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

Two stories of why smaller systems might be better sometimes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 14th 17, 08:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,936
Default Two stories of why smaller systems might be better sometimes

In article ,
RichA wrote:

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/12/pho...irplane-carry-
taken/

If it was m4/3rds, it could have been carry-on.


If it had been m4/3rds, then the gear would not have delivered files
with the expected quality. It was surely insured...

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/13/130...atters-ground/

If it was m4/3rds, it would have been 1/2 the weight, unlikely to have been
tipped over.


If it had been m4/3rds, then the lense would not have delivered files
with the expected quality. It was surely insured...
--
teleportation kills
  #2  
Old May 14th 17, 11:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,031
Default Two stories of why smaller systems might be better sometimes

In article , android
says...
If it had been m4/3rds, then the gear would not have delivered files
with the expected quality.


Meaningless statement, since you don't know what the expected quality
is. Sometimes even a smartphone is sufficient.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #3  
Old May 14th 17, 11:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,936
Default Two stories of why smaller systems might be better sometimes

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:

In article , android
says...
If it had been m4/3rds, then the gear would not have delivered files
with the expected quality.


Meaningless statement, since you don't know what the expected quality
is. Sometimes even a smartphone is sufficient.


This was pro gear to be used professionally, right?
--
teleportation kills
  #4  
Old May 14th 17, 12:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,031
Default Two stories of why smaller systems might be better sometimes

In article , android
says...
This was pro gear to be used professionally, right?


There are m4/3 cameras suitable for professional use.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #5  
Old May 14th 17, 01:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,936
Default Two stories of why smaller systems might be better sometimes

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:

In article , android
says...
This was pro gear to be used professionally, right?


There are m4/3 cameras suitable for professional use.


Oki...
--
teleportation kills
  #6  
Old May 14th 17, 02:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,031
Default Two stories of why smaller systems might be better sometimes

In article , android
says...

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:

In article , android
says...
This was pro gear to be used professionally, right?


There are m4/3 cameras suitable for professional use.


Oki...


Thanks God. I was afraid this would have been the start of another of
our endless exchanges ;-)
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #7  
Old May 14th 17, 04:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,936
Default Two stories of why smaller systems might be better sometimes

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:

In article , android
says...

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:

In article , android
says...
This was pro gear to be used professionally, right?

There are m4/3 cameras suitable for professional use.


Oki...


Thanks God. I was afraid this would have been the start of another of
our endless exchanges ;-)


You can use any camera for professional purposes within its envelope of
limitations. The photogs of misfortune mentioned did, obviously chose
gear with wider such... :-ppp
--
teleportation kills
  #8  
Old May 15th 17, 01:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,245
Default Two stories of why smaller systems might be better sometimes

On 5/14/2017 4:12 PM, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 14 May 2017 03:42:00 UTC-4, android wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/12/pho...irplane-carry-
taken/

If it was m4/3rds, it could have been carry-on.


If it had been m4/3rds, then the gear would not have delivered files
with the expected quality.


What level of "quality" do people really need? How many people are producing huge prints any more?
That excuse really died five years ago.


People "need" what they want to think they need. As I posted earlier, I
will frequently take a major crop and blow it up to 12 x 18, or 16 x 20.
The small format would not make me happy. If I was physically capable, I
would probably use MF, but I am not, so I go as large as I can handle.
There will come a time when I can only handle smaller sensor cameras,
but that time has not yet arrived. Since you are happy with a small
sensor, great. But please don't try to impose your standards on me.

--
PeterN
  #9  
Old May 15th 17, 05:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,936
Default Two stories of why smaller systems might be better sometimes

In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Sunday, 14 May 2017 03:42:00 UTC-4, android wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/12/pho...ar-airplane-ca
rry-
taken/

If it was m4/3rds, it could have been carry-on.


If it had been m4/3rds, then the gear would not have delivered files
with the expected quality.


What level of "quality" do people really need?


We're taking pro stuff here and that that customers ask for.

How many people are producing
huge prints any more?
That excuse really died five years ago.


???
--
teleportation kills
  #10  
Old May 15th 17, 01:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 636
Default Two stories of why smaller systems might be better sometimes

PeterN wrote:
RichA wrote:
What level of "quality" do people really need? How many people are
producing huge prints any more? That excuse really died five years ago.


People "need" what they want to think they need...


Well said.

I made a big print as a gift this past Christmas .. Cheetah portrait, slightly larger than
life size .. and more recently, I did a very heavy crop so as to identify a bird species - pic
wasn't great, but it served its purpose - and in retrospect, the crop effectively made it a
5000+mm equivalent while (supported) handheld, which far exceeded my expectations.


-hh
 




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
FREE-- NEW STORIES. Cynicor[_5_] Digital Photography 0 May 1st 08 05:40 PM
Canons: The ultimate DIY horror stories RichA Digital SLR Cameras 22 November 23rd 07 01:29 PM
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories Nicholas O. Lindan 35mm Photo Equipment 222 February 12th 06 02:57 PM
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories Nicholas O. Lindan Large Format Photography Equipment 222 February 12th 06 02:57 PM
DSLR, Smaller Sensor, Smaller TTL Viewfinder? Which has the largest? Geshu Iam Digital Photography 15 August 17th 04 07:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.