Resolution and Survey

ALFREDUYB · Sep 16, 2005

On Michael Reichmann preview on the Canon 5D, he wrote " resolution apprears to only be limited by the lens". By this statement, he confirm that legacy lenses does not bring out the best in dslr with very high pixel count.

In a German photo website, there is a survey as to what sensor size is preferred. the result is full frame 67%, aps-c 15%, 4/3 7%, aps-h 11%. It seems people believe bigger is better.

Ted C. · Sep 16, 2005

ALFREDUYB said:
On Michael Reichmann preview on the Canon 5D, he wrote " resolution
apprears to only be limited by the lens". By this statement, he
confirm that legacy lenses does not bring out the best in dslr with
very high pixel count.
In a German photo website, there is a survey as to what sensor size
is preferred. the result is full frame 67%, aps-c 15%, 4/3 7%,
aps-h 11%. It seems people believe bigger is better.

rander3127 · Sep 16, 2005

ALFREDUYB said:
On Michael Reichmann preview on the Canon 5D, he wrote " resolution
apprears to only be limited by the lens". By this statement, he
confirm that legacy lenses does not bring out the best in dslr with
very high pixel count.
In a German photo website, there is a survey as to what sensor size
is preferred. the result is full frame 67%, aps-c 15%, 4/3 7%,
aps-h 11%. It seems people believe bigger is better.

--The people who think they need the full sized sensor are the same
sheep who think a DSLR needs to look like it takes spools of film...
-Rich

BJL · Sep 16, 2005

ALFREDUYB said:
In a German photo website, there is a survey as to what sensor size
is preferred. the result is full frame 67%, aps-c 15%, 4/3 7%,
aps-h 11%. It seems people believe bigger is better.

We know where the sheep get their ideas, or at least their jargon. As far as I know, the absurd, inaccurate use of APS-H to refer to the 1.3x format of the Canon 1D models only started a few days ago, on Canon's new "why bigger is better" web site, and already that jargon is used in a survey?

APS-H is the 16:9 "HDTV" native frame size of APS film, with APS-C a 3:2 shaped crop from that. The other option is that 11% of the German photographers surveyed want to bring back that dead format shape and size in a DSLR.

Adam-T · Sep 17, 2005

rander3127 said:
--The people who think they need the full sized sensor are the same
sheep who think a DSLR needs to look like it takes spools of film...

the people who KNOW they need a fullframe sensor are those who are tired of relatively poor quality compromised wide angle lenses to get a standard field of view on a cropped camera - I use a 1DS and 28-70L and it's way better than using a 16-35L on a 10D or whatever, even Nikon seem to be having issues with the 17-55DX F2.8 and the less said about the expensive and slow Canon 17-85IS the better .. that uncompromised ageing 28-70L is bang on from end to end wide open at F2.8 - just like the "Fullframe 4/3" lenses are on the E-System. When Canon can make decent FAST Aperture wide angle lenses, prime OR zoom (they've not managed it yet, their best wide is a 17 to 40mm F4 lens) then there'll be less need for fulframe.

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

rander3127 · Sep 17, 2005

--Don't blame the sensor for the fact Canon can't make a decent
wide angle lens.
-Rich

Adam-T · Sep 18, 2005

rander3127 said:
--Don't blame the sensor for the fact Canon can't make a decent
wide angle lens.

Totally agree so to avoid the issue, full frame and a decent standard lens like the 28-70L is the answer.. Nikon don't need full frame because they've always been the leaders in wide angle for AF SLRs, although many examples of the 17-55DX would make you wonder, Oly have full frame already - Full frame 4/3 .

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Dillon James · Sep 18, 2005

it's been called a wedding photographer's dream. Excellent high iso, (did you see those ISO 3200 samples?) along with a quiet shutter. Will probably be a nice beefy file that will sharpen up beautifully.

It seems that Canon thinks that this type of shooting will appeal to many consumers as well.

Too bad the color will suck.

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

--The people who think they need the full sized sensor are the same
sheep who think a DSLR needs to look like it takes spools of film...

Click to expand...

the people who KNOW they need a fullframe sensor are those who are
tired of relatively poor quality compromised wide angle lenses to
get a standard field of view on a cropped camera - I use a 1DS and
28-70L and it's way better than using a 16-35L on a 10D or
whatever, even Nikon seem to be having issues with the 17-55DX F2.8
and the less said about the expensive and slow Canon 17-85IS the
better .. that uncompromised ageing 28-70L is bang on from end to
end wide open at F2.8 - just like the "Fullframe 4/3" lenses are on
the E-System. When Canon can make decent FAST Aperture wide angle
lenses, prime OR zoom (they've not managed it yet, their best wide
is a 17 to 40mm F4 lens) then there'll be less need for fulframe.

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Mike_PEAT · Sep 23, 2005

ALFREDUYB said:
In a German photo website, there is a survey as to what sensor size
is preferred. the result is full frame 67%, aps-c 15%, 4/3 7%,
aps-h 11%. It seems people believe bigger is better.

These are the same people who beLIEve that more megapixels is better.

If bigger is better, then why stop at full frame? Why not go for the double frame size of the 22 megapixel Mamiya ZD slr:

http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2107

highsee3 · Sep 23, 2005

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html

High resolution lenses must be large compaired to the sensor size. Canon would need a new mount to make lenses that are able to resolve 22mp.

Olympus ZD is good to at least 16mp. That's all I'll ever need. (really 12 is all I would want)
--

'A camera maker that simply copies others' idea has no right to call itself an original
maker in the first place.' -Mr. Maitani, creator of the OM photographic system.

Jay Siegel · Sep 23, 2005

Here is a quote from his very interesting article:

"The only good reason for a big sensor at this current state of the art is the reduction of noise. The pixel area is relatively large and that helps the reduction of noise. The Olympus E-1 is not usable at ISO 400 and higher and even excellent programs like Noise Ninja cannot cope with the massive noise the E-1 generates."

near the end he has this very interesting quote:

"A large sensor size in solid-state technology allows for a bigger print size, but not for better image quality.

The image embedded in silver halide crystals is bound to follow physical/optical laws.

The image defined in a computer file is governed by mathematical rules only.

In the solid-state world sensor size has less importance as a criterion for image quality than in the silver halide world.

In the solid-state world size of the lens [relative to the sensor] has the utmost importance as a criterion for image quality."

When I first got my E-1 (1 1/2 years ago) I was surprised how big the lenses were. I've been a long time Olympus user, starting with the Pen FT in the 1960's and was expecting something more akin, relatively speaking, to the size and weight of the Pen FT. I have the 11-22 and the 55-200 lenses and both are big and heavy. Reading Erwin I now understand why this is so and appreciate the quality of the image that I can take with the 11-22 and the 55-200.

Most of Erwin's article focuses on the size of the lenses relative to the size of the sensor and he uses Canon and Nikon for most of his discussion with only an aside to the E-1.

A very interesting discussion but we all know plenty of examples where the better technology lost out to dominant market share -- beta vs vhs, Leica vs slr's, and apple vs microsoft are two examples that come to mind. I'm beginning to think that We Oly folk will go the way of Leica, Apple and Betamax!
--
Jay S.
http://www.carr-siegel.net

Higuma · Sep 23, 2005

Dillon James said:
it's been called a wedding photographer's dream. Excellent high
iso, (did you see those ISO 3200 samples?) along with a quiet
shutter. Will probably be a nice beefy file that will sharpen up
beautifully.

Nothing like a nice beefy file so you can sharpen all that dust !!!!!!

Dillon James said:
It seems that Canon thinks that this type of shooting will appeal
to many consumers as well.

Interpretation... Canon believes that through effective marketing and careful steering away from real issues - such as dust on the FF sensor because of an inferior build - they can convince (hypnotize?) the general public that they are...

" The camera of the Future - With the Lenses of the Past"

Cheers...

Andreas Benz · Sep 23, 2005

Jay Siegel said:
A very interesting discussion but we all know plenty of examples
where the better technology lost out to dominant market share --
beta vs vhs, Leica vs slr's, and apple vs microsoft are two
examples that come to mind. I'm beginning to think that We Oly
folk will go the way of Leica, Apple and Betamax!
--
Jay S.
http://www.carr-siegel.net

Hmm... Leica, don't really know where they are going to but it doesn't seem very bright and warm there,
Betamax, well, we all know where they went,
But Apple, where do you think they went?

Regards, Andreas

DillonJames · Sep 23, 2005

Higuma said:
Dillon James said:

it's been called a wedding photographer's dream. Excellent high
iso, (did you see those ISO 3200 samples?) along with a quiet
shutter. Will probably be a nice beefy file that will sharpen up
beautifully.

Click to expand...

Nothing like a nice beefy file so you can sharpen all that dust !!!!!!

Higuma said:

It seems that Canon thinks that this type of shooting will appeal
to many consumers as well.

Click to expand...

Interpretation... Canon believes that through effective marketing
and careful steering away from real issues - such as dust on the FF
sensor because of an inferior build - they can convince
(hypnotize?) the general public that they are...

Nah, you are simplifying things to the ridiculous. Lot's of pros shoot FF. Not because of marketing. For alot of users real issues are things like high ISO performance along with high MP counts.

The dustbuster is a great feature. But there aren't to many people who buy a camera simply for the dust buster. Otherwise Olympus would be selling 10 times the number of cameras they are.

Higuma said:
" The camera of the Future - With the Lenses of the Past"

Olympus would die to have those 'legacy' lenses. Almost all USM, lots of IS lenses, many the best in their category.

Canon is doing what any smart company would do. Attepmting to change the battle to one they will win. That's the FF battle.

Jay Siegel · Sep 23, 2005

--
Jay S.
http://www.carr-siegel.net

Higuma · Sep 23, 2005

DillonJames FIRST said:
DillonJames said:

DillonJames said:

It seems that Canon thinks that this type of shooting will appeal
to many consumers as well.

Click to expand...

Interpretation... Canon believes that through effective marketing
and careful steering away from real issues - such as dust on the FF
sensor because of an inferior build - they can convince
(hypnotize?) the general public that they are...

Click to expand...

Then said...

DillonJames said:
Nah, you are simplifying things to the ridiculous. Lot's of pros
shoot FF. Not because of marketing. For alot of users real issues
are things like high ISO performance along with high MP counts.

Your first post refers to "Consumers" not "Professionals" - which are about 5% of the buying public....

So are we talking about the needs of pros or consumers or an elite small group of consumers ???? please clarify...

I've played cards before - stop trying to change the rules to your advantage...

The "AVERAGE" consumer in no way shape or form needs, requires or has the wherewithal to utilize a $3,000 usd (body only) camera but certainly with effective marketing they will certainly WANT one....

Further

DillonJames said:
Nah, you are simplifying things to the ridiculous. Lot's of pros
shoot FF. Not because of marketing.

That's right - not marketing - it's because they have $ 25,000 in legacy glass and still seem to think that someday they will make a magic sensor that will make them work as good as they used to on film...

DillonJames said:
For alot of users real issues
are things like high ISO performance along with high MP counts.

Exactly and that is where the Drebel comes in - you can't tell me that it or the XT is not an adequate camera for 65% of the DSLR consuming public....

DillonJames said:
The dustbuster is a great feature. But there aren't to many people
who buy a camera simply for the dust buster. Otherwise Olympus
would be selling 10 times the number of cameras they are.

Patience - Look at all the idiots who said 2 years ago... 18 months ago.... 1 year ago... 6 months ago... 1 month ago... and 5 minutes ago that 4/3 was dead... Don't know about you but I can still feel a pulse and by virtue of what I read here every day it's a strong pulse at that....

I repeat my new Canon sales slogan....

DillonJames said:
DillonJames said:

" The camera of the Future - With the Lenses of the Past"

Click to expand...

DillonJames said:
Olympus would die to have those 'legacy' lenses. Almost all USM,
lots of IS lenses, many the best in their category.

No doubt Olympus would die to have those lenses - but then we'd be moaning about Lens QC and back / front / side inverted focus issues....

DillonJames said:
Canon is doing what any smart company would do. Attempting to
change the battle to one they will win. That's the FF battle.

NOW THAT's the surest sign that a company knows that they are in trouble - Change the game so that ONLY we can possibly win... Canon is starting to sound more like an "Evil Warlord" all the time...

What ever happened to "different strokes for different folks" - -

By your description Canon sounds like the "1 Musketeer" - cool battle cry from them...... " ALL FOR ME - NONE FOR YOU "

Cheers...

E1derful · Sep 23, 2005

ALFREDUYB said:
It seems people believe bigger is better.

In regards to sensor size and photosite size, bigger is better.

Just imagine how popular the E1 would have been with an APS sized sensor...

If Olympus had designed their 4/3 telecentricity around a 1.6 crop sensor, their E1 would have sold as many units as the Canon 10D and 20D...

In addition, the lenses would cost more to make, and they would be larger, but...they would have still sold more cameras...

DillonJames · Sep 24, 2005

Higuma said:
DillonJames FIRST said:

Higuma said:

Higuma said:

It seems that Canon thinks that this type of shooting will appeal
to many consumers as well.

Click to expand...

Interpretation... Canon believes that through effective marketing
and careful steering away from real issues - such as dust on the FF
sensor because of an inferior build - they can convince
(hypnotize?) the general public that they are...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Then said...

Higuma said:

Nah, you are simplifying things to the ridiculous. Lot's of pros
shoot FF. Not because of marketing. For alot of users real issues
are things like high ISO performance along with high MP counts.

Click to expand...

Your first post refers to "Consumers" not "Professionals" - which
are about 5% of the buying public....

So are we talking about the needs of pros or consumers or an elite
small group of consumers ???? please clarify...

I meant prosumers. Not your average rebel buyer.

Higuma said:
I've played cards before - stop trying to change the rules to your
advantage...

You forgot the smiley.

Higuma said:
The "AVERAGE" consumer in no way shape or form needs, requires or
has the wherewithal to utilize a $3,000 usd (body only) camera but
certainly with effective marketing they will certainly WANT one....

There you go again. There is alot to be said for those nice big pixels with fewer diffraction issues great dynamic range, and excellent hight ISO.

The diffraction limited fstop for a hypothetical 12.7 MP E-3 printed at A3 and viewed at 50cm is f 5.6. And for a 25cm distance it's f 2.8! No wonder Olympus wants to makes f2 zooms.

It's ironic IMO that you bring up the marketing card. Olympus is a little to heavy in the marketing dept, and a light in the performance area IMO.

Higuma said:
Further

Higuma said:

Nah, you are simplifying things to the ridiculous. Lot's of pros
shoot FF. Not because of marketing.

Click to expand...

That's right - not marketing - it's because they have $ 25,000 in
legacy glass and still seem to think that someday they will make a
magic sensor that will make them work as good as they used to on
film...

Some do. Others want that narrow depth of field as well as the good high ISO performance.

Higuma said:
Higuma said:

For alot of users real issues
are things like high ISO performance along with high MP counts.

Click to expand...

Exactly and that is where the Drebel comes in - you can't tell me
that it or the XT is not an adequate camera for 65% of the DSLR
consuming public....

That and a D70 is adequate for 90% of the public. That's the problem. You're not going to win over the public with terms like 'telecentric."

Higuma said:
Higuma said:

The dustbuster is a great feature. But there aren't to many people
who buy a camera simply for the dust buster. Otherwise Olympus
would be selling 10 times the number of cameras they are.

Click to expand...

Patience - Look at all the idiots who said 2 years ago... 18 months
ago.... 1 year ago... 6 months ago... 1 month ago... and 5 minutes
ago that 4/3 was dead... Don't know about you but I can still feel
a pulse and by virtue of what I read here every day it's a strong
pulse at that....

Well, I guess the have been selling a good number of E300's, but I don't know if that's helping their bottom line much, selling a camera and two lenses for 700 bucks.

Higuma said:
I repeat my new Canon sales slogan....

Higuma said:

Higuma said:

" The camera of the Future - With the Lenses of the Past"

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Higuma said:

Olympus would die to have those 'legacy' lenses. Almost all USM,
lots of IS lenses, many the best in their category.

Click to expand...

No doubt Olympus would die to have those lenses - but then we'd be
moaning about Lens QC and back / front / side inverted focus
issues....

Higuma said:

Canon is doing what any smart company would do. Attempting to
change the battle to one they will win. That's the FF battle.

Click to expand...

NOW THAT's the surest sign that a company knows that they are in
trouble - Change the game so that ONLY we can possibly win... Canon
is starting to sound more like an "Evil Warlord" all the time...

What ever happened to "different strokes for different folks" - -

I'm all for that. I thing a corporation duty is to its shareholders. The more marketshare, the better.

DillonJames · Sep 24, 2005

I said this a few week ago.

E1derful said:
ALFREDUYB said:

It seems people believe bigger is better.

Click to expand...

In regards to sensor size and photosite size, bigger is better.

Just imagine how popular the E1 would have been with an APS sized
sensor...

If Olympus had designed their 4/3 telecentricity around a 1.6 crop
sensor, their E1 would have sold as many units as the Canon 10D and
20D...

In addition, the lenses would cost more to make, and they would be
larger, but...they would have still sold more cameras...

Cephalotus · Sep 24, 2005

DillonJames said:
The diffraction limited fstop for a hypothetical 12.7 MP E-3
printed at A3 and viewed at 50cm is f 5.6. And for a 25cm distance
it's f 2.8! No wonder Olympus wants to makes f2 zooms.

The Coc at F2,8 is rougly 1,9µm, no matter which sensor size, no amtter which pixel count and no matter which lens you use.

Of course you have to magnify that 1,9µm CoC more with a smaller sensor than with a bigger sensor. )

But at CoC at 1,9µm you could use about 67 Foveon like Megapixels (!) (even more with Bayer sensors) on a 18x13,5mm fourthirds sensor and you will get perfectly sharp "pixels".

That's more than enough in my opinion.

And I doubt that you will see any problems with a 67MP Foveon file on an A3 print, even wen fiewed from 25cms.

best regards

)

CoC = 1,22 * F * µ * (m+1) (Raleigh)

m = magnification factor = 0 for focus at infinty
µ = wave length of the light (green light = 0,55µm)
F = F-stop

Resolution and Survey

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts