How does 3/4 compete?

[SirSeth]

Thanks for the examples. Canon has put utmost effort into high ISO and the work shows. But it is easy to see that this is not primarily a matter of sensor size, but of refined processing, sensor design, sensor type, as well as sensor size. These cameras are recommendable for high ISO. That does not make other camera systems less competitive unless your priority list has only one item. (And that's hardly a list). But granted, very good high ISO and the 40D and 50D are still easy to recommend despite their age imo.

Cheers,
Seth

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

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

 

[h00ligan]

It was probably my bad interpretation - I agree with your statements just posted!

 

[doady]

The height difference between the sensor in the GH1 and many APS senosrs is extremely small. APS sensors get their "advantage" from width (3:2 vs. 4:3). You lose that if you crop photos to 8x10 or 11x14, etc.

. . . Very few prints are made in 3:2 format. 8x10 and 16x20 are more commonly wanted by most people and the frames sold in stores illustrate that fact.

Minor point of debate: I don't think you can use frames sold in stores as a basis for comparing popularity of printed picture sizes, because it doesn't take into consideration photo albums .

I would guess that most photos printed and put into albums, the overwhelming majority of which are designed to handle 4x6 prints (i.e., 3:2, an not 4:3).

Just looking at the photo bins at Walgreens, Costco, Wal-mart, etc., as well as my own print-purchase experience, would make me think that 4x6 is by far the most popular printed photo size.

Maybe I'm way off on this, but every time I see promos from Snapfish, etc., it's always for "20 free 4x6 prints." Same thing with camera kits: Some online processor will be offering 20, or 30, free prints with the purchase of the camera kit - and it's always 4x6 prints.

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.

Yes, the vast majority of prints are at 4x6, but would the average person making those 4x6 prints at Wal Mart care about the issues being discussed in this thread? Are issues like composition, cropping, noise, meaningful to them? Probably not...

Yes, 4x6 is most popular, but how many of those 4x6 prints you see were taken with SLR or m4/3? It seems to me that camera phones and compact cameras are far more common than SLRs.

If someone buys $1000+ camera with like an SLR or a m4/3 camera and lenses, chances are that person did not spend such money on high-end equipment just to print at 4x6 inches! I would hope not anyways...

--
David
http://davidngo.zenfolio.com/

 

[MadsR]

First of all, Nikon seems to be designing a mirrorless system with an even smaller sensor (x2.5) according to it's patents and rumours... Still, being Nikon they are not known to rush things, but instead get them "right"...

Canon is apparently designing a smaller but still mirror based system. But details are scarce...

Against the NEX it is a tough call yet.. NEX is very new and as such we still have no sales numbers to compare. My guess is that the lack of even basic usability might break it before it have even started... No doubt the sensor is quite good and the kit glass seems decent... but the lack of any kind of controls and a wierd (at best) touch screen menu system with small hard to hit icons could kill it...

Samsung NX is a nice system, but it have not yet gotten sales up, might be the complete lack of marketing and shop presence (Here Olympus E-Px cameras are everywhere and posters and in magazines...

 

[Bilgy_no1]

First of all, Nikon seems to be designing a mirrorless system with an even smaller sensor (x2.5) according to it's patents and rumours... Still, being Nikon they are not known to rush things, but instead get them "right"...

Canon is apparently designing a smaller but still mirror based system. But details are scarce...

Against the NEX it is a tough call yet.. NEX is very new and as such we still have no sales numbers to compare. My guess is that the lack of even basic usability might break it before it have even started... No doubt the sensor is quite good and the kit glass seems decent... but the lack of any kind of controls and a wierd (at best) touch screen menu system with small hard to hit icons could kill it...

When I tried out the NEX5 in a store, I'm sure it was NOT a touch screen. That could have been somewhat usable. As it is, it is an icon based menu with a scroll wheel to select, one button enter and one button to go back. It is really straightforward, but the downside is that changing some basic settings (like ISO) can be rather slow.

Damien

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

 

[s_grins]

I agree about Samsung NX10. It has everything I expect from EVIL including E (I mean EVF).

The only problem I have with Samsung is uncertainty surrounding future developments. I’m afraid that NX10 may be the first and the last of the kind.

But if NX family proceeds with improved bodies and glass selection, it will be a point of my attraction

--
DSC-R1, DMC-G1(14-45)

 

[Everdog]

It is not always who has the best technology, but ususally who has the best marketing.

There is a very large potential market here. Much of it will come form P&S marketshare and eventually a fair amount from DSLR. If this hold true then we may see 2, 3 and maybe 4 systems succeed (like Canon and Nikon in DSLR).

The good news for m43 is that Panasonic is going "all in". They are Japan's largest electronics corp., and won't give up easily. The addition of Olympus and possible others won't hurt either. Also, because of the sensor size, m43 will always have a potential size advantage over APS.

Sony is a large company too with good marketing. They also love their proprietary formats and tend to hold on as long as they can. They are not going anywhere and may actually have the best sensors in the near future if some of their recent R&D pans out.

 

[Brian Mosley]

Constantly retracting and locking the Oly lens after each shot is a PITA and the long term longevity hasn't been proven.

This is such a memorable quote Terry - I was reminded of this thread when I read this report of the focusing rubber falling off the Lumix 14-45...
http://www.mu-43.com/f38/14-45mm-zoom-ring-detached-4359/

Obviously, both the Olympus and Panasonic kit lenses are built down to a budget - I regard them as consumer items... actually the NEX kit lens looks like all the budget went on the lovely metal exterior (assuming it is metal, not metalic paint on plastic?)

I'll be taking extra care of my 14-45 from now on!

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri

 

[SDF]

I would take e420 over NX10 any day.

I agree about Samsung NX10. It has everything I expect from EVIL including E (I mean EVF).

The only problem I have with Samsung is uncertainty surrounding future developments. I’m afraid that NX10 may be the first and the last of the kind.

But if NX family proceeds with improved bodies and glass selection, it will be a point of my attraction

--
DSC-R1, DMC-G1(14-45)

 

[Martha Yount]

Well Sony is doing what Sony does best by creating the NEX, it's different. It's not a Micro 4/3's, it's in a class by itself. I love my GF-1 and the Sony NEX doesn't move me to buy. As always, I gave it my usual woo, but it's not what I want. The sony DSLR's didn't move me, as I continue for over 35 years of Nikon. I love my Nikon D-700 and my Panasonic GF-1. It would be nice if Sony would join the ranks and help make things better and better, but they continue to get the woo's from me. Nice, attractive, good, one of the best, but it's a Beta, if you know what I mean.

Photoing in NC
MY

 

[Tesselator]

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.

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.

I hear you but I think it's a very bad platform for doing that. If you pay typical prices for your M43 and a pancake lens you've just spent around $1,500 dollars when a $200 ~ $500 pocket compact is much better suited for that style. And here are my reasons behind that:

1. In you pocket it's likely to get whacked. With a compact you're out only $200 to $500. Sad, but not as sad as losing A THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AHHHH!
2. The images are just about identical. I'll go head to head with anyone here using a pancake lens on their M43 against my P&S and I will win at IQ at least as often as I lose!
3. A pocket camera has features tailored to just the kind of use you describe here. The M43 cameras I have investigated do not. So you're actually handicapped a little with an M43 trying to carry and shoot like that.
4. The pocket compact is ACTUALLY A POCKET COMPACT... No M43 camera really is. Of course there are people who will do anything. Maybe even try to carry it in their shoe. LOL Both IMO are just as silly however. I haven't actually come face to face with an NEX yet but I have the others and they are NOT pocket cameras - even with no lens attached at all.
5. IMO (and I guess it's most people's opinion that) it's not more convenient to have to wear special clothing that has pockets big enough to actually fit an M43 in as it is to cary the camera on a shoulder-strap or small camera-bag. And since "special" pockets are pretty much needed that whole argument is completely illogical and thus rendered moot. Buy a camera vest and then even the D3 is a "pocket" camera.

So in the end you're paying 3 to 8 times the price for a camera that just doesn't work as well as an actual pocket compact designed for such use. So, I maintain that:

It's a terrible platform for several kinds of users with the number one, top of the list, being:

1. The person who wants to carry the camera around in their pocket.

.

.