A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The E3 at ISO 3200



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 19th 08, 01:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Pete D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,613
Default The E3 at ISO 3200


"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Yoshi" wrote in message
...

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , Yvan Descartes says...

This is a 50% crop processed with Noise Ninja:
http://myolympus.org/document.php?id=13082

noisy , shame on that 4/3 sensor

That image is not noisy.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site



Alfred, theres not much point trying to reason with this group of
equipment geeks. "Mine is bigger/better than yours" is the level of their
photography.

Yoshi



Unlike Olympus owners - who's chief topic of conversation appears to be
'which noise reduction utility works best'

I daresay that the folks at Noise Ninja & Neat Image are huge fans of 4/3


Still, cheer up - think of those yummy 'telecentric lenses - they 'made
for digital', you know......


Reminds me of MAC users, best thing a MAC can do is emulate a Windows
machine or the Linux users, best thing they can do is emulate a Windows
machine...........


  #22  
Old January 19th 08, 04:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default The E3 at ISO 3200

Yoshi wrote:
"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
In article , Yvan Descartes says...
"Alfred Molon" a écrit dans le message de
In article , Yvan Descartes says...

who said full frame ? And I only carry 1 lens 95% of the time (16-45
F4 on
the Pentax and a 17-55 F2.8 on the 40D). I use the 70-200 for sport a
few times a year only.

There is not much size difference between a 4/3 and an APS sensor. Who
complains about the small size of 4/3 sensors is looking at full frame
cameras.

not really, the 4/3 sensor is a lot smaller. They cant match APS since
the
beginning, wake up.


Define what "a lot" means. It's not half the size of APS.
-- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site Quoting from a post by Brian Southward on photo.net: "In absolute area, 4/3 is 28% of the 35mm full frame, and APS-C is 38%, so they are closer than the quarter and half quoted above. Also the actual dimensions are 22.2 x 14.8 for APS-C and 18.0 x 13.5 for 4/3, so because of the different aspect ratio, actually making prints reduces the difference. When you are printing out to 8 x 10, the magnification from APS-C would be x14, from 4/3 would be x15." I'm not convinced that the quality difference between a 14X enlargment and a 15x enlargement is significant. Yoshi


Man that's some weird quoting... and math. I'm just going to post this
so I can read it & check later.
  #23  
Old January 19th 08, 08:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,151
Default The E3 at ISO 3200

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , David J
Taylor says...
Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
Full frame cameras have obviusly even lower noise levels, but the
lenses are 8 (eight) times as bulky and heavy. If you enjoy breaking
your back walking around with a backpack full of gear, go ahead.


Were that true, I would happily have bought 4/3, but sadly a 4/3
system is not eight times lighter or eight times less bulky that a
typical (DX) DSLR system.


Read before you write. I wrote "Full frame cameras".


Both full-frame and DX have significantly lower noise levels than 4/3. DX
is the non-pro price level competition to 4/3 which is the comparison the
great majority of users will be making. Even if you restrict your
comparison to the very small full-frame segment of the market, the eight
times doesn't hold true, as David Littleboy pointed out.

Cheers,
David


  #24  
Old January 19th 08, 12:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default The E3 at ISO 3200

In article , David J
Taylor says...

Both full-frame and DX have significantly lower noise levels than 4/3.


Noise levels are proportional to the square root of the area. Since
there is only a 35% area difference between 4/3 and APS (328/243), we
are talking about a 16% difference in noise levels, i.e. ISO 400 vs. ISO
464 - not really something significant.

Even if you restrict your
comparison to the very small full-frame segment of the market, the eight
times doesn't hold true, as David Littleboy pointed out.


The factor 8 comes because the area of a full frame sensor is four times
(well actually just 3.5 times, but let's use 4 for simplicity), so the
volume (and weight) will be a factor of 8.
You have to compare same with same - a lens with the same field of view
and *aperture*, for instance a 4/3 lens with 300mm and F4 with a full
frame lens with 600mm and F4.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #25  
Old January 19th 08, 12:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,151
Default The E3 at ISO 3200

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , David J
Taylor says...

Both full-frame and DX have significantly lower noise levels than
4/3.


Noise levels are proportional to the square root of the area. Since
there is only a 35% area difference between 4/3 and APS (328/243), we
are talking about a 16% difference in noise levels, i.e. ISO 400 vs.
ISO 464 - not really something significant.


Assuming all else is equal, but the sensors may not be equal.

Even if you restrict your
comparison to the very small full-frame segment of the market, the
eight times doesn't hold true, as David Littleboy pointed out.


The factor 8 comes because the area of a full frame sensor is four
times (well actually just 3.5 times, but let's use 4 for simplicity),
so the volume (and weight) will be a factor of 8.
You have to compare same with same - a lens with the same field of
view and *aperture*, for instance a 4/3 lens with 300mm and F4 with a
full frame lens with 600mm and F4.


David Littleboy has already pointed out the fallacy of that argument. For
a sensor with half the linear dimension, capturing a quarter of the light,
you need twice the f/number, so that 600mm f/4 compared with 300mm f/2.

I would love to think that I could have saved a factor of eight in weight,
size and bulk by getting a 4/3 system, but comparing the systems at the
time I purchased there wasn't /that/ much difference (a few percent
perhaps), and (for me) the ease of use the the Nikon and its system
capabilities far outweighed (oops) the very slightly smaller size of the
Olympus. I really did want to buy 4/3, but it didn't make sense in the
end.

Cheers,
David


  #26  
Old January 19th 08, 01:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default The E3 at ISO 3200


"Alfred Molon" wrote:
David J Taylor says...

Both full-frame and DX have significantly lower noise levels than 4/3.


Noise levels are proportional to the square root of the area. Since
there is only a 35% area difference between 4/3 and APS (328/243), we
are talking about a 16% difference in noise levels, i.e. ISO 400 vs. ISO
464 - not really something significant.

Even if you restrict your
comparison to the very small full-frame segment of the market, the eight
times doesn't hold true, as David Littleboy pointed out.


The factor 8 comes because the area of a full frame sensor is four times
(well actually just 3.5 times, but let's use 4 for simplicity), so the
volume (and weight) will be a factor of 8.
You have to compare same with same - a lens with the same field of view
and *aperture*, for instance a 4/3 lens with 300mm and F4 with a full
frame lens with 600mm and F4.


You repeat the same mistake: the full-frame camera only needs an f/8 lens
here to match the performance of an f/4 lens on a 4/3 camera. At which
point, the DOF, image noise level, and shutter speed are the same.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #27  
Old January 19th 08, 07:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default The E3 at ISO 3200

In article , David J
Taylor says...

David Littleboy has already pointed out the fallacy of that argument. For
a sensor with half the linear dimension, capturing a quarter of the light,
you need twice the f/number, so that 600mm f/4 compared with 300mm f/2.


That's nonsense. At the same ISO level you need the same
aperture/exposure time combination for a given scene, regardless of the
sensor size.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #28  
Old January 19th 08, 08:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,151
Default The E3 at ISO 3200

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , David J
Taylor says...

David Littleboy has already pointed out the fallacy of that
argument. For a sensor with half the linear dimension, capturing a
quarter of the light, you need twice the f/number, so that 600mm f/4
compared with 300mm f/2.


That's nonsense. At the same ISO level you need the same
aperture/exposure time combination for a given scene, regardless of
the sensor size.


He was talking about the same SNR.

David


  #29  
Old January 19th 08, 11:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default The E3 at ISO 3200

Paul Furman wrote:
Yoshi wrote:
"Alfred Molon" wrote in message In article
, Yvan Descartes says...
"Alfred Molon" a écrit dans le message de
In article , Yvan Descartes says...

who said full frame ? And I only carry 1 lens 95% of the time
(16-45 F4 on
the Pentax and a 17-55 F2.8 on the 40D). I use the 70-200 for
sport a
few times a year only.

There is not much size difference between a 4/3 and an APS
sensor. Who
complains about the small size of 4/3 sensors is looking at full
frame
cameras.

not really, the 4/3 sensor is a lot smaller. They cant match APS
since the
beginning, wake up.


Define what "a lot" means. It's not half the size of APS.

Quoting from a post by Brian Southward on
photo.net: "In absolute area, 4/3 is 28% of the 35mm full frame, and
APS-C is 38%, so they are closer than the quarter and half quoted
above.



Also the actual dimensions are 22.2 x 14.8 for APS-C and 18.0 x
13.5 for 4/3,


The central part of my old disassembled D70 sensor measures about 25x17
but that doesn't mean anything. Olympus says 24x16:
http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_7045.htm

so because of the different aspect ratio, actually
making prints reduces the difference. When you are printing out to 8 x
10, the magnification from APS-C would be x14, from 4/3 would be x15."
I'm not convinced that the quality difference between a 14X enlargment
and a 15x enlargement is significant.


See my last line below. I disagree with that math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SensorSizes.png
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor+sizes
FX 36 x 24 864sq 43mm diag
DX 23.6 x 15.7 370sq (42% of FX) 28mm diag
22.2 x 14.8 329sq (38% of FX) 27mm diag Canon
4/3 17.3 x 13 225sq (26% of FX) 21mm diag (61% of DX)

If we compare an 8x10 print
I get the Oly as 68% of DX or 75% of the Canon APS sensor.

And for a 3:2 print
I get the Oly as 53% of DX or 60% of the Canon APS sensor.
or 23% of full frame

Taking the generous 75%, 15x compares to 11.25x enlargement, not 14.
Worst case of 53%, 15x compares to 8x enlargement, not 14.
  #30  
Old January 20th 08, 01:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default The E3 at ISO 3200

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alfred Molon" wrote:
David J Taylor says...

Both full-frame and DX have significantly lower noise levels than 4/3.

Noise levels are proportional to the square root of the area. Since
there is only a 35% area difference between 4/3 and APS (328/243), we
are talking about a 16% difference in noise levels, i.e. ISO 400 vs. ISO
464 - not really something significant.

Even if you restrict your
comparison to the very small full-frame segment of the market, the eight
times doesn't hold true, as David Littleboy pointed out.

The factor 8 comes because the area of a full frame sensor is four times
(well actually just 3.5 times, but let's use 4 for simplicity), so the
volume (and weight) will be a factor of 8.
You have to compare same with same - a lens with the same field of view
and *aperture*, for instance a 4/3 lens with 300mm and F4 with a full
frame lens with 600mm and F4.


You repeat the same mistake: the full-frame camera only needs an f/8 lens
here to match the performance of an f/4 lens on a 4/3 camera. At which
point, the DOF, image noise level, and shutter speed are the same.


Right, you trade ISO for DOF to get comparable results with different
format sizes. But if DOF isn't a constraint, the larger format can shoot
in lower light with less noise and can go places the smaller format
simply cannot go. The 4/3 system needs a 75mm f/0.25 (or something) to
match the low light ability & noise of a full frame camera with a 300mm
f/2.8.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The E3 at ISO 3200 Chris[_4_] Digital Photography 0 January 18th 08 01:07 AM
T-Max 3200 carbon based life form In The Darkroom 15 July 24th 07 08:50 PM
20D and ISO 3200 Mr. Mark Digital SLR Cameras 19 August 14th 05 05:18 AM
ISO 3200? Patrick L. 35mm Photo Equipment 48 September 23rd 04 02:08 PM
ISO 3200 ? Annika1980 Digital Photography 7 September 20th 04 03:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.