MTF maybe 2x better than reported?

[Jono Slack]

Hi Dave

Unless the ccd can use it it is useless. I recall the hype Olympus
pulled over ED glass in the Exx: it was functionally useless
according a lens designer who studied their patent...

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Well, it's hardly surprising - another 18 months technology at a critical time. But going back to the E10 a little, you'll be surprised at how good it really was.

I hope Olympus makes it happen this time - a new standard with
upgrades to follow. I hope this is not just more hype and build
quality to hide mask noise and going-nowhereness. Genuine
compeition and choice are good for all of us.

Absolutely - in the final analysis it'll be the image quality which counts.
kind regards
jono slack

Dave (Plooph!)

In another thread, Joe ('the lens guy') mentioned that the MTF for
the new lenses wasn't very good. But I stumbled across the
following quote at the address listed below. There's diagrams
and such there as well. I wonder how this affects Joe's comments?

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/feat_quality_elements.asp

Begin Quote:

In the Four Thirds MTF chart, 20 lines per millimeter is used vs.
the 10 lines per millimeter for 35mm film lenses and 60 lines per
millimeter instead of 30 lines per millimeter for the 35mm film
format.

A measurement of contrast at 60% or higher in a lens is considered
acceptable. If the contrast measures at 80% or higher it is
considered to be a very fine lens.

End Quote.

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=570619
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=15884

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Larry Lueck]

The resulting Velvia film is ONE color (components of R/G/B as i
have said)!

And a CCD is ONE color (components of RGB are called pixels).
Haell, Tony, this is just getting boring. Hope you enjoyed the
troll, but by now everyone here knows you're just flogging
your...er...ah, well, nevermind.

 

[Larry Lueck]

Actually, that statement was made by Jason Hutchinson. And he did
add a caveat about the variability of MTF measurements.

Sorry, Joe!

All the excitement just has my head spinning! =:0

 

[Larry Lueck]

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

 

[Tony Ku]

If I am a troll, then you must be an idiot

CCD records only ONE color, the results have to be de-mosaic. Film however, do not have to be de-mosaic (interpreted).

Thus, what people advertise for 6 megapixels, is really only 1.2 million true colors (4 pixels makes one color, RGBG, etc.)

You can't compare MTF graphs of CCD sensors versus film, because the comparison would not include color responses and color information which CCD or CMOS sensors loses to film. The only sensor that would compete against film is Foveon (3 sensors per pixel, complete color information without de-mosaicing).

The resulting Velvia film is ONE color (components of R/G/B as i
have said)!

And a CCD is ONE color (components of RGB are called pixels).
Haell, Tony, this is just getting boring. Hope you enjoyed the
troll, but by now everyone here knows you're just flogging
your...er...ah, well, nevermind.

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

 

[Tony Ku]

That's because you're blind.

Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus smaller glass SLR's.

Beat this with your Olympus E-10:

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

 

[Dave Deacon]

Hi Larry

Image quality is a personal thing.

However, I know of many many people who took the journey and were amazed at the difference in image quality and the overall usability of the camera. I do not recall anyone wanting to go back to the E10/20. Hang on... I think I read of one person.

In my view the E10/20 were outclassed in image quality from the outset by the D30 and then the D60 and later the 10D. Indeed, today, most are using 10D image quality as a bench mark for the future E1... ie not an E10/20.

I agree that the 1D and 1Ds offer betterness all round but then for that kind of money I would expect such. If the E1 could compete there... but judging by the 14n sensor it is not going to happen. So, if it is better than or equal to the 10D image quality you'll consider it a success. If not, then it's dead. I hope it makes it since the pressure will be on the rest to do better.

BTW I still use and like my E10.

Dave

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=570619
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=15884

 

[Tan35125]

My goodness. You've outdone yourself yet again Tony Ku! The "bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast" argument is simply the funniest that you've ever come up with. Come on, sure you've other gems that you can share.

I counter your tiny picture of a dragonfly with an equally tiny picture of an insect.

Oh, the picture is taken by someone with an even teeny tinier Oly C750. (you can read about this and how it was done at http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38425 )



oh, and here's more:





So exactly what the H*LL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

That's because you're blind.

Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's
true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus
smaller glass SLR's.

Beat this with your Olympus E-10:

Ha! The C750 beats it already ;-). 'Nuff said...............

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

 

[Joseph Edward Forks]

great pictures!

 

[Dave Deacon]

Unless the ccd can use it it is useless. I recall the hype Olympus
pulled over ED glass in the Exx: it was functionally useless
according a lens designer who studied their patent...

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Well, it's hardly surprising - another 18 months technology at a
critical time. But going back to the E10 a little, you'll be
surprised at how good it really was.

Hi Jono

I think the D30 offered much better image quality and usability at the outset and the D60 18 months or so later was basically the same but more pixels. The E10 might have a decent resolution lens (3x better than some 35mm lenses Olympus said) but it needed that since the sensor was so small. Sadly that meant too much noise. I still have and like my E10 and use it here and there.

Dave

I hope Olympus makes it happen this time - a new standard with
upgrades to follow. I hope this is not just more hype and build
quality to hide mask noise and going-nowhereness. Genuine
compeition and choice are good for all of us.

Absolutely - in the final analysis it'll be the image quality which
counts.
kind regards
jono slack

Dave (Plooph!)

In another thread, Joe ('the lens guy') mentioned that the MTF for
the new lenses wasn't very good. But I stumbled across the
following quote at the address listed below. There's diagrams
and such there as well. I wonder how this affects Joe's comments?

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/feat_quality_elements.asp

Begin Quote:

In the Four Thirds MTF chart, 20 lines per millimeter is used vs.
the 10 lines per millimeter for 35mm film lenses and 60 lines per
millimeter instead of 30 lines per millimeter for the 35mm film
format.

A measurement of contrast at 60% or higher in a lens is considered
acceptable. If the contrast measures at 80% or higher it is
considered to be a very fine lens.

End Quote.

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=570619
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=15884

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=570619
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=15884

 

[Tony Ku]

The photo i took wasn't a macro glass, FYI, and I didn't crop

Besides, this is no counter. The insect looks fake (very metallic colors, similar to many consumer digicams). it lack soul. Impressive as a photographer's feat, but quality wise it lacked something that most DSLR can produce. Besides, my photo is much more interesting than just a macro photo of an insect.

I counter your tiny picture of a dragonfly with an equally tiny
picture of an insect.

Oh, the picture is taken by someone with an even teeny tinier Oly
C750. (you can read about this and how it was done at
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38425 )



oh, and here's more:





So exactly what the H*LL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

That's because you're blind.

Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's
true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus
smaller glass SLR's.

Beat this with your Olympus E-10:

Ha! The C750 beats it already ;-). 'Nuff said...............

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

 

[Tony Ku]

BTW, it's good to counter arguments with photos of YOUR own stuff, not someone else's (and end up violating copyright laws because of it).

I counter your tiny picture of a dragonfly with an equally tiny
picture of an insect.

Oh, the picture is taken by someone with an even teeny tinier Oly
C750. (you can read about this and how it was done at
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38425 )



oh, and here's more:





So exactly what the H*LL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

That's because you're blind.

Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's
true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus
smaller glass SLR's.

Beat this with your Olympus E-10:

Ha! The C750 beats it already ;-). 'Nuff said...............

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

 

[Tony Ku]

Actually, Canon 1D could potentially have better image quality than 10D, but it also carries heftier prices (but it's probably on the end of the production cycle. Canon is expected to announce something around September to either replace the 1D, or have an EOS 3 equivalent digital camera)

Image quality is a personal thing.

However, I know of many many people who took the journey and were
amazed at the difference in image quality and the overall usability
of the camera. I do not recall anyone wanting to go back to the
E10/20. Hang on... I think I read of one person.

In my view the E10/20 were outclassed in image quality from the
outset by the D30 and then the D60 and later the 10D. Indeed,
today, most are using 10D image quality as a bench mark for the
future E1... ie not an E10/20.

I agree that the 1D and 1Ds offer betterness all round but then for
that kind of money I would expect such. If the E1 could compete
there... but judging by the 14n sensor it is not going to happen.
So, if it is better than or equal to the 10D image quality you'll
consider it a success. If not, then it's dead. I hope it makes it
since the pressure will be on the rest to do better.

BTW I still use and like my E10.

Dave

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=570619
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=15884

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

 

[Jono Slack]

But I thought you're photograph was a little soft, the flower colour is unconvincing and the general composition uninspired.

But then, I'm a fine one to talk!

kind regards
jono slack

Besides, this is no counter. The insect looks fake (very metallic
colors, similar to many consumer digicams). it lack soul.
Impressive as a photographer's feat, but quality wise it lacked
something that most DSLR can produce. Besides, my photo is much
more interesting than just a macro photo of an insect.

I counter your tiny picture of a dragonfly with an equally tiny
picture of an insect.

Oh, the picture is taken by someone with an even teeny tinier Oly
C750. (you can read about this and how it was done at
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38425 )



oh, and here's more:





So exactly what the H*LL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

That's because you're blind.

Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's
true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus
smaller glass SLR's.

Beat this with your Olympus E-10:

Ha! The C750 beats it already ;-). 'Nuff said...............

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Tony Ku]

Uh huh. General composition uninspired.... gee, i'd like to see your works.

As far as sharpness goes, sorry, this isn't a F717 or a consumer digicam where everything is sharpened to death. In fact, this is converted WITHOUT sharpening in camera and left as is (the only true way to compare lenses is to do this, so that you know how sharp the lenses are and de-mosaicing will softening it up a bit)

Colour is unconvincing? OK, show me E-10/E-20 photos that matches the fidelity, clarity, silky smooth (i.e. very little noise) images of 10d.

But then, I'm a fine one to talk!

kind regards
jono slack

Besides, this is no counter. The insect looks fake (very metallic
colors, similar to many consumer digicams). it lack soul.
Impressive as a photographer's feat, but quality wise it lacked
something that most DSLR can produce. Besides, my photo is much
more interesting than just a macro photo of an insect.

I counter your tiny picture of a dragonfly with an equally tiny
picture of an insect.

Oh, the picture is taken by someone with an even teeny tinier Oly
C750. (you can read about this and how it was done at
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38425 )



oh, and here's more:





So exactly what the H*LL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

That's because you're blind.

Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's
true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus
smaller glass SLR's.

Beat this with your Olympus E-10:

Ha! The C750 beats it already ;-). 'Nuff said...............

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

 

[Jono Slack]

Hi Tony

Uh huh. General composition uninspired.... gee, i'd like to see
your works.

I wasn't making any personal claims for my stuff

It never makes me happy, but you can look if you like:

http://www.slack.co.uk

As far as sharpness goes, sorry, this isn't a F717 or a consumer
digicam where everything is sharpened to death. In fact, this is
converted WITHOUT sharpening in camera and left as is (the only
true way to compare lenses is to do this, so that you know how
sharp the lenses are and de-mosaicing will softening it up a bit)

Okay - that will be why it looks soft then.

Colour is unconvincing? OK, show me E-10/E-20 photos that matches
the fidelity, clarity, silky smooth (i.e. very little noise) images
of 10d.

Never did like Canon colours - sometimes the blues seem green to me, sometimes the blues seem pink - I agree about the silky smooth, but I'm nor sure that it's terribly realistic.

Each to his own, I just didn't think that you're shot really represented the pinnacle of photographic achievement, either technically or artistically.

I'm probably no judge though, so I apologise if I offended you. (But you did rather put it up as a pinnacle of achievement)

kind regards
jono slack

But then, I'm a fine one to talk!

kind regards
jono slack

Besides, this is no counter. The insect looks fake (very metallic
colors, similar to many consumer digicams). it lack soul.
Impressive as a photographer's feat, but quality wise it lacked
something that most DSLR can produce. Besides, my photo is much
more interesting than just a macro photo of an insect.

I counter your tiny picture of a dragonfly with an equally tiny
picture of an insect.

Oh, the picture is taken by someone with an even teeny tinier Oly
C750. (you can read about this and how it was done at
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38425 )



oh, and here's more:





So exactly what the H*LL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

That's because you're blind.

Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's
true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus
smaller glass SLR's.

Beat this with your Olympus E-10:

Ha! The C750 beats it already ;-). 'Nuff said...............

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Tony Ku]

Nice work. BTW, i didn't put it up as a pinnacle of photographic achievement, i put it up as an example of what the color rendition on the 10D is like, as well as the image smoothness. And i ask that someone show a E-10/E-20 photo for comparison, as I have heard so much about how great it is.

Uh huh. General composition uninspired.... gee, i'd like to see
your works.

I wasn't making any personal claims for my stuff

It never makes me happy, but you can look if you like:

http://www.slack.co.uk

As far as sharpness goes, sorry, this isn't a F717 or a consumer
digicam where everything is sharpened to death. In fact, this is
converted WITHOUT sharpening in camera and left as is (the only
true way to compare lenses is to do this, so that you know how
sharp the lenses are and de-mosaicing will softening it up a bit)

Okay - that will be why it looks soft then.

Colour is unconvincing? OK, show me E-10/E-20 photos that matches
the fidelity, clarity, silky smooth (i.e. very little noise) images
of 10d.

Never did like Canon colours - sometimes the blues seem green to
me, sometimes the blues seem pink - I agree about the silky smooth,
but I'm nor sure that it's terribly realistic.

Each to his own, I just didn't think that you're shot really
represented the pinnacle of photographic achievement, either
technically or artistically.

I'm probably no judge though, so I apologise if I offended you.
(But you did rather put it up as a pinnacle of achievement)

kind regards
jono slack

But then, I'm a fine one to talk!

kind regards
jono slack

Besides, this is no counter. The insect looks fake (very metallic
colors, similar to many consumer digicams). it lack soul.
Impressive as a photographer's feat, but quality wise it lacked
something that most DSLR can produce. Besides, my photo is much
more interesting than just a macro photo of an insect.

I counter your tiny picture of a dragonfly with an equally tiny
picture of an insect.

Oh, the picture is taken by someone with an even teeny tinier Oly
C750. (you can read about this and how it was done at
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38425 )



oh, and here's more:





So exactly what the H*LL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

That's because you're blind.

Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's
true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus
smaller glass SLR's.

Beat this with your Olympus E-10:

Ha! The C750 beats it already ;-). 'Nuff said...............

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

 

[Jono Slack]

HI Dave

Certainly noise was a problem, but I would say the I still think it had more faithful colour then any other camera I've used (I'm especially unhappy with Canon colour - I know I'm almost alone on this one, but I've always found that the blues are too green, and the reds kind of pinkish).

still, each to his own - at any rate I think you have to agree that the Olympus colours were very good.

kind regards
jono slack

Unless the ccd can use it it is useless. I recall the hype Olympus
pulled over ED glass in the Exx: it was functionally useless
according a lens designer who studied their patent...

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Well, it's hardly surprising - another 18 months technology at a
critical time. But going back to the E10 a little, you'll be
surprised at how good it really was.

Hi Jono

I think the D30 offered much better image quality and usability at
the outset and the D60 18 months or so later was basically the same
but more pixels. The E10 might have a decent resolution lens (3x
better than some 35mm lenses Olympus said) but it needed that since
the sensor was so small. Sadly that meant too much noise. I still
have and like my E10 and use it here and there.

Dave

I hope Olympus makes it happen this time - a new standard with
upgrades to follow. I hope this is not just more hype and build
quality to hide mask noise and going-nowhereness. Genuine
compeition and choice are good for all of us.

Absolutely - in the final analysis it'll be the image quality which
counts.
kind regards
jono slack

Dave (Plooph!)

In another thread, Joe ('the lens guy') mentioned that the MTF for
the new lenses wasn't very good. But I stumbled across the
following quote at the address listed below. There's diagrams
and such there as well. I wonder how this affects Joe's comments?

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/feat_quality_elements.asp

Begin Quote:

In the Four Thirds MTF chart, 20 lines per millimeter is used vs.
the 10 lines per millimeter for 35mm film lenses and 60 lines per
millimeter instead of 30 lines per millimeter for the 35mm film
format.

A measurement of contrast at 60% or higher in a lens is considered
acceptable. If the contrast measures at 80% or higher it is
considered to be a very fine lens.

End Quote.

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=570619
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=15884

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=570619
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=15884

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Canoeman]

Jeez, Tony... quite apparent that lighting conditions were totally different. Lacks soul? That's totally in the eye of the beholder; this started out as a discussion of MTF, i.e. a technical discussion. I have no problem with your thinking your shot has more soul. Quite honestly, I tend to agree. I like your shot very, very much. But it has nothing to do with the cameras.

Besides, this is no counter. The insect looks fake (very metallic
colors, similar to many consumer digicams). it lack soul.
Impressive as a photographer's feat, but quality wise it lacked
something that most DSLR can produce. Besides, my photo is much
more interesting than just a macro photo of an insect.

I counter your tiny picture of a dragonfly with an equally tiny
picture of an insect.

Oh, the picture is taken by someone with an even teeny tinier Oly
C750. (you can read about this and how it was done at
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38425 )



oh, and here's more:





So exactly what the H*LL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

That's because you're blind.

Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's
true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus
smaller glass SLR's.

Beat this with your Olympus E-10:

Ha! The C750 beats it already ;-). 'Nuff said...............

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

 

[Jono Slack]

here are a couple of old E10 shots

Unlike yours, they've been sharpened for the net, and they do show the E10 propensity for noise.

The colours are (imho) clearer and less 'smoothed' than the Canon colours - but still:



or else, there's:



Generally speaking this sort of thing is either 'wrong' which probably isn't the case for either camera, or a matter of taste and opinion.

Kind regards
jono slack

Uh huh. General composition uninspired.... gee, i'd like to see
your works.

I wasn't making any personal claims for my stuff

It never makes me happy, but you can look if you like:

http://www.slack.co.uk

As far as sharpness goes, sorry, this isn't a F717 or a consumer
digicam where everything is sharpened to death. In fact, this is
converted WITHOUT sharpening in camera and left as is (the only
true way to compare lenses is to do this, so that you know how
sharp the lenses are and de-mosaicing will softening it up a bit)

Okay - that will be why it looks soft then.

Colour is unconvincing? OK, show me E-10/E-20 photos that matches
the fidelity, clarity, silky smooth (i.e. very little noise) images
of 10d.

Never did like Canon colours - sometimes the blues seem green to
me, sometimes the blues seem pink - I agree about the silky smooth,
but I'm nor sure that it's terribly realistic.

Each to his own, I just didn't think that you're shot really
represented the pinnacle of photographic achievement, either
technically or artistically.

I'm probably no judge though, so I apologise if I offended you.
(But you did rather put it up as a pinnacle of achievement)

kind regards
jono slack

But then, I'm a fine one to talk!

kind regards
jono slack

Besides, this is no counter. The insect looks fake (very metallic
colors, similar to many consumer digicams). it lack soul.
Impressive as a photographer's feat, but quality wise it lacked
something that most DSLR can produce. Besides, my photo is much
more interesting than just a macro photo of an insect.

I counter your tiny picture of a dragonfly with an equally tiny
picture of an insect.

Oh, the picture is taken by someone with an even teeny tinier Oly
C750. (you can read about this and how it was done at
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38425 )



oh, and here's more:





So exactly what the H*LL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

That's because you're blind.

Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's
true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus
smaller glass SLR's.

Beat this with your Olympus E-10:

Ha! The C750 beats it already ;-). 'Nuff said...............

I can say that going from an E10 to a D60 with 'mtf challenged'
lenses was a revelation. I MUCH prefer the D60 to the E10 - even
with cheap Sigma glass. It kills it dead! There is much more to
this than 'mtf graphs' and the like. Watch out for the hype. Use
your eyes. In which case, we will have to wait for REAL results.

Hi, Dave.

All I can say, is that the dozens upon dozens of images I've seen
from the D60 and 10D just don't look that good to me. Now the
1Ds and the 1D, THEM got's good pixels!

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

--
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk