Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading

Alan Browne wrote:
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.


*translation, my points don't hold water*

This person it arguing FOR small sensors! A 50-200 on a 4/3 is doing
what he is talking about at a fraction of the cost. I don't need a 800mm
mirror lens either! People like the troll who started the thread always
play the "There is nothing smaller about 4/3" or any smaller sensor
camera, while ignoring the fact a 50-200 gives the reach and FOV of a
100-400 at a much smaller size package. Sure you can do this with a full
frame camera, but then you can't play the "small sensors aren't high
enough quality" card at the same time. THAT is what you have done here
and call "him a troll"??

Stephanie



Stephanie

wrote in message ...
Alan Browne wrote:
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.


*translation, my points don't hold water*

This person it arguing FOR small sensors! A 50-200 on a 4/3 is doing what
he is talking about at a fraction of the cost.

No, there's a huge quality difference.

I don't need a 800mm mirror lens either! People like the troll who started
the thread always play the "There is nothing smaller about 4/3" or any
smaller sensor camera, while ignoring the fact a 50-200 gives the reach
and FOV of a 100-400 at a much smaller size package.

The reach yes, not the quality.
See this (EF 70-200 f/4 @170mm on a 40D), crop and original:
http://www.boels069.nl/Ape/

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


*translation, my points don't hold water*

This person it arguing FOR small sensors! A 50-200 on a 4/3 is doing
what he is talking about at a fraction of the cost.

No, there's a huge quality difference.

I don't need a 800mm mirror lens either! People like the troll who
started the thread always play the "There is nothing smaller about
4/3" or any smaller sensor camera, while ignoring the fact a 50-200
gives the reach and FOV of a 100-400 at a much smaller size package.

The reach yes, not the quality.
See this (EF 70-200 f/4 @170mm on a 40D), crop and original:
http://www.boels069.nl/Ape/



Nice shot but not beyond the quality of any modern DSLR at that FOV. I
don't get your point.

The below was shot with an E1 and a 300mm F2.8 nikkor. I took that
format because I wanted the extra reach and wasn't going over 11X14 with
the prints. I don't see this as being "poor quality" but YMMV.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...oatprint10.jpg

Stephanie

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


*translation, my points don't hold water*

This person it arguing FOR small sensors! A 50-200 on a 4/3 is doing
what he is talking about at a fraction of the cost.

No, there's a huge quality difference.

I don't need a 800mm mirror lens either! People like the troll who
started the thread always play the "There is nothing smaller about 4/3"
or any smaller sensor camera, while ignoring the fact a 50-200 gives the
reach and FOV of a 100-400 at a much smaller size package.

The reach yes, not the quality.
See this (EF 70-200 f/4 @170mm on a 40D), crop and original:
http://www.boels069.nl/Ape/



Nice shot but not beyond the quality of any modern DSLR at that FOV. I
don't get your point.

The below was shot with an E1 and a 300mm F2.8 nikkor. I took that format
because I wanted the extra reach and wasn't going over 11X14 with the
prints. I don't see this as being "poor quality" but YMMV.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...oatprint10.jpg

It's nice, but it's only 800 x 600. That's fine for a small picture on a
monitor, but I don't know what you think it has to do with anything like an
11 x 14 print, as far as quality goes.

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

*translation, my points don't hold water*

This person it arguing FOR small sensors! A 50-200 on a 4/3 is doing
what he is talking about at a fraction of the cost.
No, there's a huge quality difference.

I don't need a 800mm mirror lens either! People like the troll who
started the thread always play the "There is nothing smaller about 4/3"
or any smaller sensor camera, while ignoring the fact a 50-200 gives the
reach and FOV of a 100-400 at a much smaller size package.
The reach yes, not the quality.
See this (EF 70-200 f/4 @170mm on a 40D), crop and original:
http://www.boels069.nl/Ape/


Nice shot but not beyond the quality of any modern DSLR at that FOV. I
don't get your point.

The below was shot with an E1 and a 300mm F2.8 nikkor. I took that format
because I wanted the extra reach and wasn't going over 11X14 with the
prints. I don't see this as being "poor quality" but YMMV.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...oatprint10.jpg

It's nice, but it's only 800 x 600. That's fine for a small picture on a
monitor, but I don't know what you think it has to do with anything like an
11 x 14 print, as far as quality goes.




Because you can't show someone what a 11X14 print looks like online. If
I posted a full image, all you'd end up with is pixel peepers blowing it
up to 30X40 inches or more, complaining about noise that isn't visible
in a 11X14 print. No one would bother to print it at 11X14 and look at
the print. And if they did, who know what kinda printer they have, if
the printer profile they use matches their printer, what software they
use to print with etc.

THAT is my point.

Stephanie

wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message ...

The below was shot with an E1 and a 300mm F2.8 nikkor. I took that format
because I wanted the extra reach and wasn't going over 11X14 with the
prints. I don't see this as being "poor quality" but YMMV.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...oatprint10.jpg

It's nice, but it's only 800 x 600. That's fine for a small picture on a
monitor, but I don't know what you think it has to do with anything like an
11 x 14 print, as far as quality goes.

Because you can't show someone what a 11X14 print looks like online. If
I posted a full image, all you'd end up with is pixel peepers blowing it
up to 30X40 inches or more, complaining about noise that isn't visible
in a 11X14 print. No one would bother to print it at 11X14 and look at
the print. And if they did, who know what kinda printer they have, if
the printer profile they use matches their printer, what software they
use to print with etc.

THAT is my point.

The problem of pixel peeping at innappropriate resolution arises
because you're interested in 11x14 print quality and post a larger
image for discussion. So why not post an appropriately downsized
image, so that what the pixel peepers will see is the same as what
examination of your own favoured printer delivers at 11x14?

--
Chris Malcolm