Michael's Luminous Canon G10 revelation....

Raist3d · Oct 25, 2008

bribbitt said:
So I'm not saying some aren't better suited with 4/3, or that some
aren't better suited with FF. I'm saying most are better suited with
the G10, since the G10 passes his threshold for image quality and
fits in your pocked. And I believe that's what Reichman was saying.

Reichman is not talking about that at all. He is simply talking about the level of image quality that a camera at the level of a G10 is pushing. Near his entire article is about that and advancements. Given that logic, is that then I wonder, why complain on 4/3rds but then say stuff like this- unless he changed his mind.

Someone else in this thread gave me a reasonable reply (Brent J) to what I was talking about.

bribbitt said:
bribbitt said:

Because you basically brushed away earlier somebody who has other
needs the G10 can't deliver.

Click to expand...

I said no such thing. This is what I said (second to last paragraph
from my last post):

bribbitt said:

bribbitt said:

Not everyone has the same needs and wants, and you make it sound like
I'm trying to tell you that you'd be better off with a G10, and I just don't
know where you get that from. I mean, if I agreed with his opinion for
myself, I'd just get my own G10, right?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Here's what you also said:

"So unless you have specific needs that 4/3 fills that the G10 and the like do not (wide angle, long reach, shallow DOF, high ISO, etc.), then there isn't much point to a DSLR. Of course, there are many people with just such "special needs", but they likely represent a minority."

and also said:

"> You are throwing this out as if it was a given most don't care.. I don't know

bribbitt said:
where you get that idea.

"Yeah, pretty much. Everytime a thread comes up about DOF control, people post their near-macro pics and telephoto pics to demonstrate it. Well, you can do that with a G10, too."

You are basically throwing it out in the "it's all a small group" yada yada.

bribbitt said:
Apparently, you read the last sentence:

bribbitt said:

bribbitt said:

I mean, if I agreed with his opinion for myself, I'd just get my own
G10, right?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

But not the first one. In fact, I'll take it a step further. Rriley
was slamming shallow DOF for wide angle:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29773970

and I was defending it. And we know that shallow DOF on wide angle
is something not even 4/3 can attain (except with macro). So to say
that I'm "throwing away" those whose photography cannot be handled
with a G10 is just a bunch of BS.

Well that's sort of what you seemed to be doing to me in the thread. But hey, it's the internet, I could certainly be wrong.

[]

bribbitt said:
Then I'm totally confused as to what your point is. I thought it was
why the G10 "carries the badge" but 4/3 can't? And my answer was
that the G10 passed a critical threshold for image quality AND
portability that 4/3 did not. In fact, I have high hopes for mFT,
and I'm hoping that it is that format that gets to "carry the badge".

My point is that given what Reichman has said about 4/3rds I find the article he wrote (which btw, I do agree with) contradictory. When I say "why 4/3rds can't" I am talking in the Reichman context. And sorry, there is a continuum here. A D-3 makes an e-420 look very small indeed. There are many ways that using the logic of his recent article the same thing could be said about 4/3rds but he doesn't. Maybe he changed his mind. Maybe Brent J is right.

bribbitt said:
Again, my answer to this, as it's been from the beginning, is that
the G10 passes a threshold for image quality AND portability that 4/3
does not.

bribbitt said:
bribbitt said:

This is different from disagreeing with the G10 preview he did.
That's not what my post was or is about. I actually happen to agree
with him for the most part (though not quite with you in something
that in the end is not really related then to what I first posted).

Click to expand...

Likely you disagree with me because you ascribe to me things I never
said, as I discussed further up in this post.

Read above then because I quoted you on them. It's easy to see that in this context we are talking about. Misunderstandings can happen of course, and I welcome the corrections.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

Sergey_Green · Oct 25, 2008

Rriley said:
Joe Mama said:

Again, my answer to this, as it's been from the beginning, is that
the G10 passes a threshold for image quality AND portability that 4/3
does not.

Click to expand...

anyone who seriously believes this statement has been sitting on his
own gasses for way too long

He is like a legend here is not he? Or you would not be adding "Joe Mama wrote:" to the quote. But why do you not want to believe the statement Riley? G10 is small, much smaller than dslrs, it is light and easy to carry and it can make superb quality images. Even my power shot surprised me more than I was prepared to believe.

I find almost ironic in this thread is how noise, iso, and dof control suddenly became so relevant whereas these very same words are debated to be meaningless when comparing 4/3 to a full frame. But look at the sizes again, D700, D5, Sony are not much bigger (if at all) than Oly flagship E-3. And if you do not shoot birds then size and weight of the lenses is not that different either. Why don't you want to believe G10 passes a threshold for portability - and with quite some margin - whereas 4/3 does not?

--
http://photo.net/photos/sngreen

munro harrap · Oct 25, 2008

All powershots are 4 thirds- they are all 4:3 format like most digicams. The caveat 4/3rds has is its exclusivity and NOISE. As digicam s like the G10 can be used at their lowest iso almost all of the time because their depth of field is so much greater, the only pity is Canons decision to abandon the excellent f2-2.5 zooms earlier machines had. Imagine and get (no way?), a G10 with the lens supplied for the G6 and RAW at 50 iso, and realise just how you and I are being robbed blind. Canon could easily improve the G10 that way and doubtless image quality could match 4/3rds at low isos. I have not read Reichmann, not being a groupie, but that sure beats thinking for you...

Rriley · Oct 25, 2008

Sergey_Green said:
Rriley said:

Joe Mama said:

Again, my answer to this, as it's been from the beginning, is that
the G10 passes a threshold for image quality AND portability that 4/3
does not.

Click to expand...

anyone who seriously believes this statement has been sitting on his
own gasses for way too long

Click to expand...

He is like a legend here is not he?

he's just another banned guy Sergey

Sergey_Green said:
Or you would not be adding "Joe
Mama wrote:" to the quote. But why do you not want to believe the
statement Riley?

i wrote that b/se that is who it is

Sergey_Green said:
G10 is small, much smaller than dslrs, it is light
and easy to carry and it can make superb quality images. Even my
power shot surprised me more than I was prepared to believe.

the statement in question is

"is that the G10 passes a threshold for image quality AND portability that 4/3 does not.

read that the G10 passes a threshold for image quality 4/3 does not.

which is plainly false
go troll around the canon forum and see what they really think of it

Sergey_Green said:
I find almost ironic in this thread is how noise, iso, and dof

you know what, i dont care what you find

i can walk past G10 in a heartbeat, the thing is Mp stuffed, and they are too stupid to realise what that means

Sergey_Green said:
control suddenly became so relevant whereas these very same words are
debated to be meaningless when comparing 4/3 to a full frame. But
look at the sizes again, D700, D5, Sony are not much bigger (if at
all) than Oly flagship E-3. And if you do not shoot birds then size
and weight of the lenses is not that different either. Why don't you
want to believe G10 passes a threshold for portability - and with
quite some margin - whereas 4/3 does not?

Reichmann himself didnt focus his subjects all that well, or the MF format images are kinda shallow DoF, thats why his BS assessment of this synopsis makes good for him. Too anyone who knows anything about this camera that plainly isnt true. He's a moron looking for support from the lowest bidder, and another once OK web site bites the credibility dust...

so plain point blank question Sergey
are you in support of the veracity of Joe Mama's statement or not?

--
Riley

no one notices the contrast of white on white

shaunkeng · Oct 25, 2008

Are you talking about this article from over 3 years ago?? If so wow!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/push-pull.shtml

MR quote: "Though I know these are fighting words, I'm afraid that I regard the 4/3rd concept is an evolutionary dead-end".

Reading the couple of paragraphs where he discusses this I believe he is not contradicting what he is said in the G10 article. He's only saying that the 4/3 format market will be squeezed by falling prices of larger sensors. This is true, there will be overlap with low end larger sensors more and more as prices fall. The G10 and similar quality cameras now means there will be pressure from smaller sensors offering better and better image quality at cheaper prices and as a previous poster said with more portability.

This seems a reasonable conclusion to make today so deriding someone who made that conclusion 3 years ago is a little silly.

Is he or will he be right remains to be seen. But I don't see the inconsistency you speak of.

Years ago RISC based computing was the "future of computing" and there were many who said Intel chips were a dead end cause they couldn't compete with RISC based chips and that they where hitting the limits of performance capabilities of their architecture. Well Intel threw billions of dollars at the problem to solve those shortcomings in processor development and manufacturing. Its obvious 4/3rds is being squeezed, will enough money be spent to extend its life going forward we'll see.

bribbitt · Oct 25, 2008

Sergey_Green said:
He is like a legend here is not he? Or you would not be adding "Joe
Mama wrote:" to the quote. But why do you not want to believe the
statement Riley?

Apparently, he does that to anyone who references Joe Mama's pics:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29743390

I guess smokes is also Joe Mama.

Sergey_Green said:
G10 is small, much smaller than dslrs, it is light
and easy to carry and it can make superb quality images. Even my
power shot surprised me more than I was prepared to believe.

Exactly!

Sergey_Green said:
I find almost ironic in this thread is how noise, iso, and dof
control suddenly became so relevant whereas these very same words are
debated to be meaningless when comparing 4/3 to a full frame.

Yes!

Sergey_Green said:
But look at the sizes again, D700, D5, Sony are not much bigger (if at
all) than Oly flagship E-3. And if you do not shoot birds then size
and weight of the lenses is not that different either. Why don't you
want to believe G10 passes a threshold for portability - and with
quite some margin - whereas 4/3 does not?

Exactly. And it's not like everyone will have the same opinion, but Rriley's comment "anyone who seriously believes this statement has been sitting on his own gasses for way too long" is matched only by his photos.

bribbitt · Oct 25, 2008

Member said:
Do you realize that every single shot I linked to you is from the
thread you gave me?

Yikes! No, I didn't.

Member said:
I believe that you are talking about some other market. Clearly
people that went for DSLR's saw something that P&S didn't quite do,
whether real or imagined.

My belief is that most want a DSLR for higher image quality, and that is something the P&S now does.

Member said:
Member said:

You want DOF control? You want wide angle? You want long telephoto?
You want high ISO? That's...

Click to expand...

Member said:
That's ummm... what many photographers want? Or need for some of
the stuff they want to do?

What many want, but not most -- in my opinion.

Member said:
Oh ic, this is your continuation from above. Following now... So
basically you are admitting then that 4/3rds has validity and a space.

No, I'm not "admitting" -- that implies that I'm reluctant to agree. I absolutely believe that all the formats have a place.

Member said:
Member said:

And, since you bring
up the D3 and 5DII -- they have the same increase in DOF control and
high ISO ability over 4/3 that 4/3 has over a G10, since the 4/3
sensor is four times the area of the G10 sensor, and the FF sensor is
four times the area of the 4/3 sensor.

Click to expand...

Member said:
Certainly, but I am not the one questioning the validity of those
cameras. I am not the one saying Full Frame is not what most people
one- which would be analogous to what you say about G10/ 4-3rds. You
are the one bringing this logic up, not me. I am just making a
necessary consequence of your logic. You can't have this both ways.

OK, well I guess that's the crutch of it. I'm saying that it is my opinion that the G10 is the type of camera most would want, just like it is my opinion that a 4-door car is the type of vehicle most would want. But that doesn't mean that I think people only want 4-door sedans.

bribbitt · Oct 25, 2008

Member said:
Member said:

So I'm not saying some aren't better suited with 4/3, or that some
aren't better suited with FF. I'm saying most are better suited with
the G10, since the G10 passes his threshold for image quality and
fits in your pocked. And I believe that's what Reichman was saying.

Click to expand...

Member said:
Reichman is not talking about that at all. He is simply talking about
the level of image quality that a camera at the level of a G10 is
pushing. Near his entire article is about that and advancements.
Given that logic, is that then I wonder, why complain on 4/3rds but
then say stuff like this- unless he changed his mind.

OK, I don't know where his complaint about 4/3 comes from. If I had to guess, it would just be that he doesn't feel that 4/3 offers anything over APS-C. I would think he would have felt differently had the initial incarnation of 4/3 been mFT with the image quality of today's 4/3.

Member said:
You are basically throwing it out in the "it's all a small group"
yada yada.

Not "throwing it out", but just saying that it's a smaller group than the group that wants great image quality in a pocketable camera. And, again, just my opinion.

Member said:
My point is that given what Reichman has said about 4/3rds I find the
article he wrote (which btw, I do agree with) contradictory. When I
say "why 4/3rds can't" I am talking in the Reichman context. And
sorry, there is a continuum here. A D-3 makes an e-420 look very
small indeed.

Neither the D3 nor the E-420 are pocketable. It is my opinion that it is this pocketability that makes the difference.

Member said:
Read above then because I quoted you on them. It's easy to see that
in this context we are talking about. Misunderstandings can happen of
course, and I welcome the corrections.

OK. Peace out, then. I think we know understand each other (hopefully).

Brent J · Oct 25, 2008

Isn't it funny how you can start a topic with a valid point and some people respond with things that aren't even really close to what you were saying. It makes you wonder if some folks actually read what you type.

I see what you are saying. Let's look at the logic here:

Mr. Reichmann does an experiment by making 13"x"19" prints from a G10 and a medium format Hasselblad H2 with a 39 megapixel digital back and several experienced photographers and people in the commercial print industry can't tell the difference. So, one can say that the G10 can produce images as good as a medium format camera in some situations when printed to a ceratin size.

Four-Thirds cameras probably can produce images as good or better than the G10.

Therefore, Four-Thirds cameras can produce images as good as a 39 megapixel medium format camera in some situations when printed to a certain size.

I think the logic is sound. So, why does Reichmann call the Four-Thirds system a "dead end". I looked at his comments about the E1 and this is what he wrote at the time:

[ We can now look at the flaw in the logic behind the 4/3 format. While larger chips (up to full-frame) are more expensive than ones of the 4/3 size today, this won't be the case for long. Increasing production volumes along with technological advances will bring the price of large chips downwards at a steady pace. Will smaller chips always be less expensive? Of course. But will the differential be enough to make the downside of using a smaller chip worthwhile for very long? I doubt it.

So, we have someone that buys into the 4/3 format in late 2003 or early 2004. They also buy several lenses for this format. But what happens in 2005 and 2006, and onwards? We will undoubtedly have imaging chips ranging from a 1.5X factor to full frame 35mm that don't cost all that much more, and you can be certain that companies like Nikon and Canon will be making cameras that use them, and which can utilize the huge existing inventory of full-frame coverage lenses available.

Anyone owning 4/3 format lenses then will have no escape. They will be limited to using cameras with a 2X magnification ratio because their lenses are unable to cover a larger image circle. If we assume that the price differential between small and medium sized imaging chips is going to decrease, then a 4/3 based camera will always suffer from smaller images or lower image quality by comparison, because while the number of pixels can be increased (this is accomplished by making the pixels themselves smaller), by making them smaller image quality is reduced. It's just physics. Anything that Kodak does to the 4/3 format chip can also be done to larger ones, so the differential will remain.

It seems to me that history is about to repeat itself. Olympus was the champion of the failed but elegant little half-frame format of the 1960's, and now appears to be heading down the same path. ]

So he is basically saying that image quality of the Four-Thirds system is, and will be, inherently inferior to other systems.

I think you've got a vaild point Ricardo. I would be interested to hear his response.

Brent

Brent J · Oct 25, 2008

I'm asking 'cuz I don't know.

I have a couple of compact cameras but only one will actually fit into a pocket. I have the Oly 770SW which is about the size of a deck of playing cards. That one will fit into just about any pocket, pants or shirt.

I also have a Canon S1IS and it's dimensions are 111m x 78mm x 66mm (4.4 x 3.1 x 2.6 in). The G10 is a little smaller at 109 x 78 x 46 mm (4.3 x 3.1 x 1.8 in). It looks like the G10 is about 20mm thinner (front to back) than the S1IS. I don't think I've ever carried the S1IS with me and had it actually fit into a pocket. Even though the G10 is a little thinner, I doubt I would carry it in a pocket either.

So that means (for me) I would be carrying the G10 as I would carry a large DSLR, by the strap, around my neck or over my shoulder, or in a bag over my shoulder. So for me, the G10 doesn't necessarily have a size advantage over an E420 for example.

Raist3d · Oct 25, 2008

Sergey_Green said:
Rriley said:

Joe Mama said:

Again, my answer to this, as it's been from the beginning, is that
the G10 passes a threshold for image quality AND portability that 4/3
does not.

Click to expand...

anyone who seriously believes this statement has been sitting on his
own gasses for way too long

Click to expand...

He is like a legend here is not he? Or you would not be adding "Joe
Mama wrote:" to the quote. But why do you not want to believe the
statement Riley? G10 is small, much smaller than dslrs, it is light
and easy to carry and it can make superb quality images. Even my
power shot surprised me more than I was prepared to believe.

I find almost ironic in this thread is how noise, iso, and dof
control suddenly became so relevant whereas these very same words are
debated to be meaningless when comparing 4/3 to a full frame. But

Maybe because the DOF difference between at least APS-C and 4/3rds is not that big but it is between a G10 and 4/3rds? Also because you have far more control with DOF on 4/3rds due to the lenses you can put in? Hell the difference between 4/3rds and a FF camera is even smaller than the G10 to 4/3rds. But you already know this, right?

But the real issue is not whether these things are deal breakers to say good G10 use. My objection and the reasons I mentioned them is because they were thrown out as if they were just pointless irrelevant.

I never criticized the role of FF. I actually mentioned G10, 4/3rds are different markets. There will be some overlaps but there's also a lot of differences. And the the point doesn't even touch on this anyway. The point of what I started to write as my first post. Has nothing, zero, nada to do with this anyway.

Sergey_Green said:
look at the sizes again, D700, D5, Sony are not much bigger (if at
all) than Oly flagship E-3. And if you do not shoot birds then size
and weight of the lenses is not that different either. Why don't you
want to believe G10 passes a threshold for portability - and with
quite some margin - whereas 4/3 does not?

Personally I think it's stupid to say either case as an all or nothing. An e-420 sure look far more portable next to a D3. And yes, a G10 is more portable too. It's all relative to your needs.

Sergey_Green said:
--
http://photo.net/photos/sngreen

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

Raist3d · Oct 25, 2008

bribbitt said:
bribbitt said:

bribbitt said:

So I'm not saying some aren't better suited with 4/3, or that some
aren't better suited with FF. I'm saying most are better suited with
the G10, since the G10 passes his threshold for image quality and
fits in your pocked. And I believe that's what Reichman was saying.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bribbitt said:

Reichman is not talking about that at all. He is simply talking about
the level of image quality that a camera at the level of a G10 is
pushing. Near his entire article is about that and advancements.
Given that logic, is that then I wonder, why complain on 4/3rds but
then say stuff like this- unless he changed his mind.

Click to expand...

OK, I don't know where his complaint about 4/3 comes from. If I had
to guess, it would just be that he doesn't feel that 4/3 offers
anything over APS-C. I would think he would have felt differently
had the initial incarnation of 4/3 been mFT with the image quality of
today's 4/3.

From all the replies back and forth this is the ONLY thing that actually stays on topic with my original post. Thanks for commenting on this

bribbitt said:
bribbitt said:

You are basically throwing it out in the "it's all a small group"
yada yada.

Click to expand...

Not "throwing it out", but just saying that it's a smaller group than
the group that wants great image quality in a pocketable camera.
And, again, just my opinion.

Understood, but what I mean is that there are different "breakthrough" levels here. You get the pocketable size. You do get the smallest DLSR in the world size which compared to a FF D3, is a huge difference in carrying that around your neck. As for great image quality that all depends- if you are stuck to ISO 80 and daylight shots, maybe, sure. But being stuck at ISO 80 on an F2.8-F4.5 lens ain't much fun for many. In fact since you mention the needs of the masses one big need is indoor shots. Being stuck at ISO 80 for F2.8-F4.5 is not going to cut it.

So I mean, I accept that pocketeability is an advantage, but so is say the size of the 4/3rds e-4xx series. Both stand. It's not me an issue of me disagreeing with his article on the G10 (like I have said many times, I don't), it's what I see as lack of consistency of two different opinions.

bribbitt said:
bribbitt said:

My point is that given what Reichman has said about 4/3rds I find the
article he wrote (which btw, I do agree with) contradictory. When I
say "why 4/3rds can't" I am talking in the Reichman context. And
sorry, there is a continuum here. A D-3 makes an e-420 look very
small indeed.

Click to expand...

Neither the D3 nor the E-420 are pocketable. It is my opinion that
it is this pocketability that makes the difference.

bribbitt said:

Read above then because I quoted you on them. It's easy to see that
in this context we are talking about. Misunderstandings can happen of
course, and I welcome the corrections.

Click to expand...

OK. Peace out, then. I think we know understand each other
(hopefully).

Cool.

bribbitt said:
--

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

Raist3d · Oct 25, 2008

I have the LX3 and the LX3 is a tight fit in my pocket. I know for a fact that the G10 is bigger, so it may not fit in a jeans pocket well at all (but a "coat" pocket, sure).

So yes, the G10 may not be after all, pocketable at all!

Brent J said:
I'm asking 'cuz I don't know.

I have a couple of compact cameras but only one will actually fit
into a pocket. I have the Oly 770SW which is about the size of a deck
of playing cards. That one will fit into just about any pocket, pants
or shirt.

I also have a Canon S1IS and it's dimensions are 111m x 78mm x 66mm
(4.4 x 3.1 x 2.6 in). The G10 is a little smaller at 109 x 78 x 46 mm
(4.3 x 3.1 x 1.8 in). It looks like the G10 is about 20mm thinner
(front to back) than the S1IS. I don't think I've ever carried the
S1IS with me and had it actually fit into a pocket. Even though the
G10 is a little thinner, I doubt I would carry it in a pocket either.

So that means (for me) I would be carrying the G10 as I would carry a
large DSLR, by the strap, around my neck or over my shoulder, or in a
bag over my shoulder. So for me, the G10 doesn't necessarily have a
size advantage over an E420 for example.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

Raist3d · Oct 25, 2008

munro harrap said:
All powershots are 4 thirds- they are all 4:3 format like most
digicams. The caveat 4/3rds has is its exclusivity and NOISE. As

The noise characteristics of a G10 vs a 4/3rds are quite quite far appart.
And the issue here is not the "ratio" of the sensor, but the size.

Member said:
digicam s like the G10 can be used at their lowest iso almost all of
the time because their depth of field is so much greater, the only
pity is Canons decision to abandon the excellent f2-2.5 zooms earlier
machines had.

You can do the same kind of thing in 4/3rds by closing the aperture and still have better signal to noise ratio than a G10.

Member said:
Imagine and get (no way?), a G10 with the lens supplied
for the G6 and RAW at 50 iso, and realise just how you and I are
being robbed blind. Canon could easily improve the G10 that way and
doubtless image quality could match 4/3rds at low isos.

Well apparently it matches the Canon 5D-II, EOS MKIII, 50D at low iso if we go by what you suggest.

Member said:
I have not
read Reichmann, not being a groupie, but that sure beats thinking for
you...

Not sure what you mean by this last sentence.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

Raist3d · Oct 25, 2008

shaunkeng said:
Are you talking about this article from over 3 years ago?? If so wow!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/push-pull.shtml

Consistently said about 4/3rds in general. Not just 3 years ago. I even include an e-mail exchange from last year. So doesn't seem like he has changed his opinion on that at least as of last year.

Update: correction- Make that Feb 6, 2008

shaunkeng said:
MR quote: "Though I know these are fighting words, I'm afraid that I
regard the 4/3rd concept is an evolutionary dead-end".

Reading the couple of paragraphs where he discusses this I believe he
is not contradicting what he is said in the G10 article. He's only
saying that the 4/3 format market will be squeezed by falling prices
of larger sensors. This is true, there will be overlap with low end
larger sensors more and more as prices fall. The G10 and similar

But the point is, if 4/3rds can then deliver the quality of high end medium format equipment (by transitivity, since the G10 apparently can, 4/3rds obviously can), then using that logic, why bother spending $5k on say a D3 when you can get a $500 e-420 that can do the same? Why call 4/3rds dead then?

Note: I am not saying the e-420 "trumps" the D3. I am just trying to explain why I find his article and opinion on 4/3rds contradictory then.

shaunkeng said:
quality cameras now means there will be pressure from smaller sensors
offering better and better image quality at cheaper prices and as a
previous poster said with more portability.

And e-420 is far more portable than a D3. So is even the e-330 (a camera from 3 years ago).

shaunkeng said:
This seems a reasonable conclusion to make today so deriding someone
who made that conclusion 3 years ago is a little silly.

Except your conclusion is not reasonable because he was written more stuff on that end much more recently. So it's not silly, because you can't even talk about the premise that you thought was correct.

shaunkeng said:
Is he or will he be right remains to be seen. But I don't see the
inconsistency you speak of.

Hopefully I made it more clear.

shaunkeng said:
Years ago RISC based computing was the "future of computing" and
there were many who said Intel chips were a dead end cause they
couldn't compete with RISC based chips and that they where hitting
the limits of performance capabilities of their architecture. Well
Intel threw billions of dollars at the problem to solve those
shortcomings in processor development and manufacturing. Its obvious
4/3rds is being squeezed, will enough money be spent to extend its
life going forward we'll see.

Just so you know, the current Intel chips are not CISC (what is viewed as the usual opposite of RISC). They are actually a RISC core emulating in hardware and micro firmware the x86 RISC architecture. Same with AMD's implementation. Since they can't be called RISC proper, these architecture are being called POST-RISC- pretty much a combination of both.

Of course, having all this costs to some extent. It's been a pain to make the x86 chips run fast and low power. You have risc chips around like the ARM doing so. And also ironically PowerPC is still alive and well. In fact, it ships maybe more than PC's or as much as an architecture, being at the heart of the Nintendo Wii, Sony PS3, and Xbox 360 + several IBM high end machines.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

Raist3d · Oct 25, 2008

Brent J said:
Isn't it funny how you can start a topic with a valid point and some
people respond with things that aren't even really close to what you
were saying. It makes you wonder if some folks actually read what you
type.

Yeah man, I tell you

Brent J said:
I see what you are saying. Let's look at the logic here:

[]

Brent J said:
I think you've got a vaild point Ricardo. I would be interested to
hear his response.

Yeah, I mean. Even if the cameras were the same price, there would still be some advantages to 4/3rds (just like there are advantages to the other formats, so I don't want that sentence to be taken as a one-sided comment by readers).

But they are not even the same price- or size, and there are some other peculiar advantages to the format (and again, others to the others).

The funny thing is that some of the people that replied, replied as if I even disagreed with him on his G10 article- I actually happen to agree. But again, that's not the point, and I am glad to see you picked up on that. It's refreshing

Brent J said:
Brent

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

Rriley · Oct 25, 2008

bribbitt aka the banned Joe Mama said:
bribbitt said:

He is like a legend here is not he? Or you would not be adding "Joe
Mama wrote:" to the quote. But why do you not want to believe the
statement Riley?

Click to expand...

easy enough for moderators to prove

just compare the IP of http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/ with the IP of bribbitt

then ban the shadow nik being used
then forward to that ISP to block further approaches to this site

bribbitt said:
Apparently, he does that to anyone who references Joe Mama's pics:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29743390

I guess smokes is also Joe Mama.

bribbitt said:

G10 is small, much smaller than dslrs, it is light
and easy to carry and it can make superb quality images. Even my
power shot surprised me more than I was prepared to believe.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

bribbitt said:

I find almost ironic in this thread is how noise, iso, and dof
control suddenly became so relevant whereas these very same words are
debated to be meaningless when comparing 4/3 to a full frame.

Click to expand...

Yes!

bribbitt said:

But look at the sizes again, D700, D5, Sony are not much bigger (if at
all) than Oly flagship E-3. And if you do not shoot birds then size
and weight of the lenses is not that different either. Why don't you
want to believe G10 passes a threshold for portability - and with
quite some margin - whereas 4/3 does not?

Click to expand...

Exactly. And it's not like everyone will have the same opinion, but
Rriley's comment "anyone who seriously believes this statement has
been sitting on his own gasses for way too long" is matched only by
his photos.

and still the BS goes on
say where are your photos ?

--
Riley

no one notices the contrast of white on white

Rriley · Oct 25, 2008

nt
--
Riley

no one notices the contrast of white on white

Raist3d · Oct 26, 2008

From Reichman's site? No, I haven't. I have seen full res images of the G10 from somewhere else though.

I'll check Reichman's too, but if you could confirm this is what you meant I would appreciate it.

Rriley said:
nt
--
Riley

no one notices the contrast of white on white

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

RoelHendrickx · Oct 26, 2008

was very instructional for me, in showing me the "historic" context of your gripe, Ricardo.

At the time when the E-1 came out and this Luminous comment on 4/3 was made, I wasn't even into photography that much (I certainly didn"t read about it like I do now - I just took some pictures with a P&S).
So that is a good history lesson for me.

It also shows that Olympus users, like elephants, have a good memory, and never forget what they consider as an unjustified insult or harm. And in the end, they will get their rectification or demand it.

Actually this issue now reminds me very much of the constant way in which Phil Askey is reminded of his "LV = solution looking for a problem" remark.

That is one I do remember actively myself, because that was the time I started looking into getting an SLR, and I got the E-330, regardless of such comments...

--
Roel Hendrickx
--
member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
( http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ )

UKPSG presents a Tunisia E-3 user field report: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Michael's Luminous Canon G10 revelation....

Raist3d

Guest

Veteran Member

munro harrap

Guest

Forum Pro

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Raist3d

Guest

Raist3d

Guest

Raist3d

Guest

Raist3d

Guest

Raist3d

Guest

Raist3d

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Raist3d

Guest

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts