Odd parallel between Nikon D700/D3 and Oly E-3

[S p i t z e r]

Hi John,

John, it seems you have run out of decent arguments, and it shows.

How about this -- we compare a few pics we like instead of all the tech talk? I don't think a single pic has been posted in this entire thread! I find it very odd that one would compare a 50mm macro on FT with a 50mm fast normal on FF, since they seem like such different tools.

I'm going to link some pics (not mine) from a 50mm fast normal on FF that I like, which are well into the "useless" apertures below f/5.6 that John talks about. Then maybe John can link some pics from the 50/2 macro on FT that he likes and thinks are better, and why it's more appropriate to compare them to a 50mm fast normal on FF than a fast 100mm telephoto or 100mm macro on FF.

http://www.pbase.com/peter_dumont/image/105352753

http://www.pbase.com/peter_dumont/image/106225992

http://www.pbase.com/peter_dumont/image/87109063

http://www.pbase.com/peter_dumont/image/103416044

http://www.pbase.com/peter_dumont/image/85145634

http://www.pbase.com/peter_dumont/image/108457768

Before anyone says something, yes, the above pics are most certainly "cherry picked". It's easy to show bad pics from any lens or camera. But if anyone, like me, finds those pics appealing, then I would argue that you don't need to stop down to f/5.6 on a fast 50mm prime before it becomes useful.

Now, let's see those 50/2 macro pics! I'm sure there are many wonderful examples of macro with it, but since we're comparing it to a fast 50mm normal on FF, it doesn't make sense to me to compare in that fashion. In fact, it doesn't make sense to me to compare 50mm on FT with 50mm on FF at all. But, let's see the pics, shall we?

 

[zulu40]

I consider your attempts to inflame an already tense situation are a unwelcome as they are OT. Posting links to what appear for all the world to be snapshots (I opened the first 2) is hardly supportive.
S p i t z e r wrote:

 

[John King]

Good Simon

AND the title to this post: "Re: running and threatening. great." represents "good, nice" behaviour, Simon? I reckon that it is merely baiting. Are you deliberately trying to get me to 'lose it', Simon. That makes this a whole different ball game if that is what you are up to. Please reassure me that this is not the case. BTW, I NEVER threaten ...

However, let's just call it quits.

You will not admit of any argument or discussion that contradicts your obvious prejudices.

I am personally sick of these tired (and wrong ... ) "pseudo-arguments".

I also have far more pressing and important things to do with my time, as I am sure you have with yours ...

And see below:

Hi John,

John, it seems you have run out of decent arguments, and it shows.

B/s. Now you are resorting to baiting, Simon. It is not particularly attractive.

Tried making mosquito nets? Your arguments are as full of holes as
that. Sorry.

And neither was my comment (particularly attractive); please accept my un-reserved apology.

Excuse me, but it's these continued threats of complaints that amount
to harassment, John.

I never threaten, Simon, I just do (legal training and all that; it is illegal to threaten to do, but not to promise to do ... ). I usually give no warning of any description, Simon, so please retract this. Consider it a mark of respect that I did at least warn you.

Having said that, I am very stressed at present, and regret having said that to you at all. Sorry. I also did not hit the button, and almost certainly would not have done so.

I'm out.

Simon

So am I.

I had replied to you in depth, Simon, but I see that the trolls have moved in, so I will not post what I have written.

I have better things to do than bandy words with those who are only interested in disputation, not knowledge.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

 

[S p i t z e r]

I consider your attempts to inflame an already tense situation are a
unwelcome as they are OT. Posting links to what appear for all the
world to be snapshots (I opened the first 2) is hardly supportive.
S p i t z e r wrote:

So it's "supportive" to link to graphs and charts, but not to actual pictures? And you're calling the pics as "what appear for all the world to be snapshots " is what, then? I would have thought a more constructive reply would have been: "I don't like the pics. They look like snapshots to me. This supports John's argument."

And then we could see if "all the world" agrees with you.

 

[zulu40]

I consider your attempts to inflame an already tense situation are a
unwelcome as they are OT. Posting links to what appear for all the
world to be snapshots (I opened the first 2) is hardly supportive.
S p i t z e r wrote:

So it's "supportive" to link to graphs and charts, but not to actual

I know that the topic has been taken off track, you might be best advised to see the topic below.

pictures? And you're calling the pics as "what appear for all the
world to be snapshots " is what, then? I would have thought a more
constructive reply would have been: "I don't like the pics. They
look like snapshots to me. This supports John's argument."

They look like snapshots because they are, Im sorry if that offends you, allow me to take this opportunity to make the comment that it is in no way a reflection on your child or photographic capability. It is a fact that they do not support the topic, illustrated below for your convenience.

And then we could see if "all the world" agrees with you.

FYI this was the topic

OK, I'll eat some words here. I'd been thinking that the two stop
ISO advantage of the D3/D700 - two stops according to dxomark and my
own little experiments - is hard to ignore. I LIKE wider dof (and
think it's good in many types of photos - most landscapes, wildlife,
sports, pj/documentary), and I don't like blur caused by subject
motion (as a rule). So shooting at 1/80th instead of 1/20th, say,
with equal IQ seems hard to resist. But wait a minute. What about
dof - assuming you DON'T want razor thin focus. Well, using
dofmaster and accepting the 2X rule of thumb for equal angle of view
(I argue it's more like 1.8 but oh well) you need to stop down a bit
more than two stops to retain the same dof. So goodbye ISO advantage.

Probably someone's noticed this before and sorry I missed it.
--
W Alex Stewart

 

[John King]

I consider your attempts to inflame an already tense situation are a
unwelcome as they are OT. Posting links to what appear for all the
world to be snapshots (I opened the first 2) is hardly supportive.

Yup.

S p i t z e r wrote:

So it's "supportive" to link to graphs and charts, but not to actual
pictures?

Someone else's copyright pictures ...

And you're calling the pics as "what appear for all the
world to be snapshots " is what, then? I would have thought a more
constructive reply would have been: "I don't like the pics. They
look like snapshots to me. This supports John's argument."

You said it. I agree. Yes it does support my argument.

I looked at the first one. Lovely happy snap. Pretty little girl. Lousy lens ... It displays all the problems that the charts show with this lens wide open. OoF or "soft"; huge blur in the corners; probably cropped - who knows?

And then we could see if "all the world" agrees with you.

Who cares? The photo speaks for itself.

Didn't bother with any more, and besides, these are NOT YOUR PHOTOS to post here.

--
john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

 

[simpy]

AND the title to this post: "Re: running and threatening. great."
represents "good, nice" behaviour, Simon? I reckon that it is merely
baiting.

It is not meant to be bait, but it represents the impression your post left on me, after I had written an extensive answer to your previous post. In any case, it wasn't very friendly; my apologies for coming across like I was baiting.

You will not admit of any argument or discussion that contradicts
your obvious prejudices.

I am arguing my viewpoint (what you call my 'prejudices') and saying why I think you're wrong. Of course you're not particularly keen on adjusting your objective viewpoint either, right?

However, let's just call it quits.

Yes, let's do that.
Simon

 

[John King]

Gidday again Simon

I can be convinced by facts, but not by what I consider to be flawed arguments, Simon. The images (someone else's!!) posted by spritzer, demonstrate exactly why I think these lenses are flawed, for the reasons I stated in my response to him.

If you would like to send me an email, I will send you the full text of why I think your arguments are not correct. Better not to air these things here, the atmosphere has become a little poisonous ...

However, all's well that ends well. I really do consider that you seek after truth, as best that can be ascertained, Simon; otherwise I would not waste my arthritic fingers responding to you ;-)).

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php

Hints & Tips (temporary link, as under construction): http://canopuscomputing.com.au/index.php?p=1_9



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[rhlpetrus]

DR is the most important, and one which can't be compensated because of sensors sizes.

Is DoF as people put it, either way, such a big deal (there are FF fans who say it's the orther way around, shallow DoF is important)?

But of course the options are many and one should choose what's best for him/her.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[Jerry Blavio]

Thanks for the photography lesson John. Pretty sure I know the difference between angle of view and focal length though, as I've had to pick up and carry that big tripod mounted 4x5 too many times over the last 25 years.

If you think it makes sense to compare lenses for different formats at the same focal length, then more power to you. Don't waste you time though trying to convince me, as I see absolutely no point in it whatsoever.

Take it easy...

 

[luckyakash]

Thanks for the photography lesson John. Pretty sure I know the
difference between angle of view and focal length though, as I've had
to pick up and carry that big tripod mounted 4x5 too many times over
the last 25 years.

If you think it makes sense to compare lenses for different formats
at the same focal length, then more power to you. Don't waste you
time though trying to convince me, as I see absolutely no point in it
whatsoever.

Well it does make sense for John He is our best! And if you do really want to see some stunning 50mm f2 work then here it is,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28153802
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29132128
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28699629

His friends envy him when they see some of his shots.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=30784050

We hope you had a great time,

--
-- Protect the little people! --

 

[S p i t z e r]

S p i t z e r wrote:

So it's "supportive" to link to graphs and charts, but not to actual
pictures?

Someone else's copyright pictures ...

There is nothing wrong with linking someone else's photos. They were not embedded, and I did not misrepresent them as being my own. It's no different than when you linked the charts from the lens review.

And you're calling the pics as "what appear for all the
world to be snapshots " is what, then? I would have thought a more
constructive reply would have been: "I don't like the pics. They
look like snapshots to me. This supports John's argument."

You said it. I agree. Yes it does support my argument.

I looked at the first one. Lovely happy snap. Pretty little girl.
Lousy lens ... It displays all the problems that the charts show with
this lens wide open. OoF or "soft"; huge blur in the corners;
probably cropped - who knows?

And then we could see if "all the world" agrees with you.

Who cares? The photo speaks for itself.

Now that I've seen your photos,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=30796915

it all makes sense to me. It helps when you post examples of photos you like so that people have a context in which to gauge your opinion.

Didn't bother with any more, and besides, these are NOT YOUR PHOTOS
to post here.

I'm glad that you were able to gather all the support you needed from that one photo. No, I won't be bothering with any more. All makes sense to me now. But, as I said, there is nothing wrong with linking other peoples' photos when you do not misrepresent them as your own, and especially when they are not embedded.

 

[Jerry Blavio]

Actually, I meant to say that I understand the difference between focal length and perspective.

Anyway, makes sense to me to compare lenses based on their use, rather than a number. That's simply mental masturbation IMO.

Thanks for the photography lesson John. Pretty sure I know the
difference between angle of view and focal length though, as I've had
to pick up and carry that big tripod mounted 4x5 too many times over
the last 25 years.

If you think it makes sense to compare lenses for different formats
at the same focal length, then more power to you. Don't waste you
time though trying to convince me, as I see absolutely no point in it
whatsoever.

Well it does make sense for John He is our best! And if you do
really want to see some stunning 50mm f2 work then here it is,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28153802
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29132128
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28699629

His friends envy him when they see some of his shots.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=30784050

We hope you had a great time,

--
-- Protect the little people! --

 

[georgeorwell]

I remain of the opinion that equivalence actually works in favour of
smaller formats, rather than the reverse as is commonly assumed. In
effect, you can only really get an advantage out of larger formats if
you're prepared to sacrifice DoF. So if (like me) you almost always
want as much DoF as possible, I think it's better to settle on the
smaller, lighter and cheaper system (no to mention with the best
lenses) thankyou very much!

so you must buy a LX3 or a G10 , fast lens + big DOF, better then any 4/3 camera

 

[georgeorwell]

hi i see your point of view but...but... if you need shoot low light (i.e nights shots) there are only 2 possibility

1) D700 D3 + a fast lens
2) you buy a noctilux Leica f0,95 and a camera that can use it

ups a third... D700 with noctilux )

but following your reasons...noctilux is totaly useless used at 0,95, DOF is very narrow! maybe 10 cm

but if i must shoot in the night i can accept also a small DOF but HAVE the shoot

ps my point of view , my brain work as a reportage photographer, so consider this

ps on micro 4/3 you can shoot with a canon f0,95 lens ,see here samples,not bad

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2009/01/13/9964.html

 

[ljmac]

If you're going to trash other people's photography, then you'd better show us how great your's is.

 

[ljmac]

so you must buy a LX3 or a G10 , fast lens + big DOF, better then
any 4/3 camera

I really wish I could actually, but the pixel density of current compacts is just too much for current technology. I'd be happy if they put a freeze on further megapixel increases until the technology catches up, but that clearly isn't going to happen, so it seems the pixel density will always be well ahead of what technology allows.

 

[John King]

Gidday LJ

If you're going to trash other people's photography, then you'd
better show us how great your's is.

You just KNOW that is NEVER going to happen! Internet super-heroes and drive-by-shooters never take photographs, and do not have galleries, gear, real names, web sites, email addresses - OR manners ... They just belittle and criticise the work of others; never contribute anything positive to ANY discussion, on any topic; and are given over to trying to make themselves somehow important, in their sad lives. I pity them, really.

BTW, those piccies were taken the first day I owned the f2/50 and 50~200 (well, actually the second day; but within the first 24 hours of ownership).

I am still just as impressed with both lenses 8 months later. Never regretted their purchase for an instant.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php

Hints & Tips (temporary link, as under construction): http://canopuscomputing.com.au/index.php?p=1_9



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

 

[John King]

I remain of the opinion that equivalence actually works in favour of
smaller formats, rather than the reverse as is commonly assumed. In
effect, you can only really get an advantage out of larger formats if
you're prepared to sacrifice DoF. So if (like me) you almost always
want as much DoF as possible, I think it's better to settle on the
smaller, lighter and cheaper system (no to mention with the best
lenses) thankyou very much!

so you must buy a LX3 or a G10 , fast lens + big DOF, better then
any 4/3 camera

Not according to any reviews I have ever seen. Here at DPR, the comment is that none of these cameras (in relation to all P&S cameras) comes close to the IQ produced by any dSLR. Maximum print size from the G10? About 8x10 according to Simon Joinson et al.

So your comment is just puff (or something ... ) and FUD.

From that, I conclude that you are just trolling here ... AND since you satisfy the tests for the (very) average Internet super-hero and drive-by-shooter; bye, bye black bird ...

--
john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

 

[ljmac]

Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. :-(