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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading
Alan Browne wrote:
nospam wrote: In article , Miles Bader wrote: But they are perfectly locked out of FF, regardless, as long as they stick to the 3/4 standard. "3/4 standard"? an obvious typo. I'm a member of the CAD (Canadian Dyslexics Association). I thought CAD was the Dyslexics Association of Canada! DAM! -- john mcwilliams |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading
Alan Browne writes:
I don't really think so -- the recently released K-7 is a _very_ good camera and moves more towards the high-end for Pentax; the K-x simply shows that the low-end is important too. [Supposedly they're due to soon release a new model in between the two as well.] A good point. But they are perfectly locked out of FF, regardless, as long as they stick to the 3/4 standard. "3/4 standard"? Yawn. If you mean 4:3 standard, you must be thinking of Olympus; Pentax uses APS-C for its DSLRs. -Miles -- Carefully crafted initial estimates reward you not only with reduced computational effort, but also with understanding and increased self-esteem. -- Numerical methods in C, Chapter 9. "Root Finding and Nonlinear Sets of Equations" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading
nospam writes:
But any "size advantage" conferred by the 4/3 sensor is actually pretty minimal -- the image diagonal of the 4/3 sensor is smaller than APS-C, but less so than the sensor area might seem to indicate: the APS-C sensor is 80% larger in area than the 4:3 sensor, but only 33% larger in image diagonal (30.1mm vs 22.5mm). area is what matters, and more closely represents the difference in performance. 4/3 is about one stop noisier than aps-c and about 2 stops noisier than full frame. I wasn't talking about noise, I was talking about "size" -- i.e., basically the sensor diagonal, which is what the lens has to deliver. -miles -- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading
John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Miles Bader wrote: But they are perfectly locked out of FF, regardless, as long as they stick to the 3/4 standard. "3/4 standard"? an obvious typo. I'm a member of the CAD (Canadian Dyslexics Association). I thought CAD was the Dyslexics Association of Canada! Probably is. Do you think I could even get that right? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading
Miles Bader wrote:
Alan Browne writes: I don't really think so -- the recently released K-7 is a _very_ good camera and moves more towards the high-end for Pentax; the K-x simply shows that the low-end is important too. [Supposedly they're due to soon release a new model in between the two as well.] A good point. But they are perfectly locked out of FF, regardless, as long as they stick to the 3/4 standard. "3/4 standard"? Yawn. If you mean 4:3 standard, you must be thinking of Olympus; Pentax uses APS-C for its DSLRs. -Miles Doh! (I was of course referring to Oly; but still, if Pentax don't go FF, they will make themselves marginal - almost as marginal as Oly. [ I haven't watched their lens sizing strategy at all...]). BTW: The correct nomenclature is "Four Thirds", not 4:3 or 4/3. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading
Alan Browne wrote:
John McWilliams wrote: Alan Browne wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Miles Bader wrote: But they are perfectly locked out of FF, regardless, as long as they stick to the 3/4 standard. "3/4 standard"? an obvious typo. I'm a member of the CAD (Canadian Dyslexics Association). I thought CAD was the Dyslexics Association of Canada! Probably is. Do you think I could even get that right? We may! = Mais, oui! Oh, well, boring day already... -- john mcwilliams |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading
In article , bill_k
wrote: But any "size advantage" conferred by the 4/3 sensor is actually pretty minimal -- the image diagonal of the 4/3 sensor is smaller than APS-C, but less so than the sensor area might seem to indicate: the APS-C sensor is 80% larger in area than the 4:3 sensor, but only 33% larger in image diagonal (30.1mm vs 22.5mm). area is what matters, and more closely represents the difference in performance. 4/3 is about one stop noisier than aps-c and about 2 stops noisier than full frame. A common misconception of all resident trolls. You cannot compare noise levels by size alone. absolutely you can. As technologies advance, smaller sensors today are far better than larger sensors of only a few months ago. and that same technology can be applied to the larger sensor, nullifying any advantage. the fact remains that for a given sensor technology, larger sensors perform better. period. The holy-grail "full frame" 35mm analog film "standard" that everyone erroneously worships is wholly irrelevant when it comes to digital imaging. There is no "standard" anymore. Except in the minds of total fools. it's the standard. deal with it. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading
bill_k wrote:
far better than larger sensors of only a few months ago. The holy-grail "full frame" 35mm analog film "standard" that everyone erroneously worships is wholly irrelevant when it comes to digital imaging. There is no "standard" anymore. Except in the minds of total fools. Who said it was the standard? OTOH it is _the_ reference. And as long as the reference is physically larger for a given number of pixels it will be the Sig/Noise leader. Physics. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading
"nospam" wrote
... The holy-grail "full frame" 35mm analog film "standard" that everyone erroneously worships is wholly irrelevant when it comes to digital imaging. There is no "standard" anymore. Except in the minds of total fools. it's the standard. deal with it. With this kind of thinking, CDs would have to be the size of vinyl records (remember them??) to be any good. New technologies set their own new standards. Deal with it. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading
"G Paleologopoulos" writes:
The holy-grail "full frame" 35mm analog film "standard" that everyone erroneously worships is wholly irrelevant when it comes to digital imaging. There is no "standard" anymore. Except in the minds of total fools. it's the standard. deal with it. With this kind of thinking, CDs would have to be the size of vinyl records (remember them??) to be any good. That's a silly analogy -- FF sensors are clearly not an obsolete size, and given that you want _some_ point of reference for comparing sensor sizes, it's an awful good idea to pick a size which was _already_ a common point of reference, especially given the huge use of lenses and other equipment made for that size. -Miles -- P.S. All information contained in the above letter is false, for reasons of military security. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Olympus u4/3rds, an overpriced bust in the making? | Troll Killers | Digital Photography | 5 | June 8th 09 11:07 PM |
Olympus u4/3rds, an overpriced bust in the making? | Troll Killers | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | June 8th 09 11:07 PM |
|GG| Olympus u4/3rds, an overpriced bust in the making? | Paul Furman | Digital Photography | 0 | June 7th 09 05:40 PM |
|GG| Olympus u4/3rds, an overpriced bust in the making? | Paul Furman | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | June 7th 09 05:40 PM |
Olympus u4/3rds, an overpriced bust in the making? | Bertram Paul | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | June 7th 09 02:39 PM |