users of
slightly larger sensor 6MP cameras that KNOW the slightly larger sensor is
the ONLY thing their camera has going for it.



Exactly.

Not exactly, Tony. You left out Stacey's last sentence:

"The fact they all refuse to post ANYTHING shot with them says it all
for me.."

So, where are your images?


Very few of the Four Thirds critics have even used the system, let
alone conducted rigorous comparative tests. In addition, people's
comments are based on reviews they have read, including those from
sponsored web sites, rather than personal knowledge and experience.

There's no way most people can ever exhaustively test many cameras. We
rely on folks like Phil Askey to do the grunt work and maintain an
objective collection of facts (measurements) as well as opine on the
systems. He does give a "recomended" to the E-300, so not that bad.
But the data speaks for itself, and is much more than Tony Polson has
ever provided to back any of his claims about anything.


It is well known that some camera manufacturers sponsor review sites,
and others don't. We should therefore be very cautious indeed when
reading reviews from these sponsored sites.

Yes, about all the cameras and gear from all the companies.

But in any case, given dpreview/Phil Askey over Polson/Stacey I know
that I would give much more weight to Phil than you two clowns.


In case I haven't made myself clear, digital photography review sites
are sponsored by some manufacturers, but not others.

Indeed. When Oly first gave dpreview an E300 camera to test Olympus
asked dpreview to not post 100% sized photos.

I suspect their relationship is indeed strained as Olympus were
petrified at people seeing the real noisy images.

All manufacturers suffer a certain negative critique from dpreview, but
most stay in the ball game. Losers go home.

Tony: don't imply bias where there is none, esp. when it flies in the
face of your opinions, wishes or desires.

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.

David J Taylor wrote:

Alan Brownbe wrote:
[]

I get Oly 4/3 [dpreview] : 18 x 13.5 = 243

Canon 20D: [dpreview] : 22.5 x 15 = 337.5

39% more.

[]

I believe ya! That puts the 4/3 in an even deeper S/N hole...

Cheers,
Alan.


Hole? That's less than one stop. The advantages could more than outweigh
that.

Were talking about future growth for pixels and what that implies for
S/N levels for the sensor.

A larger sensor area does not relate directly to 'stops' of light (or
EV's) unless the optics change. (For example a cropped 1.5x sensor gets
the same light per unit surface as a 1.0x sensor for the same lens).
There is an advantage for the larger sensor in S/N if the number of
pixels is the same.

To Olympus' credit/advantage, the smaller lens system has allowed larger
apertures for various focal lenghts. This is giving them 1 stop
advantage... which helps the noise issue by allowing shots to be taken
at a slower ISO.

But as pix densities go up, that 1 stop won't be enough. It isn't now,
and less likely as a function of increasing pix densities.

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.

Stacey wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:


Stacey wrote:


Why? Another guess about something you know nothing about? And yes the
colors from ACR are bland at best..

You're exagerating, to say the least. Very poor form, Stacey.


The guys who have used both on the olympus forums all say the same thing as
I just did. The colors from studio are much better than from ACR, which is
gearer more for canon/nikon cameras..

And you know this is an exageration because.... You guess it is?

No. I just find it difficult to accept that the difference is SO large.




Can I DL the Oly RAW reader?


No.


I've asked several times to see "Your best" and you've yet
to show me anything..

I'm making no special effort for you


So you don't want to post ANYTHING showing you have some sort of skill as a
photographer other than your "test shots" or excuse shots?

I have 000's of shots. Not all are posted, far from it. Most that I
post are edited in PS for web color space and at 800 pix wide; those
that I print are edited in PS for printing and are 1800 to 8000 pixels wide.


I've posted a 100% crop for you to say my camera sucks (I'm crushed), again
why do I need to send you multiple examples for you to repeat this? I'd

I never said it sucked; it failed to impress.

just like to see some of the "great images" you can capture downsampled for
on screen viewing to see how the colors and lens bokeh ect look.

I did say I liked the red flower shot. So please send the whole thing,
JPG or RAW as you like. Will that hurt? Send it to someone else as
well to get a balanced or opposing opinion, as the case may be.



--
-- 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.

In article , Stacey wrote:

Here's the example of an olympus lens that canon users love to trash, the
$6500 300 f2.8 that weighs 7lbs. To get this FOV you need a $6500 400 F2.8
that weighs -12 lbs-. How can you say the lens for a given FOV isn't
lighter?

Since the 4/3 sensors are noisier, in order to get similar performance you
need to drop the ISO by a stop or more, compared to its Canon contemporary,
so to match that f/2.8 lens, you'll need f/2, or possibly even faster. Since
that doesn't seem to be available, you might get a fairer comparison if you
compared the f/2.8 Olympus lens to an f/4 or even f/5.6 Canon lens - you'll
get a similar field of view, similar image quality, and similar depth of
field.

Canon doesn't have anything to compare the 50-200 F2.8-3.5 in that FOV and
speed but is 1/2 pound lighter than the canon lenses that are close to this
FOV and a stop slower.

Noisier cameras need faster lenses - that's where your weight and size
advantage disappears.

In article , Stacey wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:

In article , Stacey
wrote:

The problem is that digital camera brands never use the same "capture
technology" so this doesn't work exactly the same way as it did with film.
And you surely must agree at some point enough is enough for a given print
size or else everyone would be shooting the same size film as they wanted
to print it? Sure for huge prints 4/3 might be at a disadvantage at some
point but for 11X14 and under I can't imagine it ever being an issue.

I already find that my DSLR prints at that size lack sharpness if they
have foliage in, so 6 megapixels is inadequate for such medium sized
prints.

Who was talking about 6MP?

Let me see, the 10D has 3072 pixels across the frame. The E300 has 3264
pixels across the frame. Those extra 2 million pixels are giving you a
resolution increase of a whopping 6.25%.

So your foliage ain't going to look sharp either.

Stacey wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:


Stacey wrote:


Then show us the resolution and contrast in a 100% crop, shot with a
equiv 300mm lens hand held one stop from wide open at infinity like my
shot was, oh yea and upsample it so it would print at 300DPI on 8X10
before you cut
the crop out! :-) Maybe then we can compare "image quality"?


First of all, in an image test, a tripod should be used. Handheld shots
introduce unknowns unless the shutter speed is quite high.


Strange idea I suppose, I shoot images not "image tests"...

Ahem, most competent photographers take most of their best photography
with a tripod. PJ's and other speedy shooting aside, you rarely see
available light photography of high technical quality that is not taken
from a tripod.



Was that lens a zoom or a prime?


Cheap kit zoom.


For me, 3000 / 300 dpi works out to 10 inches right off the top,


That's not 8X10..

Fine, let's resize to 12x8" which is the size I usually print at even if
I have to upsample slightly.



If your "300mm equivalent" is a zoom, then suggest a subject and I'll go
shoot it with my 80-200 f/2.8 at 200mm (300 eq.). You pick wide open or
2 down as you please. I would suggest church steeples or other detailed
architecture on a sunny day...


How about just something interesting? You don't have anything interesting
shot at infinity with that lens and need to go do a "test shot"?

No. The point Stacey, is that to make a comparison, comparable tests
need to be made. Where possible, sources of bias and error for both
should be removed.

So, don't shoot a high quality zoom against a high quality prime, or
even a high quality zoom against an ordinay zoom, etc.

don't shoot handheld (A good tripod takes that out of the equation
when comparing lenses/film, etc.).

etc.

So, I propose we each go shoot something 'comparable' such as a church
steeple. Ornate if possible.

Bright day, good contrast. (Let's say EV 12 ambient lighting at minimum)

I can shoot my zooms (28-70 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8) or my primes,
(20 f/2.8, 50 f/1.7, 100 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8)

You choose where you can match effective FL. For reference, the
cheapest lens above is the 50 f/1.7.

(Note that for the FL's above, the 1.5x crop factor applies, eg: my 300
works out to an effective of 450mm).

We can both shoot at the ISO you choose.

We can both shoot wide open and/or a couple stops down.
We can both shoot at infinity or whatever.

State your conditions beyond that and/or other subjects. Just bear in
mind that it has to be in the realm of feasible. Our spring is off to a
wretched start, so we don't have much in the way of flowers to date and
it's always windy.

Oh! Last thing: must trade RAWs.

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.

Chris Brown wrote:

In article , Stacey
wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:

I already find that my DSLR prints at that size lack sharpness if they
have foliage in, so 6 megapixels is inadequate for such medium sized
prints.

Who was talking about 6MP?

Let me see, the 10D has 3072 pixels across the frame. The E300 has 3264
pixels across the frame. Those extra 2 million pixels are giving you a
resolution increase of a whopping 6.25%.

So your foliage ain't going to look sharp either.


I suppose you NEVER considered it could be an optical resolution issue
either? I'm not seeing this problem you're having...
--

Stacey

Alan Browne wrote:

Stacey wrote:



How about just something interesting? You don't have anything interesting
shot at infinity with that lens and need to go do a "test shot"?

No.

I expected that responce..

So, I propose we each go shoot something 'comparable' such as a church
steeple.**Ornate*if*possible.

Why would I want to go shoot a picture of a church steeple? Don't you have
ANYTHING you've shot that isn't a "test shot" to show us your skills or
creativity?


--

Stacey

Alan Browne wrote:

Stacey wrote:


And you know this is an exageration because.... You guess it is?

No. I just find it difficult to accept that the difference is SO large.


http://fourthirdsphoto.com/articles/ACR.html


So you don't want to post ANYTHING showing you have some sort of skill as
a photographer other than your "test shots" or excuse shots?

I have 000's of shots. Not all are posted, far from it.

So where are they? I've seen a half a dozen excuses or test shots, where is
your photography?


--

Stacey

"Alan Browne"

To Olympus' credit/advantage, the smaller lens system has allowed larger
apertures for various focal lenghts. This is giving them 1 stop
advantage... which helps the noise issue by allowing shots to be taken at
a slower ISO.

Smaller lenses, eh. I thought you were one of the folks claiming that they
weren't any smaller. I seem to recall that was one of your major criticisms.
Have you recently acquired a ruler?

Rob