Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading

"Chris H" wrote:

The Medium format is also struggling.

You need numbers to back that up. They seem to keep coming out with new
backs with more and more pixels. (Also, I've never seen a "the" in front of
medium format befo is that a Briticism or did you mess up?)

It always was [comparatively] a niche market due to cost.

Ceratinly in digital, which is presumably all you were talking about. There
are four MF film cameras on my desk.

The top end Nikon and Canons are nibbling at
the MF market. All it needs is a 36-40MP DSLR and I think the MF will
also go.

I just moved from 12 to 21MP, and my lenses all needed to be replaced (it's
actually a bit more complicated than that: the 70-200/4.0 IS retains its
status as god's one true gift to mankind). So I'm not convinced 24x36 can
really support 48MP; 21MP really does require the 24TSE II, Nikon 14-24, and
Zeiss prime class lenses and the effort to get 1.4 times sharper images than
that onto a 48MP sensor may just be beyond the optics.

So if the MF guys can come up with FF 645 (46x52mm), it'll remain one large
step ahead of 24x36mm. Especially if Pentax comes through, since they have
affordable glass (yes, this is a cheap shot at Zeiss and the Fujiblad) that
coughs up the resolution.

I'm not sure that an affordable Pentax would be in my future, though. 21MP
with good glass is all I need, for now anyway.

Given that only a decade ago a Pro digital camera was 2MP and now it is
12-25MP I think the medium format will also fade out over the next
decade.

But the last decade has been an odd decade. I doubt we will see anywhere
near the changes over the next 10 years.

But, oops. The 6MP Kodak DCS 460 was released almost _15_ years ago. Oops.

Of course I could be completely wrong and 126 film makes a comeback. :-)

You fiend. There's coffee sputtered all over my keyboard...

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Chris H wrote:
In message , Alan Browne
writes
Miles Bader wrote:
Kennedy McEwen writes:
They have made no attempt to disguise the fact that their business
model has been "cheap and cheerful" for the past 25 years, and they
have been very successful in leveraging that, and more strength to
them!
Still, I think the lament of many on a group like this is that back
in
the day, companies like Olympus (and Pentax) managed to offer a very
appealing mixture of relatively cheap, small and light, but _also_ very
high quality (not just in terms of pictures either, those cameras were
very nicely built, and just felt _good_).
I think there's a perception that the 4/3 stuff is a sign that
they've
ditched "high quality" as a goal.
That depends on what your notion of high quality is. They can
assuredly make the highest quality 4/3 system if they want. They will
never match the highest quality FF system. For that, they've lost the
opportunity to retain and gain the pickiest amateurs and pros.

If that is the niche they are comfortable in, so be it.

I think they will disappear. The reason is the market. I have seen it in
other non-photographic areas.

The really cheap stuff (in this case the low end P&S) survives and the
high end Nikon/Canon survives. What goes is the middle ground.


The numbers sold don't back up your reasoning. The "nitch market" is the
full frame stuff. Far more smaller sensor cameras are being sold and
very few people buy into canon/nikon ever end up spending several
thousand on a camera body.

Stephanie

Stephanie

Truth Be Told wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:11:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

I print often at 18x12 (at home) and larger from the lab occasionally.
My real world, you see. If I could find some good 24 x 16 stock (at a
good price) I'd be printing 22.5 x 15 just as regularly (25.5 x 17 paper
would be perfect, actually).

You can print that large using nothing but a 6 megapixel camera IF YOU ARE
A WORTHWHILE PHOTOGRAPHER TO BEGIN WITH. 110ppi is plenty enough
information to carry any subject worth displaying.

Some, yes. Any? No way.

--
lsmft

wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:


Nobody did. OTOH, considering a larger sensor to have no useful
advantage over a smaller sensor is nothing short of defending lower
quality 'cause you don't have the larger sensor. You might as well
get a P&S sized sensor by your logic.

If I wanted a "larger sensor" I can just go shoot some 6X9 film and have
it scanned.

I scan 6x6 all the time (and can scan 6x9) for prints. It's not an
issue (oh, except development, waiting and so on). Digital is fast and
clean.

You're like so many Oly users: trapped at 4/3 so defending it to death
while the rest of us use sensors that are 3.5x larger with all the
attendant benefits (eg: like you would claim for 6x9 over 35mm film).

Again in the print sizes most people make, 11X14 and
smaller, I just can't see any difference but in larger sizes I can if
you inspect them up close. Sure if your doing 50% crops at 18X12 (kinda
a strange size..) maybe YOU do need a big sensor? I don't buy it's the
only way to make "high quality" prints.

I can't help what you don't "buy". See above.


And lets not be absurd here, of course a P&S sensor is way too small to
be in consideration here. When you factor in cropping an APS-c sensor to
fit the normal format picture frames (8X10), a 4/3 sensor usuable area
isn't that much smaller.



Further, one should (once the archive is done) edit the full size
image for all qualitative changes before resizing to print. If you
don't think this affects the tonal/colour gradients (esp. in smooth
colour areas) and fine print detail you are quite mistaken. And from
there, of course, the issue of signal/noise qualities come around all
over again.


I guess I haven't seen this and yes I have worked with drum scanned 6X9
and 4X5 negatives so have worked from much larger files that what you're
talking about.

I work with 6x6 scans all the time. You can't have a numbers race with
me except on 4x5 which I can't scan with my scanner.

Again: if you really believe a 14 Mpix sensor (whatever) that is 3.5
times smaller than a 24.6 Mpix sensor is "better for your use" is the
right answer, then all the power to you. Fact is, like so many Oly
users you are noise bound by the sensor size.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:36:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Truth Be Told wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:11:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


I print often at 18x12 (at home) and larger from the lab
occasionally. My real world, you see. If I could find some good 24
x 16 stock (at a good price) I'd be printing 22.5 x 15 just as
regularly (25.5 x 17 paper would be perfect, actually).

You can print that large using nothing but a 6 megapixel camera IF
YOU ARE A WORTHWHILE PHOTOGRAPHER TO BEGIN WITH. 110ppi is plenty
enough information to carry any subject worth displaying. Some
careful upsampling, a minor Fourier transform to tighten up the
miniscule 100th-of-an-inch soft edges, and it's good to go. As long
as the subject is worth looking at then nobody is ever going to look
for pixels and minute details. If people are looking at the details
and pixels in your image instead of the subject itself then you've
obviously missed having any talent at all when it comes to
photography. Considering how important all this is to you, I'll take
these over-the-top technical requirements of yours as self-evident
proof that your photography royally sucks. There can be no other
reason.

So where are your 6 megapixel 24x16s on display?

You would be surprised to know that even a 1024x768 image (0.8 megapixel
camera) of an alligator's skull in a raging fire was enlarged to a 13"x19"
image and is on proud display in a posh hunting-lodge for the wealthy.
Purchased at great cost. Taken with one of the first digital cameras. The
image is so striking that it can withstand that much enlargement. This is
something that is far beyond your, or any other troll's, comprehension so
there's no way that it can be explained to you. It would be like trying to
make a congenitally blind person see and understand the color green.
Attempting that educational task would be a waste of my time, and yours.
You need to learn to be content with remaining ignorant to the
possibilities and why they are wholly possible. Just because a blind person
can't see nor comprehend the color green doesn't mean it doesn't exist for
everyone else. That shall be your lifelong analogy that perfectly describes
your congenital mental defects.

Truth Be Told wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:36:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
Truth Be Told wrote:
[22.5 x 15]

You can print that large using nothing but a 6 megapixel camera

You can print that large using nothing but a 9 pixel camera.
Just turn the outer 8 pixels white and the inner black, and
it's art. Heck, you can do that with a *one*-pixel camera.
Do a google image search on black square and see for yourself.

IF YOU ARE A WORTHWHILE PHOTOGRAPHER TO BEGIN WITH.

As proven above, you don't need to be a photographer *at all*
to print a one-pixel image at arbitrary size.

110ppi is plenty
enough information to carry any subject worth displaying.

Guess it[1] has never seen a datailed, *large* map or aerial or
satellite picture. Guess it has no idea of the wow-factor
when one zooms into the print by walking closer and closer,
seeing ever more detail.

As long
as the subject is worth looking at then nobody is ever going to look
for pixels and minute details.

Guess it has never studied a picture in detail. One glance
is all it gives any print. Probably gupls down wine, uses
books for lighting zigarettes and is a gourmand as well.

If people are looking at the details
and pixels in your image instead of the subject itself then you've
obviously missed having any talent at all when it comes to
photography.

Of course it cannot understand why someone would look at the
canvas and brush strokes of a painting, or rather, that if
someone does, the painting must be crap.

Considering how important all this is to you, I'll take
these over-the-top technical requirements of yours as self-evident
proof that your photography royally sucks. There can be no other
reason.

Considering the crap it spews, it's not telling any truth.
Of course it knows that, for if it was saying the truth, it'd
be using its real name. There can be no other reason.

So where are your 6 megapixel 24x16s on display?

You would be surprised to know that even a 1024x768 image (0.8 megapixel
camera) of an alligator's skull in a raging fire was enlarged to a 13"x19"
image and is on proud display in a posh hunting-lodge for the wealthy.

We're all surprised, but many wealthy can be fooled easily.

Purchased at great cost.

They though it was a painting. Cubism, you know?

This is
something that is far beyond your, or any other troll's, comprehension so
there's no way that it can be explained to you.

Not even it can explain it to itself, it being a troll.

[it admits it's blind and has mental defects]

Thought so, Lies Be Told.

-Wolfgang

[1] Trolls have no gender, they just have an agenda

Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:


Nobody did. OTOH, considering a larger sensor to have no useful
advantage over a smaller sensor is nothing short of defending lower
quality 'cause you don't have the larger sensor. You might as well
get a P&S sized sensor by your logic.

If I wanted a "larger sensor" I can just go shoot some 6X9 film and
have it scanned.

I scan 6x6 all the time (and can scan 6x9) for prints. It's not an
issue (oh, except development, waiting and so on). Digital is fast and
clean.

You're like so many Oly users: trapped at 4/3 so defending it to death
while the rest of us use sensors that are 3.5x larger with all the
attendant benefits (eg: like you would claim for 6x9 over 35mm film).

I guessed you missed I also use Canon gear too? I've borrowed a full
frame camera from a friend and honestly, in the size prints I make I
just don't see the difference. I assume by your comments here you owned
or have used some 4/3 stuff? And when I was shooting film, I didn't stop
using 35mm when I bought some medium format gear. No reason to use
medium format if the print size didn't warrant it.



Again in the print sizes most people make, 11X14 and smaller, I just
can't see any difference but in larger sizes I can if you inspect them
up close. Sure if your doing 50% crops at 18X12 (kinda a strange
size..) maybe YOU do need a big sensor? I don't buy it's the only way
to make "high quality" prints.

I can't help what you don't "buy". See above.

Haven't seen what you're talking about in final prints is why I don't
"buy it". Obviously you "bought it" and are defending your expense to
someone, maybe just yourself?



And lets not be absurd here, of course a P&S sensor is way too small
to be in consideration here. When you factor in cropping an APS-c
sensor to fit the normal format picture frames (8X10), a 4/3 sensor
usuable area isn't that much smaller.



Further, one should (once the archive is done) edit the full size
image for all qualitative changes before resizing to print. If you
don't think this affects the tonal/colour gradients (esp. in smooth
colour areas) and fine print detail you are quite mistaken. And from
there, of course, the issue of signal/noise qualities come around all
over again.


I guess I haven't seen this and yes I have worked with drum scanned
6X9 and 4X5 negatives so have worked from much larger files that what
you're talking about.

I work with 6x6 scans all the time. You can't have a numbers race with
me except on 4x5 which I can't scan with my scanner.

See the difference I think is my photography isn't a "numbers race". And
not going to start argueing how much "Larger my sensor is" using 6X9
over your puny 6X6 :-) Honestly in a 11X14 print NO ONE would be able to
see the difference in a 6X4.5 crop *with good optics* from a 6X7 crop
out of a 6X9.

Now if I wanted to print some oddball size print that used the full
negative in a 20X30+ size, you might start to see something but only if
you had to stand close and look at details (areal photograph?) of
something. In a normal photograph that stands on it's own at even
semi-normal viewing distances, you couldn't possibly begin to see
anything. If you have to stand that close for it to be "high quality",
people ARE admiring the quality of your gear, not the quality of your
photography.



Again: if you really believe a 14 Mpix sensor (whatever) that is 3.5
times smaller than a 24.6 Mpix sensor is "better for your use" is the
right answer, then all the power to you. Fact is, like so many Oly
users you are noise bound by the sensor size.

And like I said earlier, if you're pixel peeping as an indicator of what
"image quality" is, no arguement a large sensor wins. But when the
"noise" you guys talk about isn't visible in the final print, this
"image quality" issue is in ur head, not the final product.

One last time, I also use CANON GEAR so this isn't a brand biased issue
with me. Just what I've experienced in using multiple systems.

Stephanie

In article , Truth Be Told
wrote:

You would be surprised to know that even a 1024x768 image (0.8 megapixel
camera) of an alligator's skull in a raging fire was enlarged to a 13"x19"
image and is on proud display in a posh hunting-lodge for the wealthy.

that's 53 ppi, which will look like **** no matter what you do to it.

wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:


Nobody did. OTOH, considering a larger sensor to have no useful
advantage over a smaller sensor is nothing short of defending lower
quality 'cause you don't have the larger sensor. You might as well
get a P&S sized sensor by your logic.

If I wanted a "larger sensor" I can just go shoot some 6X9 film and
have it scanned.

I scan 6x6 all the time (and can scan 6x9) for prints. It's not an
issue (oh, except development, waiting and so on). Digital is fast
and clean.

You're like so many Oly users: trapped at 4/3 so defending it to death
while the rest of us use sensors that are 3.5x larger with all the
attendant benefits (eg: like you would claim for 6x9 over 35mm film).

I guessed you missed I also use Canon gear too? I've borrowed a full
frame camera from a friend and honestly, in the size prints I make I
just don't see the difference. I assume by your comments here you owned
or have used some 4/3 stuff? And when I was shooting film, I didn't stop
using 35mm when I bought some medium format gear. No reason to use
medium format if the print size didn't warrant it.

I'm bored with this. As I said earlier I don't have to defend a full
frame camera. You have to defend your cropped and nowhere up to go
camera. I still shoot 6x6, 35mm, cropped DSLR and FF DSLR as the
situation warrants. I certainly would not say that 35mm or the cropped
DSLR is adequate for all that I do.





Again in the print sizes most people make, 11X14 and smaller, I just
can't see any difference but in larger sizes I can if you inspect
them up close. Sure if your doing 50% crops at 18X12 (kinda a
strange size..) maybe YOU do need a big sensor? I don't buy it's the
only way to make "high quality" prints.

I can't help what you don't "buy". See above.

Haven't seen what you're talking about in final prints is why I don't
"buy it". Obviously you "bought it" and are defending your expense to
someone, maybe just yourself?

Not at all. I see the inherent weakness in small sensors printed large
as I often do. (And a recent VERY LARGE pano I did definitely benefited
from the large sensor/high pixel count).

And again, like all Oly 4/3 users who have no larger option (other than
jumping ship) you defend the indefensible.

Ta-ta. I'm not replying to you on this subject anymore.





And lets not be absurd here, of course a P&S sensor is way too small
to be in consideration here. When you factor in cropping an APS-c
sensor to fit the normal format picture frames (8X10), a 4/3 sensor
usuable area isn't that much smaller.



Further, one should (once the archive is done) edit the full size
image for all qualitative changes before resizing to print. If you
don't think this affects the tonal/colour gradients (esp. in smooth
colour areas) and fine print detail you are quite mistaken. And
from there, of course, the issue of signal/noise qualities come
around all over again.


I guess I haven't seen this and yes I have worked with drum scanned
6X9 and 4X5 negatives so have worked from much larger files that what
you're talking about.

I work with 6x6 scans all the time. You can't have a numbers race
with me except on 4x5 which I can't scan with my scanner.

See the difference I think is my photography isn't a "numbers race". And
not going to start argueing how much "Larger my sensor is" using 6X9
over your puny 6X6 :-) Honestly in a 11X14 print NO ONE would be able to
see the difference in a 6X4.5 crop *with good optics* from a 6X7 crop
out of a 6X9.

You're drifting again. The point here is this alone: Oly has noise
constrained its users with the 4/3 system. To believe otherwise and to
make a dozen arguments that it isn't is plain obtuseness.

Now if I wanted to print some oddball size print that used the full
negative in a 20X30+ size, you might start to see something but only if
you had to stand close and look at details (areal photograph?) of
something. In a normal photograph that stands on it's own at even
semi-normal viewing distances, you couldn't possibly begin to see
anything. If you have to stand that close for it to be "high quality",
people ARE admiring the quality of your gear, not the quality of your
photography.

That depends on the nature of the photography. A clear crisp autumn
landscape (for example) printed large benefits from all of the detail
that makes the colours stand out.




Again: if you really believe a 14 Mpix sensor (whatever) that is 3.5
times smaller than a 24.6 Mpix sensor is "better for your use" is the
right answer, then all the power to you. Fact is, like so many Oly
users you are noise bound by the sensor size.

And like I said earlier, if you're pixel peeping as an indicator of what
"image quality" is, no arguement a large sensor wins. But when the
"noise" you guys talk about isn't visible in the final print, this
"image quality" issue is in ur head, not the final product.

When you print large (this is tedious repeating) the noise does show and
casts texture that is unwanted into the image, spec. areas of even tones
in the subject.


One last time, I also use CANON GEAR so this isn't a brand biased issue
with me. Just what I've experienced in using multiple systems.

Who mentioned a brand? I have nothing against any quality brand.
However, Oly's 4/3 direction had marginalized its users with 4/3.

EOD for me.

Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:
And when I was shooting film, I
didn't stop using 35mm when I bought some medium format gear. No
reason to use medium format if the print size didn't warrant it.

I'm bored with this.

You said that before in this thread...


As I said earlier I don't have to defend a full
frame camera.

Yet here you are doing exactly that.


You have to defend your cropped and nowhere up to go
camera.


Yep, the E3 produces no better results than the E1 did. Sensor
technology is at it's peak. *yawn*



Not at all. I see the inherent weakness in small sensors printed large
as I often do. (And a recent VERY LARGE pano I did definitely benefited
from the large sensor/high pixel count).

I guess you can't read very well. I said in the print sizes most people
end up making, you won't see any difference. If you're printing VERY
LARGE of course you would use a larger sensor. If you actually read my
posts instead of foaming at the mouth 4/3 sucks, you'd see I agreed with
that. The fact is MOST people make prints 11X14 or smaller or are
viewing them on a computer, many are downsized for web display. For
these uses ANY modern Dslr can produce high quality results if the
optics are good.



And again, like all Oly 4/3 users who have no larger option (other than
jumping ship) you defend the indefensible.

Ta-ta. I'm not replying to you on this subject anymore.

You said this earlier in this thread too but keep defending your
purchase choice. If you're convinced good photographers must make giant
prints, you made the right one.



See the difference I think is my photography isn't a "numbers race".
And not going to start argueing how much "Larger my sensor is" using
6X9 over your puny 6X6 :-) Honestly in a 11X14 print NO ONE would be
able to see the difference in a 6X4.5 crop *with good optics* from a
6X7 crop out of a 6X9.

You're drifting again. The point here is this alone: Oly has noise
constrained its users with the 4/3 system. To believe otherwise and to
make a dozen arguments that it isn't is plain obtuseness.

And you keep trying to say in medium size prints you can even see this.
You can't. My point with the above is on 11X14 print, a 6X6 is just as
good as a 6X9. It's the same reason in this size print a 4/3 can produce
images that look just as high quality as a full frame can. Yes in larger
sizes they don't. I never print that big so don't need to spend $$$$ for
a larger format camera. I don't get why this is so complex for you to
comprehend.



Now if I wanted to print some oddball size print that used the full
negative in a 20X30+ size, you might start to see something but only
if you had to stand close and look at details (areal photograph?) of
something. In a normal photograph that stands on it's own at even
semi-normal viewing distances, you couldn't possibly begin to see
anything. If you have to stand that close for it to be "high quality",
people ARE admiring the quality of your gear, not the quality of your
photography.

That depends on the nature of the photography. A clear crisp autumn
landscape (for example) printed large benefits from all of the detail
that makes the colours stand out.


Same could be said for a sensor that records the colors more vividly.
Unless you think they all do this the same way? Again you keep going
down this obsession of 'printed large'. Not everyone has that requirement.




Again: if you really believe a 14 Mpix sensor (whatever) that is 3.5
times smaller than a 24.6 Mpix sensor is "better for your use" is the
right answer, then all the power to you. Fact is, like so many Oly
users you are noise bound by the sensor size.

And like I said earlier, if you're pixel peeping as an indicator of
what "image quality" is, no arguement a large sensor wins. But when
the "noise" you guys talk about isn't visible in the final print, this
"image quality" issue is in ur head, not the final product.

When you print large (this is tedious repeating) the noise does show and
casts texture that is unwanted into the image, spec. areas of even tones
in the subject.

What's even more tedious is you can't understand I agree that over a
certain image size, yes you're right. And that if I don't print that
large I won't see the difference. So how can it not still be 'high
quality' if you can see no difference between the results?



One last time, I also use CANON GEAR so this isn't a brand biased
issue with me. Just what I've experienced in using multiple systems.

Who mentioned a brand? I have nothing against any quality brand.
However, Oly's 4/3 direction had marginalized its users with 4/3.


So I assume you personally have used this stuff yourself? Of course not.

Stephanie