Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor

Tony Polson wrote:


You have to feel sorry for him ...

He can't criticise Nikon and Pentax because they use the same sensor
as his 7D but get much better results from it ...

No they don't. At best they're all about the same; and in noise the
Nikon is worse. Only the 7D has A-S, so unless the Nikon has a VR lens
it is screwed. And the Pentax doens't have that.

The D70 has a limited ISO range as well (200-1600). It does have 1/500
electronic sync which is a nice benefit.


He can't criticise Canon because he knows very well that Canon is the
brand he should have bought ...

Were I starting today, that's what I would do. But I've stated that
often enough.


So he criticises Olympus, in the hope that spreading lies and hatred
will make him feel just a little better about his own duff purchase.

What lies and hatred? I stated my opinion and defended it. You resort
to personal attacks. Talk about hatred. I guess since I pointed out a
few of your mistakes and deceptions you've really had it out for me:

-the sharpness issue wrt to aperture "generalities"
-Your BS regarding an Oly E-2.
-Your BS regarding an E-1 with an * Mpix sensor in it.
-Your BS regarding "50 rolls per average *week*"
-Your propensity to use baiting ridicule in lieu of sober argument
-You never start threads, merely respond to them, tpyically with muted
sarcasm.

I suggest you resort instead to posting some images from your vast
experience. Until then you are just hot air.


You can even understand why he never takes new photographs for the SI
and repeatedly dives into his turgid "Archive" for the fortnightly
competition. It must be painful taking photos with the 7D - every
time he presses the shutter release it is yet another reminder of the
grave error he committed in buying the thing.

Au contraire. Always getting better and better images from it as I
explore its boundaries. Only regret is that it's not full frame to
enjoy my 20mm f/2.8 ... but I have the Maxxum 9 for that.

Please *do* post some images Tony. After all at 50 rolls per average
*week* you must have gotten a few more right than what you posted (oh so
disastrously) a few years ago.

At least your counterpart Stacey has posted images, some of which are
worthy. That's more than anyone has ever seen out of you, Tony Polson.

Every post you make in reference to the 7D is really an attack on me.
That's fine, have at it.

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:

That's just needlessly unpleasant - I thought that was quite an interesting
shot of a well-observed subject.

Thank you.

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.

Alan wrote ...
I don't recall claiming the Oly lens system wasn't smaller.

Basic Wedge replied ...

That's all right Alan. We recalled it for you.

Alan, take a lQQk at the Oly 300 mm f/2.8 vs the Nikon 300 f/2.8 ...

Oly is heavier (7.2 lbs vs 5.7 lbs).
Oly is larger (11.1" L, 5.1" D vs 10.6" x 4.8")
Oly is far more expensive ($6,300 with a $700 rebate vs $3,600 at B&H)
Oly covers only 28% the area of the Nikon. Great lens design indeed!

Bill

Bill Hilton wrote:

Alan wrote ...
I don't recall claiming the Oly lens system wasn't smaller.


Basic Wedge replied ...

That's all right Alan. We recalled it for you.


Alan, take a lQQk at the Oly 300 mm f/2.8 vs the Nikon 300 f/2.8 ...

Oly is heavier (7.2 lbs vs 5.7 lbs).
Oly is larger (11.1" L, 5.1" D vs 10.6" x 4.8")
Oly is far more expensive ($6,300 with a $700 rebate vs $3,600 at B&H)
Oly covers only 28% the area of the Nikon. Great lens design indeed!

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.

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:
Alan Browne wrote:

Stacey wrote:


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

http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...arkSnow_II.jpg

Is this another test shot or am I missing something...

That's just needlessly unpleasant - I thought that was quite an
interesting shot of a well-observed subject.

So what's that in the background? You don't find it odd the "snow" is
totally blown into white with bright dots? Sorry if I don't find it
interesting even though he did use the "rule of thirds"..
--

Stacey

Bill Hilton wrote:

Alan wrote ...
I don't recall claiming the Oly lens system wasn't smaller.

Basic Wedge replied ...

That's all right Alan. We recalled it for you.

Alan, take a lQQk at the Oly 300 mm f/2.8 vs the Nikon 300 f/2.8 ...



Try comparing the same FOV..

--

Stacey

In article , Stacey wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:
In article , Stacey
wrote:

Is this another test shot or am I missing something...

That's just needlessly unpleasant - I thought that was quite an
interesting shot of a well-observed subject.

So what's that in the background? You don't find it odd the "snow" is
totally blown into white with bright dots? Sorry if I don't find it
interesting even though he did use the "rule of thirds"..

It was the "test shot" comment, which I just found needlessly catty.

And anyway, the snow isn't "totally blown into white" - using the
eye-dropper in Photoshop, with a 5x5 average, at the bottom right corner,
where the snow seems to be brightest, I'm getting values like 227, 225, 238
- that looks about exactly where you'd want it, and certainly not "blown
into white". The bright dots to me look exactly like the way I see sunlight
reflecting off moist snow. They are "blown into white", but you'd rather
expect reflections of the Sun to do just that. In short, the exposure looks
to be pretty much on the nose to me.

Take issue with the image on aesthetic grounds if you like - that's down to
personal taste, but I think your insinuations about its technical quality
are unwarranted.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...

Contrast this grim scenario with the dynamism and optimism that is
being generated by the exciting developments in Four Thirds.

4:3 is DOA. Two cameras, both at the low end of the consumer grade, and an
incomplete selection of lenses. No way to go to higher resolution without
paying a high price in terms of noise.

I wish that there could be three players in digital SLRs, but with
Konica-Minolta, and Olympus doing so poorly, the only hope for a third
player is Pentax.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Tony Polson wrote:



Konica Minolta were so late with the 7D body that they were beaten by
Pentax, who were themselves tardy, yet many months ahead of Konica
Minolta. There were no digital-optimised Rokkor lenses available at
launch, and the Minolta DSLR was priced ridiculously high because of
an anti-shake system that works like a half-hearted version of Canon's
IS or Nikon's VR. No wonder its sales figures have been a disaster.



I never bothered to look since I'd have no interest in owning one but,
it's
$500 more than a D70?

They have since dropped the price, and have added a rebate, but it still
ends up at about $200 more.

Stacey wrote:

Chris Brown wrote:


In article , Stacey
wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:


Stacey wrote:

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

http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM...arkSnow_II.jpg

Is this another test shot or am I missing something...

That's just needlessly unpleasant - I thought that was quite an
interesting shot of a well-observed subject.


So what's that in the background? You don't find it odd the "snow" is
totally blown into white with bright dots? Sorry if I don't find it
interesting even though he did use the "rule of thirds"..

Bullcrap. Snow is white, reflections from the sun are white. Here it
is partially melted and refrozen (spring). So a mix of ice and snow
with a texture. That texture brings out facets that reflect the
sunlight, and crevices that are sky colored (blue).

It may be a shock to you, but highlights are permitted to be saturated.
There is no 'rule' that says every pixel in an image must be short of
saturated. (In this image, as presented, I don't think there is a
single 'glint' that measures 255,255,255 in any case).

If you can see 'rule of thirds' in there then you are stretching it a
good deal. But glad you find 'rule of thirds' interesting. It's merely
a guide for the rest of us.

ref: http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/ashley.jpg

You can stick with your perfectly centered snapshots with the blown out
cheek, forehead and nose, no shaddow fill and wretched background, if
that pleases you. I suppose that's "breaking the rules" as an artist?

I will say that some of your other images are very nice. And 1000%
better than anything Polson has ever posted.

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.