Enough!

[Phil Arnold]

Who could have ever imagined that large prints from Exx images can't equal the quality of similar prints made from a medium format film camera and high quality scanner?????

Your powers of observation simply amaze me!!! How did you ever figure that out????

I know a photogrpher who shoots color film with a 4" x 5" sheet-film camera. He does his own processing and it still cost him $5.00 for each exposure he makes just to process the film so he can see the negative. If he doesn't get better results as a result of spending all that money, he would be absolutely nuts. I am sure that he isn't nuts!

BTW, have you ever bothered to compare the prints you are able to make from the images you get to prints made from images captured with 8" x 10" sheet film camers??? I am quite sure that harsh reality would reveal that your prints don't measure up either.

There are some conditions in which the Exx's will produce outstanding quality and other conditions in which the Exx's simply do not shine. If I am satisfied to enjoy the outstanding images I get from my Exx under the correct conditiions, why do you feel compelled to belittle my choice or my results?

Also, where have you ever seen a message posted that even implied that the quality of Exx images equals that of medium format film? Please post the link so I might read that post for myself.

You may
achieve quality 16*20 inch prints from your E10 but only in very
selected conditions.

Scanned velvia landscape images from this combo printed on an Epson
1290 to 18 x 12 inches absolutely blow away the D100 RAW images
(which are significantly better than my old E10 could do at this
print size).

In terms of sharpness and fine detail the difference is ridiculous

as
soon as you compare them to the scanned film prints it makes the
digital images look like watercolours.

I've been using digital exclusively for over two years now and I
was quite sure it was not only a match for 35mm but also for bigger
formats.

I think that one of your biggest mistakes was assuming that the Exx's or D100's could equal medium format film in quality. They can't, but that doesn't diminish their value for the things they can do!

No chance. The qualiity gap to 6*9 or large format is vast.

Tirades such as yours are precicely what this thread is objecting to. They do nothing to further our understanding of the tools we use or the way we can use them to the best advantage.
--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com

 

[Ger Bee]

No chance. The qualiity gap to 6*9 or large format is vast.

Roll on the affordable 12-16MP DSLRs, then we will be able to print
big landscapes but not until then, if we value real fine detail
rather than smooth blurs in our prints.

........ the policy of squashing in more if it kills me McKenzie is not really going to make up the quality difference IMO.

We need D1h/1D class sensors but physically bigger, effectively we need to go back to 6x9 in size too.

Remember that technically a 10x8” slide has the same resolution and quality as one 1” of 35mm slide film of the same brand, the difference in the overall image is the share out and when we print a 10x8” contact sheet we need to print a 10x enlargement from the 35mm to reach the same size and everything is merely “blown up”. However, both contact prints would exhibit the same quality.

The policy adopted by Nikon and others is resulting in softer images which will most likely kill the extra details in sharpening routines even though the MP are increasing.

 

[Phil Arnold]

...but, I hope that you can clear up some of my confusion.

When I was shooting black & white film 40 some years ago, I purchased a 4" x 5" sheet-film "press" camera and was surprised to find that the results I got were not all that much better than I could get with 35mm film. As I recall, I was told then that 35mm film could compare favorable with 4" x 5" sheet film because the 35mm film had a thinner base than the 4" x 5" sheet film had.

All the evidence I have seen in recent years would suggest that the advantage of using a larger format film camera is that the larger format allows more detail to be captured making it possible to produce larger prints with better detail than is possible with smaller format film. Are you saying that this understanding is incorrect?

Remember that technically a 10x8” slide has the same resolution and
quality as one 1” of 35mm slide film of the same brand,

Are you saying that 1" of 35mm film will contain the same detail as 10 inches of 8" x 10" sheet film or the same as 1" of the sheet film?

the
difference in the overall image is the share out and when we print
a 10x8” contact sheet we need to print a 10x enlargement from the
35mm to reach the same size and everything is merely “blown up”.
However, both contact prints would exhibit the same quality.

I am not sure what you mean by "share out". Are you saying that the 10x enlargement of the 35mm will have the detail and sharpness as the contact print of 8" x 10" sheet film? If that is what you are saying, I am really** confused.

I would appreciate anything you could add to help clear up my confusion.

Thanks,
--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com

 

[Anthony Cheh]

DMiller:

It really depends upon what your priorities are. For most people, smaller formats represent a better balance of qualities; this probably underlies their popularity. No question 6 X 9 cm is quite nice when you need improved detail and tonality compared to 35mm or DSLR quality. I used to carry around the big Fuji rangefinders and take careful incident light readings of everything. Eventually, the Fujis were replaced by a Mamiya 7.

But everything has its place. The "oversized Leicas" are reasonably portable and produce impressive results within their domain, but they still can't match the versatility and convenience of some of the smaller format equipment. I actually like rangerfinder viewing for moving subjects shot with moderate wide angles, but for careful and deliberate composition, nothing beats a groundglass. I once dragged around a Pentax 6 X 7 and 4 lenses in the pursuit of ultimate mobile image quality, but my sore shoulders and the incredulous looks of bystanders reminded me that, like everything, technical quality has to be balanced against other realities.

As a hobbyist, my approach to photography has simplified over time. I like to work with one camera and one or two lenses. This way, I can concentrate more on improving my vision and pictures and less on equipment. I do miss the additional clarity and better tonality available from larger formats once in a while, but I won't go back to them for my day to day shooting.

Tony

... and I agree that an awful lot of brand orientated nonsense is
written.

BUT...as far as pure image quality is concerned there is nothing
quite like harsh reality to puncture a rose-tinted view. You may
achieve quality 16*20 inch prints from your E10 but only in very
selected conditions.

I recently purchased a used Fuji GW690 III 6*9cm medium format
rangefinder camera and an Epson 3200 scanner. Now bear in mind this
scanner has a real world performance far lower than the claimed
3200dpi...

Scanned velvia landscape images from this combo printed on an Epson
1290 to 18 x 12 inches absolutely blow away the D100 RAW images
(which are significantly better than my old E10 could do at this
print size).

In terms of sharpness and fine detail the difference is ridiculous

• I would estimate that it would take at least 12MP of D100 quality

to get anywhere near the film scans, possible a much as 16MP. It
simply isn't possible to produce D100 prints with the same level of
detail above about 10 x 8 or so.

The funny thing is, 18x12 D100 prints look fine on their own but as
soon as you compare them to the scanned film prints it makes the
digital images look like watercolours.

I have some rather nice A3 prints of the Sierra Nevadas and Death
Valley shot on my E10 but compare them to the big film scans and
the difference is remarkable.

I've been using digital exclusively for over two years now and I
was quite sure it was not only a match for 35mm but also for bigger
formats.

No chance. The qualiity gap to 6*9 or large format is vast.

Roll on the affordable 12-16MP DSLRs, then we will be able to print
big landscapes but not until then, if we value real fine detail
rather than smooth blurs in our prints.

I shoot with an ancient E-10. I make prints up to 16x20 with no
problem. Little noise (grain) and very little CA.
This is an awesome piece of equipment, as is the E-20, and I'm sure
the E-1.
Write times? Slow.
Color rendition? Awesome!
Dust? None!
To all of you have moved on to other "stuff", good luck. There's
no sense in coming to this forum and telling all of us what's
"wrong" with Olympus; there's nothing wrong with Olympus! Olympus
is just NOT dealing with your self-serving needs.
Please take your accolades for Canon, Fuji, Nikon, ad nauseum, to
those respective forums and please let the OLYSLRTalk forum be what
it was designed to be.
If I've offended anyone, too bad! You are offending me with your
braggadaciousness regarding your "perfect" cameras.

--
Bill...
Acme E-10, Acme LiPo, Acme WCON08B, Acme FL-40, Canon off camera
cord, Acme Brand Stroboframe, Acme Promax Softbox, Acme
GraphireII...other stuff, too...

 

[Stevelink]

...but, I hope that you can clear up some of my confusion.

When I was shooting black & white film 40 some years ago, I
purchased a 4" x 5" sheet-film "press" camera and was surprised to
find that the results I got were not all that much better than I
could get with 35mm film. As I recall, I was told then that 35mm
film could compare favorable with 4" x 5" sheet film because the
35mm film had a thinner base than the 4" x 5" sheet film had.

Greetings. As a photographer who has used 35mm and 4x5 film for about 20 years, please let me say that the "thickness of the film base" on any film had little to do with the resolution capability of the film. The only purpose of the base as far as I know, is to be a "support" or carrier of the silver halide grains which make up your image. The light does not go through the base before it strikes the image-forming silver halide crystals, so in terms of film quality and resolution, it is irrelevant. Indeed, the 4x5 Ectachromes I shot were vastly superior to the best 35mm Nikon lenses, NOT because of the quality of Nikon optics, but simply the SIZE differential between 35mm film and 4x5 sheet film. (Also, it didn't hurt that high-end Schneider and Rodenstock glass was used

Anyway, sir, my point is that one cannot compare 35mm quality to 4x5 quality, except to say that it is much easier shooting sports photography with a 35mm camera than a 4x5 view camera!
Thank you.
Stephen A. Solomon MBA
[email protected]

 

[BJL]

Roland,

you repeatedly post accusing people of rudeness for criticising those who frequently bash the E-1, yet you have never, as far as I recall, posted any criticism of the rude, unconstructive and deliberately antagonistic tone seen in many posts criticising the E-1. I think most would agree that keef's "head in the sand" post was a clearer example of unconstructive rudeness than Wile's original post; so I find it hard to understand why you criticise Wile but not keef.

Likewise, you claim to be out to refute erroneous arguments both for and against the E-1 and the 4/3 system, but I have never seen a single response from you to any unfounded criticism. Your explanation is that you have seen few or no such errors: apparently in your eyes, every one of the many hundreds of criticisms of the E-1, such as arguments that it has no advantages whatsoever and will be a complete failure, is valid. That is incredible; as in any debate as extensive as this, the E-1 plus 4/3 discussion has had plenty or errors on both sides. If you want examples, I could give one or two refutations of critical claims in your own posts about the E-1.

 

[Phil Arnold]

Greetings. As a photographer who has used 35mm and 4x5 film for
about 20 years, please let me say that the "thickness of the film
base" on any film had little to do with the resolution capability
of the film. The only purpose of the base as far as I know, is to
be a "support" or carrier of the silver halide grains which make up
your image. The light does not go through the base before it
strikes the image-forming silver halide crystals, so in terms of
film quality and resolution, it is irrelevant.

.... the light does have to go through the base when the paper is exposed in the printing process. That may not adequately explain the results I observed, but it made sense to me at the time. It is more than likely that what observed then was primarily a result of the quality of the lenses I was using which were do doubt very poor!!!!!!!

Thanks for helping to clear that up for me.

--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com

 

[Stevelink]

Greetings. As a photographer who has used 35mm and 4x5 film for
about 20 years, please let me say that the "thickness of the film
base" on any film had little to do with the resolution capability
of the film. The only purpose of the base as far as I know, is to
be a "support" or carrier of the silver halide grains which make up
your image. The light does not go through the base before it
strikes the image-forming silver halide crystals, so in terms of
film quality and resolution, it is irrelevant.

.... the light does have to go through the base when the paper is
exposed in the printing process. That may not adequately explain
the results I observed, but it made sense to me at the time. It is
more than likely that what observed then was primarily a result of
the quality of the lenses I was using which were do doubt very
poor!!!!!!!

Thanks for helping to clear that up for me.

Phil, my apologies if I wasn't clear on my earlier reply about film base, but I was referring to chrome or slide films, not negative film! (I do realize that light must go through the base when printing negatives, and also even through slide film when projecting or printing, but I was talking strictly of EXPOSURE, during which time the base is of little consequence.) Sorry for the ambiguous reply on my part.
Steve
--
Stephen A. Solomon MBA
[email protected]

 

[Ger Bee]

...but, I hope that you can clear up some of my confusion.

When I was shooting black & white film 40 some years ago, I
purchased a 4" x 5" sheet-film "press" camera and was surprised to
find that the results I got were not all that much better than I
could get with 35mm film. As I recall, I was told then that 35mm
film could compare favorable with 4" x 5" sheet film because the
35mm film had a thinner base than the 4" x 5" sheet film had.

.... true enough, and add manufacturing problems with consistency which the 35mm largely overcame. It was in fact the quality of the 35mm that endeared it to the press core, even though the then new 35mm gear was not initially welcomed with open arms.

All the evidence I have seen in recent years would suggest that the
advantage of using a larger format film camera is that the larger
format allows more detail to be captured making it possible to
produce larger prints with better detail than is possible with
smaller format film. Are you saying that this understanding is
incorrect?

No, I can't see where you drew that from, but it is certainly possible for each to capture the same details within its frame and size limitations. For instance take a 6x6cm and shoot a house front, now take your 35mm and walk closer so you frame the same size as the 6x6 tranny, you are now probably only photographing the front door and maybe a portion of the lower windows. You would need to combine four images from your 35mm camera to get the whole house in one print later on or so, but you can catch the same details if you want to.

Remember that technically a 10x8” slide has the same resolution and
quality as one 1” of 35mm slide film of the same brand,

Are you saying that 1" of 35mm film will contain the same detail as
10 inches of 8" x 10" sheet film or the same as 1" of the sheet
film?

The potential to capture is the same per square inch on both; to make the same sized print later on you would need to combine 10 x 35mm slides.

I am not sure what you mean by "share out". Are you saying that
the 10x enlargement of the 35mm will have the detail and sharpness
as the contact print of 8" x 10" sheet film? If that is what you
are saying, I am really** confused.

No, it only exists in its native size. As mentioned to get the very same I’d need to take about ten 35mm slides and join them up, but each would be printed life size.

I would appreciate anything you could add to help clear up my
confusion.

Thanks,

Naturally this is more theory than practice with film because the lens takes on a very significant role and a trick I used do for fine art reproduction was to shoot a Bronica 645 with a 35mm back attached for the most stunning slides ever, straight lines and all including the “new” chestnut of an X factor now so common with digital cameras.

I achieved higher results than shooting straight 35mm and macro lens, this despite the fact of using the exact same film, so a slider to the equation is the ability of the machine to deliver more detail to the emulsion for conversion.

Again modern digital cameras take advantage of the same principles with their 1.5x factor and central portion usage of the lens. Again a common trick to improve the MP rating of ones gear is to take and combine multiple exposures and there is one very talented exponent of this art on these boards with wonderful images of New York which technically surpass the abilities of a single large format camera.

 

[Phil Arnold]

Phil, my apologies if I wasn't clear on my earlier reply about film
base, but I was referring to chrome or slide films, not negative
film! (I do realize that light must go through the base when
printing negatives, and also even through slide film when
projecting or printing, but I was talking strictly of EXPOSURE,
during which time the base is of little consequence.) Sorry for the
ambiguous reply on my part.

I realized that you were talking about when the picture was being taken, but since I was concerned about print quality, I wasn't sure how much the thickness of the film base might impact the print quality. I take it that even when considering print quality, the thickness of the film base may not make much of a difference.

I was a college student when I was making those comparisons, and clearly could not afford high quality glass. In fact, at that time I was only beginning to appreciate the difference that glass quality makes in photography.

I have never been in a position to invest in truly professional quality cameras or lenses. My Exx has the best glass and produces the best results of any camera I have ever owned. Even though it is far from the best on the market, it is the best I can expect to have for quite some time into the future. That might explain why I have gotten a bit testy with some of the people who seem to want to trash it.

BTW, I didn't feel that your posts were an attempt to trash my Exx.

Thanks for taking time to answer my questions.
--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com

 

[BJL]

It really depends upon what your priorities are. For most people,
smaller formats represent a better balance of qualities; this
probably underlies their popularity. ...

Thanks Anthony; let me try to put this film and sensor size debate in context.

At one end, the 2/3" sensor is clearly big enough for many photographers, including some types of serious artistic and professional work; indeed the dominant trade-off in the camera mass market is that cameras based on these sensors are bigger than necessary, and digicams are mostly downsizing to 1/1.8" 5MP sensors and such. From that, my guess is that 2/3" is big enough to replace most usage of non-professional grade 35mm film, but not to replace the most demanding of 35mm film work.

At the other end, even the latest 20MP plus near medium format size sensors are apparently not enough to completely replace large format film or 6000x8000 scanning backs.

The 4/3 format and the roughly APS sized DSLR formats are all at least four or more times larger than the great majority of digicam sensors, as big as the gap from 35mm to MF, or from MF to 4"x5" LF. that alone suggests that the step up in quality will be enough to satisfy a significant proportion of moderately serious photographers, while larger sensors in 35mm and medium format sizes while have their different roles.

The size/weight/cost/performance gap between the smaller DSLR's (4/3 or "APS") and full 35mm format is rather clear, enough that both should persist in different niches. I make no prediction on how the competition between 4/3, 1/1.7x, 1/1.6x and 1/1.5x will resolve itself: the difference in gear size and image quality are far smaller there.

Many of the "official" arguments in favour of the 4/3 system work primarily in comparison to 35mm full frame format or to the main Canon option of using 35mm lenses on 1.6x crop cameras; they carry less weight against something like the Nikon or Pentax approach of APS sized sensors and matched lenses.

 

[Phil Arnold]

Naturally this is more theory than practice

So maybe if we shift this discussion into a more "practical" dimension, I will begin to understand.

Let me rephrase my question.

Please look at the picture I have posted at:

http://www.jphilarnold.com/MRPano/page2.htm

This picture looks fine as a shot for the web, but I find it to be dreadfully lacking in sharpness and detail when I try to make a print of it that is large enough to enjoy over my sofa.

I want a good sharp print of this scene to hang over my sofa, but I don't want to mess around piecing two or more shots together to make that print to hang over my sofa (and I don't want to force it with excessive sharpening in PS).

If I could pick any camera I want to retake this shot, which format would give me the a print to hang over my sofa with the greatest sharpness and detail in a single shot....

....an E20, a D1s, a medium format film camera, a 4" x 5" film camera, or an 8" x 10" film camera (assuming the lenses are all appropriate to the camera and are nearly comperable in quality)?

And why woud it be the best?

--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com

 

[walter38787]

The posted photo is one of many I took at the birthday party I
mentioned in my earlier post to this thread. I am still learning
to use the FL-40 in conjunction with the the diffuser. But I think
I did pretty well. Of course it helped to have my lovely niece as
a subject. I am having a hell of a time when she wears a white top
as it gets blown out when i expose for her skin tones. Any helpful
suggestions would be appreciated.

http://www.pbase.com/image/22499429/large/jpg

--
Dave,
I own an E-10 and have some of the same problems.

What I do is use the camera metering to see the range of light, dark to light, that is there. For examp. in the "A" mode I use the shutter speed to tell me the stop range in sec(1/2X or 2X = 1 stop). If it is within 9 stops the mid range setting will cover the white to dark. If not I will under expose one stop(2X shutter speed). It is easier to get info out of the dark than a blown out white.

walter

 

[Don Palmer132078]

I am going to have to agree with this 100 percent. I started out with an Olympus D-200 (point & shoot) in 1997, bought an OLY D-360 R (point & shoot), won the very First Prize in DigitalPhotoContest.com in 1999, wherein the prize was an OLY C-2000Z, later bought a OLY C-2100UZ and just within that past month bought an OLY E-10, brand new in the box. I continually use the last three cameras.

Get your eyes adjusted to clear focus and true colors and you'll forget a few shortcomings that are apparent in all digital cameras. I personally spend less time in Photoshop and other image enhancers, because the output of the OLY, while not perfect, is close to it.

I shoot with an ancient E-10. I make prints up to 16x20 with no
problem. Little noise (grain) and very little CA.
This is an awesome piece of equipment, as is the E-20, and I'm sure
the E-1.
Write times? Slow.
Color rendition? Awesome!
Dust? None!
To all of you have moved on to other "stuff", good luck. There's
no sense in coming to this forum and telling all of us what's
"wrong" with Olympus; there's nothing wrong with Olympus! Olympus
is just NOT dealing with your self-serving needs.
Please take your accolades for Canon, Fuji, Nikon, ad nauseum, to
those respective forums and please let the OLYSLRTalk forum be what
it was designed to be.
If I've offended anyone, too bad! You are offending me with your
braggadaciousness regarding your "perfect" cameras.

--
Bill...
Acme E-10, Acme LiPo, Acme WCON08B, Acme FL-40, Canon off camera
cord, Acme Brand Stroboframe, Acme Promax Softbox, Acme
GraphireII...other stuff, too...

 

[Roland Karlsson]

I would respectfully suggest that Bills' objection is not to the
fact that some people "don't love Oly cameras", but to the implied
suggestions in a number of recent posts that the rest of us
shouldn't even like our Oly cameras any more.

Hehe ... could not resist the subject

Yes ... I understand that.

But ... why care?

If some wimps come here and say .... na na na I will
not buy your silly camera ... why care?

Roland

 

[Roland Karlsson]

I do not really care if a post is pro or con the E-1.

I do care in two (or three?) situations I think:

1. Someone comes with an unreasonable claim - con or pro,
just for trying to prove something by exaggeration, i.e. saying a
rather good picture being outstanding - just to promote the E1.
Thats not my style. It is counter informative - just noise that
makes it harder to get any facts. Let the camera companies
do their own ads

2. Someone attacks another fellow poster. I simply don't like
that. OK - maybe I should not care. But I do.

3. When the arguments are turned against dicussing the persons
posting instead of the camera that the forum is about. I understand
that this migh be turned against my arguing in this thread, but I
firmly try to not attacking a poster because he has an opinion
about E-1.

I can of course admit not being perfect. Maybe I have ignored
some unreasonable negative claims. And sometimes I have
mistaken rather mild sarcasm for an attack. And sometims I am
by far too lengthy in a thread that should have died days ago

Roland

 

[Ger Bee]

......... but the prescribed method to do this shot is to take several pics and it’s a ten second stitch for a simple scene like this, this is the professional approach too BTW. Say three shots on a D1x would probably be better than a 10x8” single shot, scanned and enlarged in reality.

If you want it in one shot then a 10x8” field camera is the way to go.

 

[Phil Arnold]

If we compare the print quality on a frame by frame basis, the the bigger the format, the better the resulting print should be. That confirms what I thought. I have nothing against stitching photos together, but I wanted to simplify the discussion in order to reduce my confusion.

It seems that if we are comparing two different formats, we should compare apples to apples rather than trying to compare apples to oranges.

......... but the prescribed method to do this shot is to take
several pics and it’s a ten second stitch for a simple scene like
this, this is the professional approach too BTW. Say three shots on
a D1x would probably be better than a 10x8” single shot, scanned
and enlarged in reality.

That may be true, but in order to get an accurate comparison between the D1x to an 10x8 format, then we should either compare them as single frames for both or say as a three frame stitch for both formats.

The picture I asked you to consider is actually a stitch of several images taken with my E20. There is a photographer in town who has done a single shot photo of this same valley with a medium format film camera. The print from his single shot picture of this valley clearly blows my stitched photo away. His is one that I would be proud to hang over my sofa.

--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com

 

[Anthony Cheh]

Phil:

You might find this interesting:

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/

Tony

It seems that if we are comparing two different formats, we should
compare apples to apples rather than trying to compare apples to
oranges.

......... but the prescribed method to do this shot is to take
several pics and it’s a ten second stitch for a simple scene like
this, this is the professional approach too BTW. Say three shots on
a D1x would probably be better than a 10x8” single shot, scanned
and enlarged in reality.

That may be true, but in order to get an accurate comparison
between the D1x to an 10x8 format, then we should either compare
them as single frames for both or say as a three frame stitch for
both formats.

The picture I asked you to consider is actually a stitch of several
images taken with my E20. There is a photographer in town who has
done a single shot photo of this same valley with a medium format
film camera. The print from his single shot picture of this valley
clearly blows my stitched photo away. His is one that I would be
proud to hang over my sofa.

--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality
and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery
pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com

 

[Anthony Cheh]

Thanks BJL

It really depends upon what your priorities are. For most people,
smaller formats represent a better balance of qualities; this
probably underlies their popularity. ...

Thanks Anthony; let me try to put this film and sensor size debate
in context.

At one end, the 2/3" sensor is clearly big enough for many
photographers, including some types of serious artistic and
professional work; indeed the dominant trade-off in the camera mass
market is that cameras based on these sensors are bigger than
necessary, and digicams are mostly downsizing to 1/1.8" 5MP sensors
and such. From that, my guess is that 2/3" is big enough to replace
most usage of non-professional grade 35mm film, but not to replace
the most demanding of 35mm film work.

At the other end, even the latest 20MP plus near medium format size
sensors are apparently not enough to completely replace large
format film or 6000x8000 scanning backs.

The 4/3 format and the roughly APS sized DSLR formats are all at
least four or more times larger than the great majority of digicam
sensors, as big as the gap from 35mm to MF, or from MF to 4"x5" LF.
that alone suggests that the step up in quality will be enough to
satisfy a significant proportion of moderately serious
photographers, while larger sensors in 35mm and medium format sizes
while have their different roles.

The size/weight/cost/performance gap between the smaller DSLR's
(4/3 or "APS") and full 35mm format is rather clear, enough that
both should persist in different niches. I make no prediction on
how the competition between 4/3, 1/1.7x, 1/1.6x and 1/1.5x will
resolve itself: the difference in gear size and image quality are
far smaller there.

Many of the "official" arguments in favour of the 4/3 system work
primarily in comparison to 35mm full frame format or to the main
Canon option of using 35mm lenses on 1.6x crop cameras; they carry
less weight against something like the Nikon or Pentax approach of
APS sized sensors and matched lenses.