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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |