Reading mode: Light Dark

An incredible comment posted on dpreview

Go to last post
Scott Eaton said:
Scott Eaton said:
Scott Eaton said:
Scott Eaton said:
well the dam things (1DMkiii) no good to me at all, i shoot interiors for a living and i need UWA that performs, if i strangle the life out of 1Dmkiii i can make it work, but i cant use L ultra wides with it because the edges turn to mush. I can make it work with Zeiss glass but i lose AF. 1Diii is for sports or action photography to me, its not an UWA gig. Oh and 5D... lets not go there for UWA
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I guess all those medium format film photographers that used 6x7,
6x6 and and 645 wide angle for decades didn't get as good results
as your APS film camera either, right? I lost count at the number
of Zeiss tauting Hassie owners I kicked the & ^% out of with my RB
and Mamiya glass.

Olan Mills here locally (before they went out of business) shot
with Oly 4/3, and judging by their results they couldn't compete
with any pro-sumer 6mp Nikon or Canon APS dSLR for interiors.
Perhaps you worked for them.
Click to expand...
its a competitive aspect, he might have moved on, he might have made his money and got out, it happens that life can be a long road
Scott Eaton said:
As for the rest of your claims,
Click to expand...
oh lol ... wait for it, claims :)
Scott Eaton said:
if you shoot interiors for a living
( can you link to published work please), you are either inept, or
just doing reconnaissance work for al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...
well you can be as smug as you like sport, being ex military myself im ... lets say disappointed... in you aligning me with al Queda, a remark that IRL you probably shouldnt make to a someone like me.
Scott Eaton said:
When asked to shoot an
interiors with film I'd use 4x5, not an E-1 just to get the benefit
of Zeiss glass. If asked now I'd certainly use a 5D on tripod
stopped down with a coke bottle over any 4/3 camera for dynamic
range alone.
Click to expand...
well im not asking, im just not interested in cranks i guess, but sure go for it, take your 5D and see how you go, i already know the answer, its not the 5D's best spot by far. but hey if your clients are more interested in DR that image acuity it sounds like an easy wicket to me.

PS do they really refer to L glass as coke bottles over there now ... i really need to remember that

--
Riley

not everything that counts, can be counted
 
Don't try man, he's extremely immature, his reference to terrorism shows it. You would be better off talking to a brick wall than this...erm can't say that here.

As for sensor size, yes its a limitation but what are you all going to go out and buy 4x5 scanning backs? or how about dropping $30K on a hassy DSLR. People that left 4/3s left it for a lack of advancement early on, not because the sensor is smaller. Also, i honestly don't understand why APS-H even exists. It would make sense if 1.6 cameras weren't produced, but the EF-s lenses won't work so whats the widest you get (from the camera company)? 20mm EFL? APS-H would make alot more sense (for something other than sports/wildlife) if there were wider 35mm lenses or had a dedicated set of wides ala EF-s.
 
Rriley said:
you dont have the first idea what you are talking about
Canon 400D & XTi is 1.62 crop
Olympus and 4/3 is 1.92 crop
Click to expand...
Yes I know what I'm talking about. Canon makes their own 1.6x CMOS sensors that have always delivered better IQ than sony's 1.5x sensors they sell to nikon. And Olympus' 2x small sensors are just really small to have control of DOF and the super wide end is basically a pointless task. By having to use a 14mm lens to get a 28mm FOV, your DOF is greatly increased, even over 18mm needed for a Canon 1.6x dSLR.
Rriley said:
if you are serious about your theory sell your backfocussing canon
and buy a nikon, its 1.52 crop
Click to expand...
I have never had a back focusing lens or camera, I guess you're the one with the focusing problem experience. :)

My main camera is a Canon 5D, but I also use a Pentax K1000, EOS-3, and the Original Drebel. And by the way, in over 3800 pictures with the 5D I have only had to use noise reduction in photoshop on 3 pictures due to user error, not the sensor being noisey. :)
 
kirkly said:
kirkly said:
4/3 is just plain stupid. The technology will go to bigger sensors
not smaller.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone use Canon or Nikon cameras with those tiny,
amateur sensors?

Medium format is the only tool for professional photographers, with
a sensor size that is 3.5x larger.
Click to expand...
Because there is no need for 30 megapixel files at the current time. The technology is reaching a plateau. Special cases will require a hasslebad camera with 30 megapixel images but for most people it's overkill.

Full frame sensors allow use of 35mm film lenses, have more dynamic range than smaller sensors, and will probably be the standard in the future for serious photographers. Crop cameras will be for the mass public.
 
Hellashot said:
Rriley said:
you dont have the first idea what you are talking about
Canon 400D & XTi is 1.62 crop
Olympus and 4/3 is 1.92 crop
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hellashot said:
Yes I know what I'm talking about. Canon makes their own 1.6x CMOS
sensors that have always delivered better IQ than sony's 1.5x
sensors they sell to nikon.
Click to expand...
its pretty clear that D40 tips the XTi for noise and clean images at high iso
Hellashot said:
And Olympus' 2x small sensors are just
really small to have control of DOF
Click to expand...
well thats about a half a stop difference to XTi
Hellashot said:
and the super wide end is
basically a pointless task. By having to use a 14mm lens
Click to expand...
try 7mm for 14mm EFL, did i mention UWA?
Hellashot said:
to get a
28mm FOV, your DOF is greatly increased, even over 18mm needed for
a Canon 1.6x dSLR.
Click to expand...
what we really require is deep DoF sometimes, not the other way around. I dont profess that i require detailed mush
Hellashot said:
Hellashot said:
if you are serious about your theory sell your backfocussing canon
and buy a nikon, its 1.52 crop
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hellashot said:
I have never had a back focusing lens or camera, I guess you're the
one with the focusing problem experience. :)
Click to expand...
you dont use it much for portraits ?
Hellashot said:
My main camera is a Canon 5D, but I also use a Pentax K1000, EOS-3,
and the Original Drebel. And by the way, in over 3800 pictures
with the 5D I have only had to use noise reduction in photoshop on
3 pictures due to user error, not the sensor being noisey. :)
Click to expand...
they do produce noise at 1600, anyone else can see that in any review
1DMkiii is considerably better both in WA and noise
--
Riley

not everything that counts, can be counted
 
The most reliable and secure Windows ever. That doesn't take into account that Linux and OS/X have outdone them in both areas, by a wide margin.

I have found that the AF on my Oly dslr's - E1 and E330 - is quite accurate, although on the E1 it is a bit slow. Very rare to blow focus, and since I started using 10x LV with the E330, I haven't missed focus on a close macro shot. If you're into macro at all, the E330 is a godsend.

Canon has to tune them lens by lens on a $5k body to get the same level of accuracy.
 
....Just did a search for insectman and now all those old Oly rants are flooding back from distant memory. Did he change his ID after getting banned?
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Plusiotis said:
"To me, it looks like in four years we may have just 4 brands left
for dslr's, Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Samsung".

I'm amazed that (presumably) the poster of this comment actually
believes that the 4/3 sensor format will not exist, or even worse,
will not dominate dslr photography, which it will - because of
those fantastic (albeit super-expensive) Olympus lenses. Or perhaps
he has never heard of the 4/3 format.
Click to expand...
This is a beautiful example of the high art of trolling. Six lines,
two of them a quote. His part was well worded, and contains no
profanity, and he hasn't replied to any of the comments.

Nicely done, Plusiotinsectmanidatefrederikson.

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Click to expand...
 
Plusiotis said:
"To me, it looks like in four years we may have just 4 brands left
for dslr's, Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Samsung".

I'm amazed that (presumably) the poster of this comment actually
believes that the 4/3 sensor format will not exist, or even worse,
will not dominate dslr photography, which it will - because of
those fantastic (albeit super-expensive) Olympus lenses. Or perhaps
he has never heard of the 4/3 format.
Click to expand...
4/3rds will dominate because of super-expensive lenses that very few people can buy? This makes no sense, and it is either intended to fan the flames or perhaps an overly exhuberant fan of this particular brand.

If anything, if someone were to make a case for 4/3rds to dominate, I would assume it would be because of form factor, prices, etc, etc, not super-expensive lenses that very few people would buy.

--
New blog: http://1001noisycameras.blogspot.com
Current blog: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com
 
Ok, it's time someone stops this whole load of fear, uncertainty and doubt.

1. 4/3 sensor size is not "tiny compared to APS." It is rather similar in size. Check this:



2. Noise. Noise, in the E-510 & 410 cameras, has been controlled up to the point of being better to it's APS peers (Nikon D40, Canon Xti.) This is because of Panasonic releasing a very good nMOS sensor which is nor a CCD nor a standard CMOS sensor.

3. Full Frame. Full frame is a different animal marketed to a different price level. 4/3rds should be compared with APS.

4. "Expensive lenses". The Zuiko 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 costs about $400, has perfect optical quality wide open [high sharpness, low vignetting, low distortion], gives you a 28-105mm equivalent focal length, and it's of pro built quality including dust & water seals. Same for the rest of the "high grade" line: Reasonable prices, high performance.

Zuiko Digital lens owners are accustomed to sharp corner-to-corner performance even wide open, low or no vignetting, and low or no distortion. Plus weathersealing on all high grade and super high grade lenses.

5. Depth of field: People who think you can't get shallow DOF effects in 4/3rds hasn't actually used a 4/3rds camera. You can get shallow DOF effects. DOF is one stop wider than APS, but it's still enough for all your shallow DOF needs.

6. "No pro camera". Well, the E-1 is somewhat dated, of course, but it's replacement is due to be launched this year, so we'll see.

7. "AF problems". This should only be an issue for sports photographers. For the rest, AF speed is enough and it works in low light too. In fact, yesterday i was covering an event in very, very low light and i was able to lock AF when necessary. Moreover, the coming E-1 replacement is supposed to largely improve AF tracking speed.

8. "Big lenses": While this is somewhat true in the shorter focal length lenses (wide angles and standard lenses), it is not in the telephoto lenses, which are half the length of their full frame counterparts. Anybody please compare the Zuiko 150mm f2.0 lens to any Canikon 300mm f2.8 lens [which would give equivalent field of view] and the size saving is obvious. Plus the Zuiko lens is f2.0.
 
it would be ONE camera and ONE lens for this specific job of beach shooting, doing the usual stuff of mine you probably know only too well:



--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
 
digital_ray_of_light said:
4/3rds will dominate because of super-expensive lenses that very
few people can buy? This makes no sense, and it is either intended
to fan the flames or perhaps an overly exhuberant fan of this
particular brand.
Click to expand...
Oly will survive, perhaps even thrive. but not dominate, that's troll-speak, not even fan-speak.

However, if you'll tolerate some user-speak, I think I can positively state that Oly survival/thrival will occur (at least in part) not because of the high quality expensive lenses, it will be because of the high quality low priced lenses. The highly regarded E1 kit lens, the 14-54 mm f/3.5 was good enough that it made it into the regular lens line up. I bought it about 3 months ago for $279. An incredible lens for a small amount of money. My photo.net site has a couple of shots that should prove it.

--
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington
 
David Banner said:
David Banner said:
David Banner said:
4/3 is just plain stupid. The technology will go to bigger sensors
not smaller.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone use Canon or Nikon cameras with those tiny,
amateur sensors?

Medium format is the only tool for professional photographers, with
a sensor size that is 3.5x larger.
Click to expand...
Because there is no need for 30 megapixel files at the current
time. The technology is reaching a plateau. Special cases will
require a hasslebad camera with 30 megapixel images but for most
people it's overkill.

Full frame sensors allow use of 35mm film lenses, have more dynamic
range than smaller sensors, and will probably be the standard in
the future for serious photographers. Crop cameras will be for the
mass public.
Click to expand...
I was just hanging you with your own failed logic, you silly boy. And, you still don't get it.
 
Louis_Dobson said:
it would be ONE camera and ONE lens for this specific job of beach
shooting, doing the usual stuff of mine you probably know only too
well:



--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Click to expand...
We use the same system, though you use it to a much higher level.

What I mean, with reguards to creating a telecentric 35mm system, is it would push the size to studio type sizes. Bear with me as I've had a couple of glasses of wine and my clarity may reflect it.

The 4/3 system's mount is twice the size of its image circle. That's necessary to get the light normal (perpendicular) to the sensor. That's something around 85mm. I just measured my old OM mount and its just over 40mm. That's going to take a wide, tall body.

There is also going to have to be a decent distance from the back of the lens to the sensor, not just to make room for a full sized mirror, but to account for the wide lenses you desire. It will be a fairly deep body also. We have added bulk to the body, but weight doesn't follow until we start talking about the lenses.

The lenses are going to be massive. The objective lens will remain unchanged, and will still vary as required by the focal ratio of the system. Its the rest of the lenses that are going to add mass. As you are aware with the 4/3 system, there are typically more lenses than were necessary with the old film lenses. Its rare to have less than ten elements. In addition, the lenses on the sensor side will be nearly the diagonal dimension of the 35mm film. All the rest of the glass in the system will also need to be larger. That plus the increased barrel size (remember the mount size) will lead to weight increase of at least 33% (maybe closer to 50%) more than comparable 35mm film lenses.

It would be an interesting system. I wonder what Pentax might have accomplished if they had undertaken such a project rather than forcing medium format. Its certain that corner resolution would exceed anything the 35mm and medium format crowd are producing now.
 
I know we use the same system, and I was agreeing with you! What I was saying is that ONE camera and ONE lens is not going to be too heavy.

My going out and about kit is a body, a fisheye, an ultra wide zoom, a wide zoom, a normal zoom, a long tele, two macros, a flash, a TC and an extension ring. Plus filters and spare cards and batteries. In 4/3rds it is a pain. In 35mmFF I'd be a human pack horse. With a new, wider mount I-d need a wheelbarrow.

But the paying stuff these days I can do with one body and an ultrawide, and if that body and lens are huge, I don't care, because it still won't be much.

New Mamiya digital back plus cam plus UWA looks good, but 10K plus lens is a bit discouraging.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
 
Have a nice outing. I've had one too many and any results I'd get would be fantastic until I got the images on the screen.
 
These threads always pop up around the time Olympus releases new cameras. The E-400 generated them, the (Pani)L1, and the E-330 before it and so on.

Yeah ok, Canon is the best. I've had it all wrong all this time. I now realize technological developments lean towards making things like computers, stereos, and various gadgets, bigger rather than smaller.

Looking forward to the next wave of threads when the E-pro is released.....Yawn! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.................

PS. to all you full frame users, could you please post some shots of the billboards your images have been used in so we can all see how those extra megapixels are being put to good use? Thanks.
--
Lumix DMC-L1, Olympus E-1

Leica 25mm, ZD 50mm, ZD 11-22mm, Leica 14-50mm, ZD 14-54mm, ZD 50-200mm, ZD 8mm fisheye. FL-36 Flash.SHLD-2.
Ricoh GR-D
Sony DSC-V3
Fujifilm f810
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top