Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading

G Paleologopoulos wrote:
"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.


Nonsense. Vinyl playback represented a true analog stimulus for
playback where a CD is storage of a sequence of numbers that eventually
are used to drive a D/A converter. The storage media can be any density
(as DVD and now BluRay show) and reproduce an identical sound even
though the storage density is ever higher. It is just numbers.

In image sensors, larger area, larger pixels sites will always result in
higher signal to noise in the analog signal _before_ it is converted to
a number.

Alan Browne wrote:
G Paleologopoulos wrote:
"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.


Nonsense. Vinyl playback represented a true analog stimulus for
playback where a CD is storage of a sequence of numbers that eventually
are used to drive a D/A converter. The storage media can be any density
(as DVD and now BluRay show) and reproduce an identical sound even
though the storage density is ever higher. It is just numbers.

In image sensors, larger area, larger pixels sites will always result in
higher signal to noise in the analog signal _before_ it is converted to
a number.


I think their point was a "full frame" sensor camera can produce better
results than a medium format camera from 5 years ago did. The sensors
themselves are producing higher signal to noise all the time.

Think about the early days of film. It was so grainy that you needed a
8X10 camera to get a good quality 8X10 print. As film improved, it
became possible to get as high quality a print enlarging off a 35mm
negative. Unless you were making larger prints, there really wasn't a
lot of visible difference between a 35mm print and one from medium
format at -the end- of film.

As digital sensors improve: while a larger sensor will have a higher
signal to noise ratio, will that improvement be visible in the final
print size many people use? What he was trying to say is if you can't
see any difference between the prints made from 2 different size sensors
in a given print size, is there actually any improvement to the larger
sensor?

Of course people may want to use lenses they already own designed for a
certain format etc but that isn't what is being argued. I personally
like a smaller camera sometimes and haven't seen a full frame camera as
small as the E410/pancake combo and not sure that's going to happen
anytime soon. Just like in film days, I didn't limit myself to one
format. Don't see any reason to now either :-)

Stephanie

wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
G Paleologopoulos wrote:
"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.


Nonsense. Vinyl playback represented a true analog stimulus for
playback where a CD is storage of a sequence of numbers that
eventually are used to drive a D/A converter. The storage media can
be any density (as DVD and now BluRay show) and reproduce an identical
sound even though the storage density is ever higher. It is just
numbers.

In image sensors, larger area, larger pixels sites will always result
in higher signal to noise in the analog signal _before_ it is
converted to a number.


I think their point was a "full frame" sensor camera can produce better
results than a medium format camera from 5 years ago did. The sensors
themselves are producing higher signal to noise all the time.

Certainly. However, it remains that no matter what improvements happen
to APS-C (or 4/3) in signal/noise, the same applied to larger sensors
and so they will always be better. As the 35mm image circle is a
'standard' of sorts and is covered by an awful lot of lenses out there,
FF becomes the best solution for the "35mm" DSLR market (unless you want
to RF it with the new Leica M9 and suffer its ergonomic and FL limits).

snip

As digital sensors improve: while a larger sensor will have a higher
signal to noise ratio, will that improvement be visible in the final
print size many people use? What he was trying to say is if you can't
see any difference between the prints made from 2 different size sensors
in a given print size, is there actually any improvement to the larger
sensor?

No, however, you do lose cropability and then print large. That will show.

Of course people may want to use lenses they already own designed for a
certain format etc but that isn't what is being argued. I personally
like a smaller camera sometimes and haven't seen a full frame camera as
small as the E410/pancake combo and not sure that's going to happen
anytime soon. Just like in film days, I didn't limit myself to one
format. Don't see any reason to now either :-)

Most will prefer a single format for practical or economic reasons. And
of course with Oly 4/3, that's what you get!

The real issue is physics as described above. I fully expect a Hassy
645 (ish) digital at 30 Mpix to blow away a Sony/Nikon 24.6 Mpix camera.
Doesn't mean I'll buy one. (Though I might buy a back for my film
'blad eventually).

Alan Browne wrote:


The real issue is physics as described above. I fully expect a Hassy
645 (ish) digital at 30 Mpix to blow away a Sony/Nikon 24.6 Mpix camera.
Doesn't mean I'll buy one. (Though I might buy a back for my film
'blad eventually).


Depends on the size of the print. I highly doubt at 8X10 print size you
would see ANY difference. Might be hard pressed to see the difference
between a 10MP APS-c and one. Again unless you're pixel peeping.

As far as the "cropability", that was a lame argument with film and
still is with digital :-) You shouldn't have to do anything other than
VERY minor crops if you know what your doing.

Stephanie

wrote in message ...
Alan Browne wrote:


The real issue is physics as described above. I fully expect a Hassy 645
(ish) digital at 30 Mpix to blow away a Sony/Nikon 24.6 Mpix camera.
Doesn't mean I'll buy one. (Though I might buy a back for my film 'blad
eventually).


Depends on the size of the print. I highly doubt at 8X10 print size you
would see ANY difference. Might be hard pressed to see the difference
between a 10MP APS-c and one. Again unless you're pixel peeping.

As far as the "cropability", that was a lame argument with film and still
is with digital :-) You shouldn't have to do anything other than VERY
minor crops if you know what your doing.

Why very minor crops?
Carefull shooting and cropping gives you the opportunity to simulate long
focal lengths.

OldBoy wrote:
wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:


The real issue is physics as described above. I fully expect a Hassy
645 (ish) digital at 30 Mpix to blow away a Sony/Nikon 24.6 Mpix
camera. Doesn't mean I'll buy one. (Though I might buy a back for my
film 'blad eventually).


Depends on the size of the print. I highly doubt at 8X10 print size
you would see ANY difference. Might be hard pressed to see the
difference between a 10MP APS-c and one. Again unless you're pixel
peeping.

As far as the "cropability", that was a lame argument with film and
still is with digital :-) You shouldn't have to do anything other than
VERY minor crops if you know what your doing.

Why very minor crops?
Carefull shooting and cropping gives you the opportunity to simulate
long focal lengths.



Because cropping always kills more quality than using the correct focal
length lens. And think about what you're saying here, than a small
sensor can't produce "high quality" but that a major crop from a larger
sensor is high quality? O.o


Stephanie

OldBoy wrote:
wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:


The real issue is physics as described above. I fully expect a Hassy
645 (ish) digital at 30 Mpix to blow away a Sony/Nikon 24.6 Mpix
camera. Doesn't mean I'll buy one. (Though I might buy a back for my
film 'blad eventually).


Depends on the size of the print. I highly doubt at 8X10 print size
you would see ANY difference. Might be hard pressed to see the
difference between a 10MP APS-c and one. Again unless you're pixel
peeping.

As far as the "cropability", that was a lame argument with film and
still is with digital :-) You shouldn't have to do anything other than
VERY minor crops if you know what your doing.

Why very minor crops?
Carefull shooting and cropping gives you the opportunity to simulate
long focal lengths.

Don't argue with the troll, waste of bandwidth. He's shot his entire load.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:51:15 +0200, "OldBoy" wrote:

wrote in message ...
Alan Browne wrote:


The real issue is physics as described above. I fully expect a Hassy 645
(ish) digital at 30 Mpix to blow away a Sony/Nikon 24.6 Mpix camera.
Doesn't mean I'll buy one. (Though I might buy a back for my film 'blad
eventually).


Depends on the size of the print. I highly doubt at 8X10 print size you
would see ANY difference. Might be hard pressed to see the difference
between a 10MP APS-c and one. Again unless you're pixel peeping.

As far as the "cropability", that was a lame argument with film and still
is with digital :-) You shouldn't have to do anything other than VERY
minor crops if you know what your doing.

Why very minor crops?
Carefull shooting and cropping gives you the opportunity to simulate long
focal lengths.

Now you're just being a troll. That's what long focal-length lenses are
for. Why pay for all that sensor if you're not going to put it to good use?
Your argument is that of either a shoddy beginner or pure troll. It's
difficult to say which.

This is the same kind of argument that's used by base beginners who pride
themselves on their burst shooting rates. If they just take enough images
there might be something worth seeing in one of them one day. If you just
capture enough of a wide-angle image you can hunt around in your images and
find something to crop out of it at a 640x480 resolution some day. If you
always shoot with an 18mm lens at high-speed burst rates so you can spend
days hunting through your wastes of frames for something worth cropping out
of them then you must be a talented photographer.

Go read some books on the basics of photography. You're in dire need.

wrote in message ...
OldBoy wrote:
wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:


The real issue is physics as described above. I fully expect a Hassy
645 (ish) digital at 30 Mpix to blow away a Sony/Nikon 24.6 Mpix
camera. Doesn't mean I'll buy one. (Though I might buy a back for my
film 'blad eventually).


Depends on the size of the print. I highly doubt at 8X10 print size you
would see ANY difference. Might be hard pressed to see the difference
between a 10MP APS-c and one. Again unless you're pixel peeping.

As far as the "cropability", that was a lame argument with film and
still is with digital :-) You shouldn't have to do anything other than
VERY minor crops if you know what your doing.

Why very minor crops?
Carefull shooting and cropping gives you the opportunity to simulate long
focal lengths.



Because cropping always kills more quality than using the correct focal
length lens.

That depends on some skills and the gear you're using.
By cropping a picture taken with a EF 70-200 f/4 L IS on a EOS 50D you
easily can beat a 800mm mirror lens.

And think about what you're saying here, than a small sensor can't produce
"high quality" but that a major crop from a larger sensor is high quality?
O.o

I didn't say that, but since you can't crop properly with your gear you
prove yourself wrong.

OldBoy wrote:
wrote in message


And think about what you're saying here, than a small sensor can't
produce "high quality" but that a major crop from a larger sensor is
high quality? O.o

I didn't say that, but since you can't crop properly with your gear you
prove yourself wrong.

"Crop properly"? Using your example is somehow any different than my
using a 50-200 with no crop? I fail to understand your point. I don't
need a 800mm mirror lens either.

Stephe