How does 3/4 compete?

gkreth said:

Maybe I'm way off about this, but in my own personal experience, and the experience of browsing through countless photo albums of friends, family, etc., I would have concluded that the 4x6 print is by far the most popular size for printed photos.

Greg

Click to expand...

I agree with Greg. i think more 4x6 prints are made than the larger sizes. After using a dslr for years, I have my GH-1 set to 3:2 format. It seems the most aesthetically pleasing to me.

--StevenN

You may be right and to be fair I should mention that I crop a lot of pictures to 16x9 for home videos. A 3:2 sensor is better better for that too. This is one reason I went with the GH1. It has a round/variable sensor.

Hi Vladimir,

VladimirV said:

VladimirV said:

...Technical superiority of a camera has nothing to do with the quality of a camera at all.

Click to expand...

What some people don't understnd is that a technically perfect (noise, DR and other stuff) does not equal a great or even a good picture.

Click to expand...

Exactly. We see threads with people whining about the comments "oh, good picture, you must have a great camera !". At the same time, we whine about how great or not cameras are. Very hypocritical, isn't it ?

VladimirV said:

Use the tools you have and work around limitations, this will improve your photography.

So instead of bitching and arguing about percentages of difference between cameras, how about taking whatever camera you have and go out to take pictures with it.

Click to expand...

Exactly. While I don't doubt the advantages of PP and appreciate how easy it is now on PC as compared to darkroom work before, I find it a nice challenge to go out with my humble P&S and just work in square format, B&W and use only what comes out of the camera. For a serious project that might happen one day, I should do more. But for my nearly-a-photo-a-day, it's liberating to try to use the camera in as basic a way as possible, yet achieve some kind of look&feel that is my own.

Should I ever need to worry about DR, pixels, and other whoopla, I'll buy myself an S2 and I can be sure "it can compete", dammit !

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
NAP (Nearly a PAD (Photo a Day)) at http://www.techwriter.be/nap

Greetings,

Being a math teacher I do understand your arguments, and I do not fault you for choosing the Kx if your top priority was to purchase the crop sensor camera with the best high ISO performance. The Kx was and continues to be an excellent camera (and one that I would recommend over the T2i or D5000). However, the K7 which has the same sensor size as the Kx isn't as good as the Kx right? What does that mean to this argument?

It sounds like you understood my comments to mean that I thought the difference does not matter at all. It does, just not that much, and even less if you print. Rather, I question just how much smaller or larger the area of a sensor must be to matter when there are so many other variables effecting things like high ISO noise, DR, resolution, color,... and so on. Sure, the larger APS-C is 60% larger, and mostly in the ears as some have said (because the frame is wider than 4/3rds). That sounds like such an impressive number. But the sound of that number (seeming very large and significant) become less significant when you consider that 4/3rds is 420% larger than the biggest digicam sensor. And 35mm is 232% larger than the largest APS-C sensor. Those size differences are more profound and can been seen more readily in prints (but only by those who know what to look for).

zxaar said:

Since you say you are maths teacher , i hope this will make sense to you.

Here is the fact, which is not up for discussion: APC does have higher area than m4/3. It is higher.

Now about the issue of significance and not being able to tell the difference.

Now about the point that this difference is so small is that it does not matter.

I give you an example to illustrate my point. At some point of time we were almost like monkeys. Or any point of time in human evolution if you check and see you can not make the significant difference between the generations. For example for you your children are same as you. But we have evolved from monkeys to humans so this 'insignificant difference' was very significant after all.

Same here, just because one can not see difference it does not mean that difference does not exist. Difference exists its up to you if you chose to ignore it. That is your choice and it is no use telling others that they are wrong if they chose not to ignore that difference.

Further about the significance of difference between apc and m4/3, i give you a simple task. Shall be easy based on your post.

I wanted to buy a cam last year with good high iso capabilities. I looked at m4/3 and decided to go with pentax KX. The reason m4/3 image quality was significantly poorer compared to apc of kx when i compared.

Now consider all the m4/3 cams at the time KX was released and show me iso 3200 and iso 6400 pictures in which there is no significant difference with KX images. (there are so many m4/3s to chose from take any).

Click to expand...

If I can pick any m4/3rds camera for the comparison, then I can pick any APS-C camera for the comparison right? Otherwise, this discussion is really not about sensor size at all, but rather about processing, sensor design.... So I pick the Sony A380. I think it's safe to say that the E-PL1 tounces that one. But this is not to say that the Kx wasn't a good choice or that it is not better than any m4/3rds camera at ISO6400. And I think it's easy to see that this is more than just about sensor size.

zxaar said:

To my eyes it was easy to pick so it was significant. You can prove me wrong , could you.

Click to expand...

zxaar said:

::> I could not learn to spell 'cos God always ate my homework.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, you used the argument of the theory of evolution to illustrate your point about significant differences. I think there are problems with that theory too. I have much more respect for the scientific integrity of Darwin than most scientists today because he observed problems with evolutionary theory and was candid about his inability to reconcile them with his new ideas. I understand that this idea is beyond the scope of intended topics on this website and I will respect others by happily backing off from elaborating on my beliefs. Suffice to say, the evolution argument is hardly very convincing to me when it comes to proving that APS-C has a significant size difference over 4/3rds.

Cheers,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

SirSeth said:

Interestingly, you used the argument of the theory of evolution to illustrate your point about significant differences. I think there are problems with that theory too. I have much more respect for the scientific integrity of Darwin than most scientists today because he observed problems with evolutionary theory and was candid about his inability to reconcile them with his new ideas. I understand that this idea is beyond the scope of intended topics on this website and I will respect others by happily backing off from elaborating on my beliefs. Suffice to say, the evolution argument is hardly very convincing to me when it comes to proving that APS-C has a significant size difference over 4/3rds.

Click to expand...

Evolution is really a good analogy for the camera world. It's about what consititutes the best fit for a particular photographic need. Everyone will judge this differently for themselves, with different choices as a consequence. There is no 'one camera fits all' just like there is no uniformity in species and within species. And that's a good thing too!

Damien
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1

There will be people that are loyal to a brand. People will have their reasons for choosing whichever unit they use. It may or may not be logical or rational. It doesn't matter. 4/3rds does not do everything well, but it does a lot of things well. People have predicted its demise for years.

Sir, I'm with you
--
DSC-R1, DMC-G1(14-45)

Everdog said:

Ehrik said:

Fourth, with 4/3rds, Panasonic's effort was half-hearted (they probably only tested the waters with an EVIL future in mind), but with µ43 they are going all-in....

Click to expand...

Panasonic has "become the largest Japanese electronics producer" and has a huge R&D budget to go with it. The fact that they appear to be going all-in bodes well for m43.

Also, not being handicapped by a DSLR division/strategy gives them an advantage too (and having Olympus's help doesn't hurt). Others think EVIL is a bridge to DSLR, but for Panasonic, m43 is everything.

Click to expand...

I think it's everything too!

I mean I used to own and shoot with the D2h. And I have a butt-load of 35mm FF Film cameras (most of which I bought new back in the day). The M43 is a standard of it's own - on it's own. The main reason for this to me is the system wide compatibility with non-m43 components. When one buys into an m43 system they suddenly have access to thousands of components (mostly lenses) that no other single platform has. As soon as this right of passage is exercised there's very little chance of feeling that a DSLR with a mirror and a bigger sensor is the logical step forward. The sacrifice at that point just becomes too great and the DSLR is either disregarded or seen as a completely different direction - well, as different as it can be considering that they're both "camera systems".

It's the absolute perfect platform for several kinds of users:

1. The person who tried/used many different brands over the years and has remnants (usually in the form of lenses and lens attachments) from some or all of them left over.
2. The person who wants to experiment with lenses and lens attachments from every maker without limitation.
3. The person who knows that there is some outstandingly exceptional glass in the used lens arena (usually from the 70's on...) available for pennies on the dollar, doesn't mind manually focusing, and is on a budget.
4. In the case of the GH1 or the upcoming GH2 - the INDY filmmaker who wants RED One quality footage for pennies on the dollar and also classifies in any of the 3 above categories.
5. Persons interested in astrophotography, photomacrography, and/or photomicrography who are seeking more and more magnification.

.

It's a terrible platform for several kinds of users too:

1. The person who wants to carry the camera around in their pocket.
2. The person who thinks it cool because it looks like a Leica range finder camera.
3. The person who thinks it is the logical entry into the world of DSLRs and intends to "upgrade" thereto one day.
4. The person who intends to maintain a maker system using only lenses and accessories created for the M43 system.

The persons who qualify in that bottom list are numerous but it means to me that there are "numerous" people who either can't think for themselves logically, or who just plain don't understand the options that are currently available to them. I guess it could also indicate how many people (sheeple) there are who just blindly and mindlessly follow the marketing buzz... but that's kinda the same as not being able to think for themselves logically too so...

.

Anyway, The M43 systems stands on it's own! It is certainly not a bridge to anything other than good photographs!

.

Tesselator said:

It's a terrible platform for several kinds of users too:

1. The person who wants to carry the camera around in their pocket.
2. The person who thinks it cool because it looks like a Leica range finder camera.
3. The person who thinks it is the logical entry into the world of DSLRs and intends to "upgrade" thereto one day.
4. The person who intends to maintain a maker system using only lenses and accessories created for the M43 system.

Click to expand...

Some good points. And I do think that m43 is not for everyone. I will say though you should have an * next to #1 . There a a bunch of us who like to stick a pancake lens on a PEN and stick in a pocket just in case we need some good pictures. You can't do it all the time and in many cases a 10x P&S would better.

wait til Nikon and Canon join the crowd. It will be endless trolling on all forums.

GregF said:

There will be people that are loyal to a brand. People will have their reasons for choosing whichever unit they use. It may or may not be logical or rational. It doesn't matter. 4/3rds does not do everything well, but it does a lot of things well. People have predicted its demise for years.

Click to expand...

I hate to do this but you asked. NEX owners (some of whom have both NEX and u 4/3) have a lot of problems, IQ, design and quality control vis a vis u 4/3 camera owners. These quotes are all from the NEX forum. Later quotes are attributed because I was accused of making them up! Also, there is far more but I am limited to 6000 characters?

ZoranT (7/28/2010) says:

strange event one day: the camera was switched off, but I noticed that it got abnormally hot; I took out the battery and let it cool down, then inserted it back again; now the display shows a crossed out orange battery sign, the camera works though (I did not try for too long, though); I also noticed tiny brown spots where the battery connects to the camera (inside the slot) … What happened? Some closed circuit? Battery fried? Something in the camera? There was no water or anything abnormal involved, I should add. The camera was switched off (not standby), but still got hot.

Peter S said this (7/29/2010) regarding cronic overexposure:

I've had the NEX3 for a week or two and already noticed the bright condition overexposure (it doesn't even need to be sunny, overcast still caused it). But, what I found disconcerting is, to my eyes, it didn't look overexposed when reviewed on the camera's LCD and neither did the review histogram suggest overexposure. So, I shot a whole days worth of slightly overexposed pics without realising. Perhaps if the LCD is set to manual brightness it could be made to look more representative? Now I'm aware of the issue I can dial in the required -0.3 or -0.7 compensation. As long as I remember to remove it again for indoor shots, which seem perfectly exposed without compensation. Grrr..! Come on, Sony, it's not rocket science.

He also said that in comparison to the E-pl1:

No, my monitor isn't calibrated. But, subjectively, a lot of the NEX outdoor pics seem overly light - the mid-tones (foliage, grass, brick walls etc) seem lighter than they should be, giving the whole picture an overexposed look. I'm lucky enough to be able to compare the NEX with an EP-L1, a Pentax Kx, and a Sigma DP-1, all of which produce darker, more normal, looking images with the same monitor.

In response Keith C says:

Take it back immediately & ask for an exchange,do not contemplate a repair if it is offered. Others have had problems with batteries not working properly & Sony are probably aware of the problem .

Nboyer admitts on 7/29/2010 comments regarding E-pl1 kit lens cmpared to NEX:

But my NEX is only the 16mm kit so the PL-1 gets used for longer trips where I want more focal lengths and the, frankly, better Oly kit lens.

Markr041's NEX overheats while taking videos(7/29/2010):

I am often while shooting video having the camera stop because of overheating. This happens less than 25 seconds (sometimes) into a shot. The video stops, you get a message to cool off the camera, which is quite hot. It occurs in bright sunshine. Temperature in the air, about 86F. This is a serious problem - overheating. Anyone else have this problem? I have a black NEX 5... This is "a surprise" as I have taken videos under the same circumstances with: the Panasonic GH1, the Olympus Ep1, the JVC HM1, the Sony TX7 and never had this problem. There is nothing unusual about taking pictures and videos in the bright sun. I don't think 'designed for low-light' means 'won't work in bright light'!

On 7/3/2010 ricksAstro confirms overheating under ideal conditions:

I'm trying AVCHD now to see if I get better or worse performance. The good news was the battery was still over 50% after all of this, which pleased me. But the overheating issue concerns me. I mean, I gave it fairly ideal conditions (lowish room temp ambient, LCD folded out for heat dissipation) and it was throwing fits. Put it out in the heat of the day under the sun (esp with a black body) and the LCD against the body, I'm guessing you'll have issues. Of course, I don't think most people will be taking that long of clips under those conditions.

Nemo6666 has only had the camera two days (7/30/2010) and already has lots of problems:

I would like to start a new thread where people exchanges about issues and problems with their NEX cameras. As i received mine just 2 day ago and already have some things i don´t like, let me begin: long recharge time (Sony always wants you to buy another fast-recharger); fast battery drain over night (in my case between 7-10% in 12 hours); noisy shutter (might be construction dependent); 16mm lens unsharp; Other people complains about overheating.

Pascal04 (7/30/2010) doesn't like the noisy shutter on his NEX 5:

I will agree on the noisy shutter. It definitely should not be this noisy on a mirrorless camera.

Slokie said 7/25/2010 that his "wheel" is already starting to squeak:
well the wheel on my is already beginning to squeak

Torch 8/2/2010 has some ideas on how to keep NEX from overheating:

First I would turn down the display brightness to minimum and turn off any other power draining features I did not require. Even flipping out the display allows more airflow at body back. Can the tripod mounting plate be modified to dissipate heat using a thermal transfer skin? For now you set up a small fan like used for a computer case by the camera and see what happens. If that is not suitable I am sure you know how to get a battery operated fan and fasten it to a tripod. I am sure there can be creative methods to cool down a camera body as was done for computer video cards and processors. Somebody may come up with a custom cooling kit.

Here is the rest:

"A few weeks ago, RicksAstro posted Nex-5 with 18-55 vs Canon 7D with 15-85 (which is a $700lens). Corners were pretty bad with the kit at tele but at least the center should besharp."

"All the Sony NEX lenses tend to look mushy to me ... I will get rid of them as soon as there will be Zeiss primes available. So I honestly hope Sony will give us some decent lenses or the system will be doomed in my opinion."

"Yes, auto WB was used. The Sony kit lens is extremely yellowish and warm."

"I found the same lack of sharpness in the NEX-5 compared to my G1 with the 14-45mm lens. I

was using the NEX-5 with the kit zoom lens. The photos were okay, just not as sharp as theG1."

"This lens is bad."

Nosenseofplace said (7/24/2010)

today i tested my NEX3 with zoom and 16mm vs my EPL1 and GH1 with 20mm and 14-140mm and 14-45mm

i must say that the panasonic lens are much much much sharper onthe other hand AF its very fast with NEX, the 20mm fast apertures mean very slow AF (painfully slow in low light) pity the lens for nex are so bad, i used my Voigtlander LM 35mm f1.4 on nex and really you improve quality compared to kit lens..

and:

hi i m not talking about this.... what i say is that the corners are blurred with the

18-55mm nex a lot for more then the m43, there is nothing to do with a heavy unsharp mask if you dont have any details in the cornerns for the 16mm its also a lot of worse(unusable corners untill f8), for have an accettable image (i m a freelance reportage photographer so i m not sure i will use this lens for works

to be submitted to magazine) i need to crop the 14,2 mp image (3:2) in a 12mp 4:3 (in this case i can cut the 2 extreme corners and save the photo)

to be truth i bought this lens with this idea in my head: trasform a poor 24mm lens in a decent 12mp 28mm (cropping at 4:3 this lens give me the same FOV of a 28mm m43 lens)

Jogger (7/28/2010) wrote:

I have the NEX5; its ok, slow, and the kits lens is a POS.. i dont expect any great lenses for it any time soo. Not that i would invest a huge amount of money into a non-FF format lenses. But, this is all fine, because im not expecting NEX to replace my FF gear.

Weight matters. While on vacation, our photographer neighbor (sp?) let my 16 yr. of daughter borrow his huge dSLR. She gave it back to him after 5 minutes. It was too heavey for her to handle for any length of time, particualry when holding it like a live view camera.

...pixel density and high-iso don't mix, lets see below. Canon has improved in this area and noise reduction has gotten better also. These pic's below are from the "old"50D and Canon's NEW 550D and 7D are even better....

3200ISO



2500ISO



6400ISO



12800ISO

h00ligan said:

Your t2i and 7d comment doesn't make any sense. They also went to a gapless sensor, and they are the best non commercial cameras they have ever made in terms of iso.

Click to expand...

The 7D and T2i are amazing at high ISO. Shrink their 18mp pics down to 12 or 14mp (to match the competition) and they look even better! I had a T2i for a while. If anyone wants high ISO performance, that is what I recommend.

My point was that many sensors have a lower pixel density and have awful high ISO performance. So lower pixel density does not mean better high ISO performance and high pixel density does not mean worse ISO performance. There are other factors to consider...like as you mentioned gapless technology...and who makes the sensor.

Sorry if I mislead anyone.

tedolf said:

I hate to do this but you asked. NEX owners (some of whom have both NEX and u 4/3) have a lot of problems, IQ, design and quality control vis a vis u 4/3 camera owners.

Click to expand...

Funny how you have been collected all the bad comments but not a single one that is positive (all the TomHoot posts or this thread)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1042&thread=35931097

You also seem to be not collecting any negative posts about EPL1 that are posted here and even Nex forum. I wonder why? Like this one:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1042&thread=35923529

"The EPL-1 is not the equal of the GF-1 in AF performance, even using the same lens with the Oly firmware update. I have had both at the same time and compared them with both the 20mm prime and the Oly kit lens. Moreover, in low light, the EPL-1 is worthless as usually it simply will not lock on at all, even with the flash raised (the flash does not "preflash" to assist the AF). The GF-1 has an AF assist lamp and always can lock on. "

"Poor AF performance disqualifies the EPL-1 from consideration for my purposes, which almost always involves people in something other than static poses. It's a shame Oly got AF so wrong, as I prefer almost everything else about the EPL-1 except screen resolution. YMMV "

"However, the point of this thread is the NEX-5, as I find the GF1 noise at ISO 800 and above too objectionable. "

I am leaving that up to you Zepzr.

You are the man for the job!

Interesting to see E-pl1 next to NEX. NEX isn't smaller at all?

And with the on board flash and hot shoe with the E-pl1/GF-1 the NEX just doesn't make much sense, unless you are already an alpha user.

Out of all of NEX peculiarities, the latter one baffles me the most. Why no hot shoe? Don't alpha users want to be able to use their strobers when necessary? EVen the LX3 has one!

It is the one design decision that makes me believe Sony designed this camera more for style than subtance. Maybe Sony will make a remote controler that fits in the accesory pocket and prove me wrong. Maybe.