DSLR sensor facts with no acrimony please

Rriley said:

yeah sure, what you really need is a gutless attack, i explained that
here,
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=27015267

Click to expand...

"Gutless attack"?! Just posting what I could find of your work. Sure, take all the time you need to post a pic where the corners matter and that 35mm FF could not have gotten the shot

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Post'em and get back to me. Until then, you're all talk, and not
even good talk at that.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rriley said:

thats a truckload more than faking it anyway i can

Click to expand...

Faking what? As I said, find any lens comparison you want with 4/3 and 35mm FF. Just compare at the same FOV and aperture. If 4/3 wins in the corners, you'll find a hard dive on the MTF of the FF lens at the edges. Simple as that.

How could I possibly be any more fair?

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Look what you quote from my post above:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

So, c'mon now, sharp corners matter oh-so-much to you. Post a pic.
'Cause sharp corners don't mean squat to me, yet I can get them with
my "uselessly flawed" 35mm FF DSLR. Weird, huh?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And now look at what you didn't quote:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Choose your lens -- any lens. I don't care. I just chose two lenses
with the same FOVs that were tested on 4/3 and FF to compare.
Browse the site and find a different comparison. Just do so at the same
aperture .

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rriley said:

two words
kit lens

your not even man enough to admit it

Click to expand...

Admit what? That I chose two lenses with the same FOV? As I've said, choose your lens. Just compare at the same FOV and aperture. I'll wait while you get on that. (Yeah, right!)

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

shinndigg said:

...so, how many 4/3rds sucks threads are there now???

Click to expand...

Find one place where I said, or even implied, that 4/3 sucks. After that, in this thread alone, find how many times Rriley has been saying that 35mm FF sucks.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

shinndigg said:

..."4/3rds sucks compared to any/everything else" thread. Sad, really.

Click to expand...

...if you don't mind. Could you link me to the posts where someone said, or implied, that 4/3 sucks and then quote the relevant section? I'd appreciate it.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Just look at the original post.
--
shinndigg
http://www.pbase.com/shinndigg

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

...so, how many 4/3rds sucks threads are there now???

Click to expand...

Find one place where I said, or even implied, that 4/3 sucks. After
that, in this thread alone, find how many times Rriley has been
saying that 35mm FF sucks.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Click to expand...

Did I say you, Joe James, said this? I simply asked you if you were keeping track, like you do all of the "FF sux or whatever" threads.

BTW, this poster, TalylorHobson's message sounds an awful lot like what you'd say. You don't happen to have an alter ego, do you? ;> )
--
shinndigg
http://www.pbase.com/shinndigg

shinndigg said:

Just look at the original post.

Click to expand...

I never even read it all the way through until just now. : ) Anyway, I sure don't get a "4/3 sucks" message from it. I just get a message that "FF is the future". Just saying that one system has more potential than another does not denigrade the other system.

Now, before I'm misinterpreted -- I believe the OP is wrong. I do not believe FF is the future. I think FF will always be a minority. If you look at the market, the smaller the sensor, the more popular the format (if we lump 4/3 in with APS-C), from cell phones to digital backs.

Now, it's well known that I believe that 35m FF has an IQ advantage over 4/3. Not in every instance, of course, but just overall. But that doesn't mean that I think 4/3 sucks -- far from it! I think 4/3 is a far better system for most people than 35mm FF.

So, in the same way, I didn't interpret the OP as saying that 4/3 sucks; rather, I interpreted his post as an over-zealous overstatement as to which direction he feels the market will go.

Saying "A" is better than "B" is not the same as saying "B" sucks. But even I don't say that 35mm FF is "better than" 4/3, but I do feel it has the overall IQ advantage. In any case, that's not a point I argue. I merely defend 35mm FF from those saying that 35mm FF sucks.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

shinndigg said:

shinndigg said:

shinndigg said:

...so, how many 4/3rds sucks threads are there now???

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

shinndigg said:

shinndigg said:

Find one place where I said, or even implied, that 4/3 sucks. After
that, in this thread alone, find how many times Rriley has been
saying that 35mm FF sucks.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

shinndigg said:

Did I say you, Joe James, said this? I simply asked you if you were
keeping track, like you do all of the "FF sux or whatever" threads.

Click to expand...

Apologies. Your post came in the midst of Rriley's and my exchanges and I incorrectly attributed the comment to those posts. Sorry about that.

shinndigg said:

BTW, this poster, TalylorHobson's message sounds an awful lot like
what you'd say. You don't happen to have an alter ego, do you? ;> )

Click to expand...

As I posted futher down:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=27204396

I actually very much disagree with his assessment of the future of the DSLR market.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

Just look at the original post.

Click to expand...

I never even read it all the way through until just now. : )
Anyway, I sure don't get a "4/3 sucks" message from it. I just get a
message that "FF is the future". Just saying that one system has
more potential than another does not denigrade the other system.

Now, before I'm misinterpreted -- I believe the OP is wrong. I do
not believe FF is the future. I think FF will always be a
minority. If you look at the market, the smaller the sensor, the
more popular the format (if we lump 4/3 in with APS-C), from cell
phones to digital backs.

Now, it's well known that I believe that 35m FF has an IQ advantage
over 4/3. Not in every instance, of course, but just overall. But
that doesn't mean that I think 4/3 sucks -- far from it! I think 4/3
is a far better system for most people than 35mm FF.

So, in the same way, I didn't interpret the OP as saying that 4/3
sucks; rather, I interpreted his post as an over-zealous
overstatement as to which direction he feels the market will go.

Saying "A" is better than "B" is not the same as saying "B" sucks.
But even I don't say that 35mm FF is "better than" 4/3, but I do feel
it has the overall IQ advantage. In any case, that's not a point I
argue. I merely defend 35mm FF from those saying that 35mm FF sucks.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Click to expand...

And I agree with much of what you say in this post. the op skewered his 'facts' by omitting other factors that make a difference, as others have so roundly pointed out. Any how, good to 'talk' to ya'!
--
shinndigg
http://www.pbase.com/shinndigg

Rriley said:

two words
kit lens

Click to expand...

Since I knew you wouldn't look up other lens comparisons, I took the liberty of finding a perfect match:

50 / 2 macro on 4/3:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/35/cat/14

100 / 2.8 macro on 35mm FF:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/157/cat/10

Compare at any apertures you want, so long as you're using double the f-ratio for 35mm FF for the same DOF. Actually, with those two lenses, it doesn't even really matter.

Rriley said:

your not even man enough to admit it

Click to expand...

Tell me again what I'm supposed to be "man enough to admit"?

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Speaking from very general knowledge here...

As I understand it, 24x36 is larger than most chip fabricating machines can handle. Thus, custom machinery has to be built to make the larger chips, and maintained, and upgraded. It's a lot cheaper to do that with off the shelf, relatively mass produced equipment than to build a custom machine.

I don't see that getting a lot better in the near future. The trend with microchips is smaller, not larger. Perhaps Sony can mass produce 24x36 sensors cheaply, they have plenty of experience in that area.

Most digital cameras above 3 MP on the market take excellent pictures in perfect conditions. So it depends on how much you want to spend depending on their needs. Everyone knows the internet, they'll research before selecting their camera.

I hate to tell you this, but there are no little men in the camera. Cameras, lenses, sensors, the lot, whatever, do not "gather" anything. They are passive. If you keep talking like that you end up writing gobbledigook like "Larger sensor systems can trade DOF for more light".

Eventually, people could even start to talk as if the sensor affects the lens focal length and DOF, as if the sensor (little men again) can reach forward and modify the image formed by the lens. How anyone can think like that beggars belief but there it goes.

Of course, if you can write "the image noise is determined by two, and only two, factors: the total amount of light (total number of photons that fall on the sensor) and the sensor efficiency (how effectively the sensor captures the photons)", neither of which have anything to do with noise (photon flux and quantum efficiency determine the signal, not the noise) and apparently never having heard of photon noise, read noise and dark noise, you can write anything.

One kit lens to another is a fair comparision. These lenses compete directly against each other in the manufacturers respective lens line-ups, assuming he compared the slightly better old version of the Oly 40-150.

How about comparing the Oly 35-100 F2 to the Canon 70-200 F4L? The Oly costs twice as much, and they are eqiv FOV and DOF. No one can scream kit lens anymore, even if it was a fair comparision in the first place

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

No. I want you to go to http://www.slrgear.com where the lenses were tested
and compare them, since they have the same FOV (the max aperture on
the Canon lens, however, is twice as big, but that doesn't matter
since we are comparing at the same aperture, anyway).

Click to expand...

dont pass it off on them
YOU, are comparing a KIT lens
do you even know how biased and corrupt this argument is?

im not interested in discussing my views with you, its pointless
but people should know a fake when they see one

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)

Click to expand...

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/

Redteg94 said:

One kit lens to another is a fair comparision. These lenses compete
directly against each other in the manufacturers respective lens
line-ups, assuming he compared the slightly better old version of the
Oly 40-150.

How about comparing the Oly 35-100 F2 to the Canon 70-200 F4L? The
Oly costs twice as much, and they are eqiv FOV and DOF. No one can
scream kit lens anymore, even if it was a fair comparision in the
first place

Click to expand...

yep thats right, and a more worthwhile comparison, choose the IS version

but on kit lenses, so this is fair too then



in these 100% crops, the E510 default sharpening is too high,

but the deficiencies of the 18-55 are obvious, and at least the sharpening can be turned down
--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)

Les Olson said:

I hate to tell you this, but there are no little men in the camera.

Click to expand...

Oh, do tell!

Les Olson said:

Cameras, lenses, sensors, the lot, whatever, do not "gather"
anything. They are passive.

Click to expand...

Hey! It's "Mr. Semantics!" OK, well, I guess a lake doesn't "gather" water from the rivers flowing into it, either. Sorry for having confused you. How about I use the word "collect" instead? Oh, wait, no, that won't work -- still an active verb. Hmmm. Let me think, let me think. Oh, darn it, I just don't know. I guess I'll rewrite the whole sentence: light passes through the lens and onto the sensor. So, less light passes through a 17-55 / 2.8 IS onto the sensor as passes through a 24-105 / 4L IS onto the sensor for the same perspective, FOV, shutter speed, and f-ratio of the same scene.

Do you understand that?

Les Olson said:

If you keep talking like that you end up writing gobbledigook like "Larger
sensor systems can trade DOF for more light".

Click to expand...

Song lyrics must be a ***** for you. A FF sensor can use a more shallow DOF for the same persepctive and FOV with more light passing through the lens onto the sensor than smaller sensors. Clear enough?

Les Olson said:

Eventually, people could even start to talk as if the sensor affects
the lens focal length and DOF, as if the sensor (little men again)
can reach forward and modify the image formed by the lens. How
anyone can think like that beggars belief but there it goes.

Click to expand...

The images formed with the same perspective, focal length, f-ratio, and shutter speed of the same scene on different sensors make for very different images. Did you have a point?

Les Olson said:

Of course, if you can write "the image noise is determined by two,
and only two, factors: the total amount of light (total number of
photons that fall on the sensor) and the sensor efficiency (how
effectively the sensor captures the photons)", neither of which have
anything to do with noise (photon flux and quantum efficiency
determine the signal, not the noise) and apparently never having
heard of photon noise, read noise and dark noise, you can write
anything.

Click to expand...

Guess what? Photon Noise is the noise determined by the total amount of light. Read noise is determined by the sensor's efficiency.

Later, dude. You play boring games.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

One kit lens to another is a fair comparision. These lenses compete
directly against each other in the manufacturers respective lens
line-ups, assuming he compared the slightly better old version of the
Oly 40-150.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Exactly. As explained, I simply went to http://www.slrgear.com and chose two lenses that were reviewed that had the same FOV. Rriley could head on over and compare any other two lenses at the same FOV and aperture (not f-ratio) that he liked. He hasn't, and won't. Guess why?

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

How about comparing the Oly 35-100 F2 to the Canon 70-200 F4L? The
Oly costs twice as much, and they are eqiv FOV and DOF. No one can
scream kit lens anymore, even if it was a fair comparision in the
first place

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

As the review for the 35-100 / 2 is not up yet, I could not cite that example. However, I did link the 50 / 2 macro on 4/3 vs 100 / 2.8 macro on FF:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=27204801

Rriley hasn't commented yet, nor do I expect him to ever do so.

Rriley said:

yep thats right, and a more worthwhile comparison, choose the IS version

Click to expand...

Well, c'mon Rriley -- go find the test and post the results at the same aperture . As I said, the review for the 35-100 / 2 is not up yet at http://www.slrgear.com , but I suggest you look at the results for the 70-200 / 4L IS on 35mm FF.

Rriley said:

but on kit lenses, so this is fair too then
http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z179/realink_album/review/Image2.jpg
in these 100% crops, the E510 default sharpening is too high,
but the deficiencies of the 18-55 are obvious, and at least the
sharpening can be turned down

Click to expand...

I like how you don't include the EXIF for the shots, don't include the fullsize images, don't include the review page, and don't make a FF vs 4/3 comparision, since that's what I was talking about, not 1.6x vs 4/3.

Anyway, for a little more (well, a lot more) honesty that you never seem to be able to muster, here's the 18-55 / 3.5-4.5 IS on 1.6x:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1114/cat/11

Here's the 14-45 / 3.5-5.6:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/32/cat/15

Guess who wins? Man, you are one dishonest bloke! linking to micro-sized pics from an unnamed source and not including EXIF!

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

"So, less light passes through a 17-55 / 2.8 IS onto the sensor as passes through a 24-105 / 4L IS onto the sensor for the same perspective, FOV, shutter speed, and f-ratio of the same scene."

No, that won't do. Stil gobbledygook. Scenes do not have f ratios or shutter speeds. And how did perspective get in to it?

So the f ratio is the same, the shutter speed is the same, but there is less light ... I guess you must mean that one is on a DX and one on an FX, right? And if I mounted the same two lenses, both on the same sensor (DX or FX), there would still be different amounts of light? No? So there you go again with the little men reaching out from the sensor changing the image before it gets to them.

Redteg94 said:

One kit lens to another is a fair comparision. These lenses compete
directly against each other in the manufacturers respective lens
line-ups, assuming he compared the slightly better old version of the
Oly 40-150.

Click to expand...

unlike the 40-150 in SLR.com the 70-300 isnt claimed to be a kit lens, so pffft. And the Canon 70-300 4.-5.6 IS is worth a lot more at around $550. Despite what i was told in this thread about FF lenses being cheaper at around $230-$250 depending on the version, and at 630 gms v/s 220 (for the 40-150 specified) it couldnt be said to be lighter. Equally at 142.8mm x 76.5mm v/s 72mm x 65.5mm nor is it smaller.

to recap, 70-300 isnt cheaper, lighter or smaller

And yes of course he chose the weaker of the two 40-150 kit lenses, he will deny it of course, i guess theres no point to bias unless you can be biased and that the deal with fakers.

Redteg94 said:

How about comparing the Oly 35-100 F2 to the Canon 70-200 F4L? The
Oly costs twice as much, and they are eqiv FOV and DOF. No one can
scream kit lens anymore, even if it was a fair comparision in the
first place

Click to expand...

yes but then neither of those are wide angle or even close, and thats were the dispute should be centred, tele lenses by their very nature have more distant exit pupils and hence more telecentriity and greatly better edge performance.

and thats were comparisons get hard, because canon doesnt have an alike 7-14/4 (14-28mm EFL) zoom for APSC or FF, and they dont have a 11-22/2.8-3.5 (22-44mm EFL) zoom in the mid size

so he has to rely on comparisons of other lenses and attempts to choose weaker candidates. Lets see how that goes....

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)

Preamble, the charts
I shall put the Olympus notes are in brackets for an attempt at clarity.

On Olympus scales the thick blue lines are 20lpmm, the orange lines are 60lpmm,
the Canon scales are organised differently and depend upon 10lpmm and 30lpmm

The thick lines are measurements taken at 10 lpmm (20lpmm) and the thin lines are at 30 lpmm (60lpmm) , at higher frequency-higher resolution.

Be aware that the black (orange) lines show the lens wide open while the blue lines show the lens stopped down to f/8, so the closer these sets of lines are to each other the better the performance of the lens when used wide open. The very best lenses will have the black (orange) and the blue lines close together.

Analysis

The higher up the chart the 10 lpmm (20lpmm) line is the higher the contrast reproduction capability of the lens will be. The higher up the chart the 30 lpmm (60lpmm) line is, the higher the resolving power and thus subjective sharpness of the lens will be. Generally speaking a lens whose thick lines 10 lpmm (20lpmm) are above .8 on the chart should be regarded as having excellent image quality. Above .6 is regarded as 'satisfactory'. Below .6 isnt good and generally demonstrates off axis results.

Be aware that an MTF chart doesn't tell us everything that there is to know about a lens. Important variables such as vignetting, distortions of various sorts, and resistance to flare are among the things not measured (funny about that). Anyhow here are the lenses in consideration, learn to make your own minds up rather than chance your luck that someone did the work for you

35-100/2 constant aperture that he says isnt here (gee wonder why that is)



Olympus 40-150 KIT lens



EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM wide



EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM tele



Olympus 50/2



EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM



--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)