-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Most BORING PMA ever
- Thread starter Mike Johnston
- Start date
Mike Johnston
Leading Member
Sorry. The Olympus. I can make do with either a 3-lens combo of wide + normal + short tele, or a 2-lens combo of wide-normal + short tele.
I still haven't done enough shooting with it. Too afraid I'll see a real picture when I'm out with it, in which case I'd need Tri-X.My current widest lens is a 14/2.8, for about 22 mm equivalent.
It's not quite as wide as I'd like, but it's close enough. But if
there was a 10 mm, I'd gladly add that.
You did? Nice. You seemed to like it a lot in the review.Did
you change the focusing screen or is the standard one good enough
for MF? It's clearly better in this respect than the competition; I
was very favorably impressed by it every time I tried it, but
haven't done any RL shooting so I really don't know.
Ah, poor Leica....
Mike Johnston
Leading Member
Interesting point, Tinrobot, thanks. Maybe you're right. I'm still waiting for the "D200," though, and the E-2, and more short fast primes, and....
...Well, and Phil's *ist DS review one of these years would be nice....
--Mike
http://www.37thframe.com
Agree.
I believe the term is "conspicuous consumption". It will keep the market alive and well long after it "should have" stagnated. However, stagnation is far from over. In-camera AS is in its infancy, eye-control AF has yet to be released, built-in polaroids, expodisks, or ND filters, miniturization, hybrid TTL-LCD solutions, etc., etc. Now, whether any of this is ever introduced (or taken to higher levels) is anyone's guess. Point is, there is plenty useful to do before stagnation sets in.
If the camera manufacturers are smart, and you didn't hear that from me, they will offer a myriad of spin-offs to gain more of the potential market. Camoflauge coloring and other schemes on DSLRs and compacts, "Apple-esque" styling, and, of course, downloadable "shutter tones" from your favorite music artist. : )
We're all way past that, anyway. Look at all the cat, dog, bird, and kid (I'm guilty on this one!) pics that litter the fora. Exactly what more do these people "need"? Not a thing. Even professionals suffer the same "unnecessary needs". So few people print larger than 8 x 10 (or maybe 8 x 12) that todays cameras already so fit their needs it's silly to say you "need" more.The good news is that with any luck a widget bought now won't feel
totally outdated in two years.
I have 20 x 30 prints in my office from a Canon G1 and a Canon 300D. The difference in quality is there, but no one ever notices. Of course, from that, you could conclude that this is because I suck as a photographer! : )
Seriously, I don't need a camera to take better pics, I "need" a camera with capabilities to take pics I can't currently take. Higher and higher ISOs, for example, along with near instantaneous eye-focus AF with millions (!) of AF points so that the only reason I miss a shot is because I hit the shutter too late. And you know what? The 20D has brought me to that point about half the time already.
But, do I "need" all this? No. I have more great pics (great to me) than I know what to do with already. A better camera will just make me buy more hard drives! : )
Anyway, long story short -- it's not even close to over yet!
--
--joe
Please delete my images and unrelated text from your response when replying!
Some (well, a lot!) of my better shots:
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. But, if you don't mind, please be courteous and not pass off my photos as your own (or anyone else's!). And, also, please don't link to my photos, if you don't mind.
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
Mike Johnston wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
[snip]
That's not too different from what I usually pack -- either the 14 and the 35 or the 20 and the 50 (with the crop factor). With film, it'd be a 28 and 50 or 50 and 85 (the set I had on the AE-1 since passed on to a family member).
[snip]
Hehe.
[snip]
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
Dominic Groß wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
[snip]
In my experience, ACR's chroma noise reduction is pretty gentle -- it doesn't impact texture detail much at all. However, you're right about the "one size fits all" -- or doesn't: what with all the hoopla over banding on the 20D, I was somewhat surprised not to see any even in ridiculous conditions like ISO3200 + 1 stop... until I did a conversion with ACR. Whoops, banding and pretty violent blue blobs floating in the shadows. C1 does a way better job at high ISO, even with banding suppression and noise reduction turned way down.
[snip]
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
Namenlos wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
[snip]
They sure do. As a camera, the E-1 is excellent, as is the E-300.
[snip]
You're entirely right. My mild distaste for the E-system has in fact very little to do with the devices themselves, and a lot to do with marketing. I'm a big fan of the "open source" approach to things (did that with the stuff on my website, FWIW), and I sort of take it personally when someone abuses the terminology for marketing purposes.
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
joe mama wrote:
[snip]
What you're describing is something like the difference between an EOS-650 and an EOS-3. Yes, the differences are real and significant, and yes, the "conspicuous consumer" as well as the hard-core technophile enthusiasts will continue to upgrade regularly (probably me included) -- but you and I represent a few per cent of the market. The bulk of the cameras go to people like my mother, who has absolutely no intention of upgrading her EOS-300D until it totally cräps out on her. I don't think she's even paying attention to the new models coming out.
[snip]
So of course it's not over -- meaning, I'm quite sure that 18-24 months from now there will be an EOS-500D and an EOS-30D (or whatever they're called). However, I believe they'll resemble the 350D and 20D more than the 350D and 20D resemble the 10D and 300D. (OTOH, I've thought that before and I was wrong -- but this time, PMA shows the signs, not the cameras.)
[snip]
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
[snip]
Think of the last big revolution -- AF. I've got an EOS-650 -- I believe the first EOS Canon released. It has one AF point and minimal features. Yet it's an extremely capable photographic tool -- and one the guy I got it from hadn't felt the need to "upgrade" until going digital.
What you're describing is something like the difference between an EOS-650 and an EOS-3. Yes, the differences are real and significant, and yes, the "conspicuous consumer" as well as the hard-core technophile enthusiasts will continue to upgrade regularly (probably me included) -- but you and I represent a few per cent of the market. The bulk of the cameras go to people like my mother, who has absolutely no intention of upgrading her EOS-300D until it totally cräps out on her. I don't think she's even paying attention to the new models coming out.
[snip]
Exactly what you'll do in a mature market.
So of course it's not over -- meaning, I'm quite sure that 18-24 months from now there will be an EOS-500D and an EOS-30D (or whatever they're called). However, I believe they'll resemble the 350D and 20D more than the 350D and 20D resemble the 10D and 300D. (OTOH, I've thought that before and I was wrong -- but this time, PMA shows the signs, not the cameras.)
[snip]
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
Cephalotus
Senior Member
You "don't think" and I do.
So we have different opinions and there is no need for any further discussions. You surely know the 10D and E-1 from own experience...
English is not my native language and I'm not good enough to stand in that word by word discussions. I called it "CMOS look" but I could also call it "Canon look, excluding the 1D" or whatever you like.
I just told my opinion about my experience with high ISO on E-1 and 10D, so if you have different experience (or should I say opinion? this is ok for me.
I'll stop it here...
soft does not need to be "bad", most people like it. If you have a better English word for "geglättet" please tell me.
I think you are confused a bit because of all the "big pixel" nonsense that is being posted to the web (Canon must laugh their @ss off...) What is FACT is that a bigger format NEEDS more light, because a certain exposure is spread out over a larger area, and this reduces light intensity on-chip quadratically. That is why F8 for the same angle is a bigger hole with a bigger format.
See it as a slide-projector that you simply move back so it lights a 4 times larger area; you'll lose 2 stops on-screen intensity. (you have use a bigger "hole" in the lens, or increase the lamp, to get the same brightness)
The exposure itself is determined by the lightmeter, and not by pixel-size or chip-size. There is the same amount of light (per sq. mm on-chip) to play with for every system, from compact to 4x5". Also, CMOS has much smaller sensitive areas than CCD.
Lourens (Who doesn't find the E1 sensor to be disappointing at all.)
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
Nonsense?
Of course. That's why Olympus had to make these f/2.0 monsters.
Precisely -- and the smaller the format, the bigger you have to print it.
What you're missing is that the light-per-square-mm-of-sensor metric doesn't matter a damn thing. It's the light-per-square-mm of print that counts. And a 2x crop sensor must have a lens about a stop brighter than a 1.5x crop sensor to get that -- and a 1.5x crop sensor a stop more than a 1.0x crop sensor.
In theory, anyway.
Yeah, I guess that explains how come I get a usable ISO6400 out of my CMOS sensor.
Seriously, you're both right and wrong: right in that the per-pixel readout of CMOS sensors does need more circuitry, which does take up silicon real estate -- but wrong because the size of this support circuitry is pretty small compared to the size of the photosite... when we're talking the kind of pixel pitch you find on a big dSLR sensor. Try to make an 8 MP 2/3 size sensor with CMOS, though, and suddenly the sensel to support circuitry area ratio is far worse.
Moreover, none of this matters if your microlenses are good enough: if you can get the microlens to focus all of the light hitting it onto the sensel, it doesn't matter how small the sensel is (as long as it's deep enough).
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
Dominic Groß
Veteran Member
Nikon thinks that they can sell the F6 in reasonable quantities, although they did not define that I would guess anything profitable, for at least 10 years.
--
http://www.pbase.com/dgross (work in progress)
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10
Dominic Groß
Veteran Member
"soft" should be ok, "smooth" might be a better description or if you want to ridicule it "creamy". What is driving me nuts is making a connection with CMOS.
--
http://www.pbase.com/dgross (work in progress)
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10
Cephalotus
Senior Member
ISO 6400 with E-1
ISO 1600 -2EV RAW+ACR @ +2 EV (works better than ISO 3200 - + 1 EV) artificial light. no pp except downsizing and USM.
I made a picture under less than optimal conditions (dark picture with shadows, artificial light) beacuse under bright daylight I wouldn't really use ISO 6400...
surely D20 is better (you had the advantage of a quite bright object where noise is hard to see) but the E-1 is not completly useless, either.
At least for some web use...
ISO 1600 -2EV RAW+ACR @ +2 EV (works better than ISO 3200 - + 1 EV) artificial light. no pp except downsizing and USM.
I made a picture under less than optimal conditions (dark picture with shadows, artificial light) beacuse under bright daylight I wouldn't really use ISO 6400...
surely D20 is better (you had the advantage of a quite bright object where noise is hard to see) but the E-1 is not completly useless, either.
At least for some web use...
peripheralfocus
Veteran Member
Is there a club -- or a nice tavern somewhere -- for us prime lovers?
I very much wanted the E-300 to be, as you said, 'a discrete street-and-travel camera .. the M6 of the digital era', so I gladly took the opportunity to get a review unit recently. Leaving aside the issue of no compact wide and normal primes available for the E-system yet, the E-300 is just too big to be that camera, IMHO. I've thought of putting it in my dryer with my next load of socks to see if it'll shrink about 25%, but the incredibly nice folks at Olympus would frown on me treating their camera that way, I think.
I think the E-300 is a nice camera, and it will get a pretty positive review from me (assuming I can find some self-discipline and finish it today), but I've given up on it as the street/travel camera I'm hoping to find.
But the incredibly nice folks at Epson are sending me an R-D1 on Tuesday, and hope springs eternal ...
I was hoping that PMA would bring news of another small rangefinder-like digital cam with a pro-quality sensor -- another digital rangefinder (Konica Hexar where are you?), a digital Contax G, or even one without interchangeable lenses, a digital Olympus XA, if you will -- but no such luck. I'm back now to trying to figure out how to superglue the sensor from a 20D into a Leica CL.
I agree with Mike that this PMA was pretty boring (at least the stuff that was shown publicly, and I'm saying no more). Plus, Orlando's charms, if it has any, were completely lost on me. Why can't they do it in New Orleans again?
Try a Contax N1d. (pixel-size king with 6MP @ 24x36) and you'll know. It has lots of noise at iso 25.
Had to? I take most of my pictures at 5.6 to 11, and this works fine.
That reduces DoF compared to bigger formats, but has absolutely nothing to do with exposure.
(shorter FL increases DoF, and this effect is more prominent)
You must be joking.... my goodness.
Lourens
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
Which proves what? That it's possible to make a noisy sensor with big pixels?
[snip]
So, because you never shoot in available light, nobody else should either?
[snip]
It has everything to do with exposure. You don't "spread the light" when you capture it: you do it when you print it. An 8 x 10 printed from a 2/3 sensor needs to be magnified by a much bigger factor than a full-frame sensor. That's where the light you captured ends up spread.
You must be an idiot. My goodness.
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
(NT)
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum