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

Four-thirds?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #361  
Old July 19th 04, 01:45 PM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Four-thirds?

From: "Justin Thyme"

You seem to be caught up in the specifications of the focal length, treating
the lens as an independent item


It IS an independent item. If you use several different formats as I do you'd
realize that a 300 mm lens is a 300 mm lens, it just has varying field-of-views
depending on how much coverage it offers.

to take the same photo you will need a 300mm Lens on the olympus,
600mm on a 35mm or a 400mm on a 300D.
Which of those lenses in F2.8 will be the lightest?


It's NOT the "same photo" of course ... compared to full frame it's only 28% as
large!

To see the absurdity of the Oly lens design, which was supposed to be lighter
because it has to cover such a smaller area, consider what would happen if
Canon lost their minds and brought out a 4/3 sized sensor (call it the dMick)
that accepted EF mount lenses, which of course they could easily do (just dumb
down the sensor size used in the 6 Mpix bodies). Then the 300 f/2.8 L IS would
offer the exact same image size on the dMick as the Oly gets on the E-1.
Except the Canon lens is a pound lighter, $3,200 cheaper and offers Image
Stabilization. This shows how poorly designed the initial 4/3 system is.

It is to be expected that a 300mm 4/3 lens will be heavier than a 300mm 35mm
lens - it has to be made to be able to give a sharper image.


Nonsense, it should be at least 20% lighter with the same image quality (if
they can get it) since the coverage is only 28% as large as the 35 mm lens.

You guys are starting to sound like Preddy

Bill


  #362  
Old July 19th 04, 02:38 PM
Clyde
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Four-thirds?

Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article 3xwKc.122954$Oq2.35285@attbi_s52, dy
says...

That's usually irrelevant. Absolute top quality isn't usually a
marketable feature. The market only cares if it's good enough. Most of
the time "good enough" isn't the state-of-the-art.



Sure... until you lose business to someone who can do images you
*can't*.


That is the point - you have to know your business and fit the tools for
it. If I lose business because I don't have the right tool, either have
haven't focused my business properly or I don't have the right tool.

If I'm a photojournalist, I don't need a EOS 1Ds. It's way overkill for
the final image. Does that mean I buy and use a 1Ds - just in case I
want to compete outside my professional area of expertise? If so, I'm
spending more money and carrying more weight than I need to. That isn't
very smart.

An E-1 will work just fine for most photojournalism uses. It weighs less
(and that is important in PJ) and costs less. I can buy 3 E-1 bodies for
the price of one EOS 1D MII. Having the backups is way more important
than having the 3 extra MP that I'll never use.

Of course, there are other considerations and variations that need to
come into play. If someone will be letting you use their Canon or Nikon
lenses, that could be a big issue. If you are shooting for National
Geographic, you will need more pixels. (I don't shoot for them.)

There are plenty of other pro careers that can make excellent use of the
E-1. Certainly not all types of pros would find that the best tool, but
some would. For example, MY wedding business finds it the ideal tool.
There may be some weddings businesses that would want the extra pixels
of the 1Ds. There are plenty of wedding businesses that insist that MF
film is still the tool that is needed; those people very well might put
a 20-25 MP back on those MF bodies in the future.

My point is that your blanket statements that the E-1 is never the right
tool is closed-minded, ignorant, and/or just plain stupid. Your mostly
irrelevant and anal technical arguments don't do anything to support it
either.

The Olympus is a pro tool that will be the best tool for many pro
photographers. True, it will probably be a minority, but there is
nothing wrong with that. I'm pretty sure that Olympus has figured all
that into its market plan.

Clyde
  #365  
Old July 19th 04, 11:41 PM
Brian C. Baird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Four-thirds?

In article O9QKc.115116$JR4.63716@attbi_s54, dy
says...

If I'm a photojournalist, I don't need a EOS 1Ds. It's way overkill for
the final image. Does that mean I buy and use a 1Ds - just in case I
want to compete outside my professional area of expertise? If so, I'm
spending more money and carrying more weight than I need to. That isn't
very smart.


If you're a photojournalist, you'll pack a faster camera - like the 1D
Mark II. You need the burst.

An E-1 will work just fine for most photojournalism uses. It weighs less
(and that is important in PJ) and costs less. I can buy 3 E-1 bodies for
the price of one EOS 1D MII. Having the backups is way more important
than having the 3 extra MP that I'll never use.


Of course, it's burst mode is lame and chances are you *could* miss that
Pulitzer shot because you were stuck waiting for it to write to the CF
card. The E-1 is slower than the 10D, D70 and 300D in terms of burst
and write speed. This is unacceptable for a pro camera.

My point is that your blanket statements that the E-1 is never the right
tool is closed-minded, ignorant, and/or just plain stupid. Your mostly
irrelevant and anal technical arguments don't do anything to support it
either.


I never said that. I've said it's a fine camera, but it doesn't perform
as well as cheaper cameras and it doesn't deliver on the promises of the
4/3 standard. Anything else you have imagined.

 




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
Rule of Thirds? Toke Eskildsen General Photography Techniques 65 January 11th 04 10:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:12 PM.


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.