Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E-300 vignetting?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 9:29:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi, I'm on the point of buying an E-300 kit now that they've reached a
sensible price in the UK (£630 for the E-300 and the 14 -45 & 40 -150
lenses)

I'm a bit concerned about some references to vignetting in a couple of
reviews - could any 300 owners clarify whether this is a significant problem
with the cheaper kit lenses?

I know that the E-1 has 'in-camera' software to deal with vignetting, but
it's not included on the 300

many thanks

More about : 300 vignetting

Anonymous
March 8, 2005 11:07:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <39699tF5us8f9U1@individual.net>, astrofax says...
> Hi, I'm on the point of buying an E-300 kit now that they've reached a
> sensible price in the UK (£630 for the E-300 and the 14 -45 & 40 -150
> lenses)
>
> I'm a bit concerned about some references to vignetting in a couple of
> reviews - could any 300 owners clarify whether this is a significant problem
> with the cheaper kit lenses?
>
> I know that the E-1 has 'in-camera' software to deal with vignetting, but
> it's not included on the 300

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 11:07:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9816698963501d98aa38@news.supernews.com...
In article <39699tF5us8f9U1@individual.net>, astrofax says...
> Hi, I'm on the point of buying an E-300 kit now that they've reached a
> sensible price in the UK (£630 for the E-300 and the 14 -45 & 40 -150
> lenses)
>
> I'm a bit concerned about some references to vignetting in a couple of
> reviews - could any 300 owners clarify whether this is a significant
> problem
> with the cheaper kit lenses?
>
> I know that the E-1 has 'in-camera' software to deal with vignetting, but
> it's not included on the 300

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/



Bit of a waste of time signing up to that one - all I could find were
endless posts about the 'C' range of Olympus cameras.

Do I take it that you don't know the answer to my question?
Related resources
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:52:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <39699tF5us8f9U1@individual.net>, what@me.com says...
> Hi, I'm on the point of buying an E-300 kit now that they've reached a
> sensible price in the UK (£630 for the E-300 and the 14 -45 & 40 -150
> lenses)
>
> I'm a bit concerned about some references to vignetting in a couple of
> reviews - could any 300 owners clarify whether this is a significant problem
> with the cheaper kit lenses?
>
> I know that the E-1 has 'in-camera' software to deal with vignetting, but
> it's not included on the 300
>
> many thanks

Because the E-300 is, for intents and purposes, a "full frame" camera,
you're going to see some vignetting wide open on some lenses.

If you process with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) it has a fairly decent
vignette removal tool for RAW files.

Vignetting isn't that big of a deal on the APS-C sensors. The sensors
are larger and more sensitive than the ones used in the 4/3rds cameras,
but they use only the center portion of the 35mm frame, so any
vignetting is occurring off the imaging plane. The original Digital
Rebel and the D70 are going for pretty cheap these days should you
decide to go that route.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:52:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:


> Because the E-300 is, for intents and purposes, a "full frame" camera,
> you're going to see some vignetting wide open on some lenses.
>
> If you process with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) it has a fairly decent
> vignette removal tool for RAW files.
>
> Vignetting isn't that big of a deal on the APS-C sensors. The sensors
> are larger and more sensitive than the ones used in the 4/3rds cameras,
> but they use only the center portion of the 35mm frame, so any
> vignetting is occurring off the imaging plane. The original Digital
> Rebel and the D70 are going for pretty cheap these days should you
> decide to go that route.


Eh? Run that by me again? The E300 sensor is
smaller than that of the Canon 10D or 20D (I
presume those are "APS-C" sensors.)

In what way is the E300 sensor "full frame"?

What kind of lens would you have to use on
and E300 to get vignetting?

Maybe I missed something or you're being facetious.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:10:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <396eoiF5sekeqU1@individual.net>, astrofax says...
>
> Bit of a waste of time signing up to that one - all I could find were
> endless posts about the 'C' range of Olympus cameras.

There is a large number of E300 users - put a question and you will get
an answer.

> Do I take it that you don't know the answer to my question?

The reason you couldn't find posts about vignetting with the E300 is
that nobody has complained so far about vignetting with the E300.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:10:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c984138576571c298aa39@news.supernews.com...
> In article <396eoiF5sekeqU1@individual.net>, astrofax says...
>>
>> Bit of a waste of time signing up to that one - all I could find were
>> endless posts about the 'C' range of Olympus cameras.
>
> There is a large number of E300 users - put a question and you will get
> an answer.
>
>> Do I take it that you don't know the answer to my question?
>
> The reason you couldn't find posts about vignetting with the E300 is
> that nobody has complained so far about vignetting with the E300.




OK, thanks - that's reassuring, but one or two of the reviews definitely
mention it - and I believe that it's also an issue with the E1/14 - 54
combination (although the E1 has in-camera compensation)

Without wanting to sound patronising, is it possible that the forum members
haven't mentioned it because they're not as picky as reviewers (and probably
me) are?

Anyway, on a more positive note, the first samples from the Canon 350 are
appearing on the DP review user forum, and the issue seems to be stuck
pixels that appear in some shots. I find this a bit comforting (not that I
wish stuck pixels on anyone) because I was seriously tempted by the 350D but
have virtually decided on Olympus due to the pixel mapping feature. So it
sort of validates the decision - some people don't seem to care about dead
pixels, but they really bug me (and they're not always as easy to clone out
as some people claim)

Could I also ask you for your opinion on the general quality of the Olympus
14 - 45 & 40 - 150 lenses when compared to other manufacturers 'kit'
offerings? - better?, about the same?, worse?

Thanks
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:10:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c984138576571c298aa39@news.supernews.com>,
alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com says...
> The reason you couldn't find posts about vignetting with the E300 is
> that nobody has complained so far about vignetting with the E300.

Complaining about the E-300 goes against the unspoken word among Oly
dSLR shooters: No one must admit that other dSLRs are better.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:17:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c97f6d3b2c54f8798a7a7@news.verizon.net...
In article <39699tF5us8f9U1@individual.net>, what@me.com says...
> Hi, I'm on the point of buying an E-300 kit now that they've reached a
> sensible price in the UK (£630 for the E-300 and the 14 -45 & 40 -150
> lenses)
>
> I'm a bit concerned about some references to vignetting in a couple of
> reviews - could any 300 owners clarify whether this is a significant
> problem
> with the cheaper kit lenses?
>
> I know that the E-1 has 'in-camera' software to deal with vignetting, but
> it's not included on the 300
>
> many thanks

Because the E-300 is, for intents and purposes, a "full frame" camera,
you're going to see some vignetting wide open on some lenses.

If you process with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) it has a fairly decent
vignette removal tool for RAW files.

Vignetting isn't that big of a deal on the APS-C sensors. The sensors
are larger and more sensitive than the ones used in the 4/3rds cameras,
but they use only the center portion of the 35mm frame, so any
vignetting is occurring off the imaging plane. The original Digital
Rebel and the D70 are going for pretty cheap these days should you
decide to go that route.




Thanks for a comprehensive answer - although I'm not too sure what 'full
frame' means

I've got PS & the RAW converter and had completely forgotten about the
vignetting tool - thanks for reminding me.

As for other makes - I've given the matter a lot of thought and it's really
only the Olympus pixel mapping feature that draws me to the brand.

To some people it might not be important, but to me it's an essential piece
of software that should be standard on every digital camera - given that all
sensors develop dead pixels over the months. I don't want the hassle of
sending a Canon or Nikon back for factory re-mapping, and I certainly don't
want the expense of paying for that re-mapping once the camera is out of
warranty.

Even from new no camera is immune - witness the dead and hot pixels
exhibited in the first posted user images of the Canon 350. On balance I'd
prefer to deal with the occasional (and I'm assuming that it is
'occasional') vingetting issue than worry about dying pixels.

Regards.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:27:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Have not heard any major complaints. (I have the E1 and the E300. Don't have
the 14-45 lens, but do have the 11-22, 14-54, 40-150, 50 Macro and the 1.4
TC. Have seen any serious vignetting problems with any of them on either
body.)
Another place you can check is the Olympus SLR forum at
Digital Camera Reviews.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1022
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:37:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <396ncnF5u1hbeU1@individual.net>, astrofax says...

> > The reason you couldn't find posts about vignetting with the E300 is
> > that nobody has complained so far about vignetting with the E300.
>
> OK, thanks - that's reassuring, but one or two of the reviews definitely
> mention it - and I believe that it's also an issue with the E1/14 - 54
> combination (although the E1 has in-camera compensation)
>
> Without wanting to sound patronising, is it possible that the forum members
> haven't mentioned it because they're not as picky as reviewers (and probably
> me) are?

That's possible, but usually people complain when there is a problem.

> Could I also ask you for your opinion on the general quality of the Olympus
> 14 - 45 & 40 - 150 lenses when compared to other manufacturers 'kit'
> offerings? - better?, about the same?, worse?

Jens Birch (a forum member) complained recently about the 14-54, then we
ran a test and it turned out that the lens is not so bad after all, and
actually quite good (on an E1). But feel free to ask (am still using an
8080 myself).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:52:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <396q72F5v96arU1@individual.net>, what@me.com says...
> As for other makes - I've given the matter a lot of thought and it's really
> only the Olympus pixel mapping feature that draws me to the brand.
>
> To some people it might not be important, but to me it's an essential piece
> of software that should be standard on every digital camera - given that all
> sensors develop dead pixels over the months. I don't want the hassle of
> sending a Canon or Nikon back for factory re-mapping, and I certainly don't
> want the expense of paying for that re-mapping once the camera is out of
> warranty.
>
> Even from new no camera is immune - witness the dead and hot pixels
> exhibited in the first posted user images of the Canon 350. On balance I'd
> prefer to deal with the occasional (and I'm assuming that it is
> 'occasional') vingetting issue than worry about dying pixels.

So far we have 3 stuck pixels on one body over 4-5 Rebel XT bodies that
have posted sample photos. I wouldn't worry about it too much,
especially when Photoshop's RAW converter does a good job of removing
hot and dead pixels from an image automatically.

My 10D has two semi-stuck pixels that I never see unless I shoot high
ISO JPEGS. I don't lose sleep over it.

If you don't need/want the high-ISO performance of the APS-C sensor
dSLRs and you don't mind the 4/3rds system, by all means go for the
E300. But I wouldn't let the stuck pixels sway you one way or another,
especially since you have ACR.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:56:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> So far we have 3 stuck pixels on one body over 4-5 Rebel XT bodies that
> have posted sample photos. I wouldn't worry about it too much,
> especially when Photoshop's RAW converter does a good job of removing
> hot and dead pixels from an image automatically.
>
> My 10D has two semi-stuck pixels that I never see unless I shoot high
> ISO JPEGS. I don't lose sleep over it.
>
> If you don't need/want the high-ISO performance of the APS-C sensor
> dSLRs and you don't mind the 4/3rds system, by all means go for the
> E300. But I wouldn't let the stuck pixels sway you one way or another,
> especially since you have ACR.


I didn't know that PS RAW removed dead/hot pixels. I don't RAW as much as I
used to and I can't remember whether I ever put any RAW E20 files through
with dead pixels - but I certainly used the pixel mapping to get rid of a
few that I noticed in Jpg's.

Are you absolutely certain that the Adobe converter does this?



> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
March 9, 2005 2:59:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

astrofax wrote:

>
> I'm a bit concerned about some references to vignetting in a couple of
> reviews - could any 300 owners clarify whether this is a significant
> problem with the cheaper kit lenses?

I haven't seen this in use.

>
> I know that the E-1 has 'in-camera' software to deal with vignetting, but
> it's not included on the 300
>
>

Actually that is more for correcting light fall off which any wide lens has.

--

Stacey
March 9, 2005 3:22:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

astrofax wrote:


>
> Could I also ask you for your opinion on the general quality of the
> Olympus 14 - 45 & 40 - 150 lenses when compared to other manufacturers
> 'kit' offerings? - better?, about the same?, worse?
>
>

I've tried both, the only problem I had was I wanted faster lenses,
especially on the long end. The 40-150 is a very sharp lens, at both ends
it works very well down 1 stop from wide open on the wide end, 1.5 on the
long end. I did return it to get the faster 50-200 as I could see I needed
a little more on the long end and I've heard the sigma isn't that sharp at
200. Also the 50-200 is very usable wide open. The 14-45 is also sharp but
I wanted something wider so got the 11-22 and don't use the 14-45 much
anymore. The other beef I have with the kit lenses is no distance
scale. :-(

Never seen vignetting with any and I'm pretty picky, then again I doubt I've
shot any wide open at the wide end either, why/how often would you ever do
that where you'd see it?

I have found a couple of issues with the E300: the in camera jpegs have too
much selective NR applied, especially if you turn up the in camera
shapening which seems to ramp up the NR. The RAW files look great. Also the
ESP metering seems to be a little whacky, hopefully they will address both
of these problems with the next firmware update.

My other beef is the supplied software comes with the same rendering engine
that camera has while the extra cost studio has a "high function" engine
which produces much better results. It's a bitch had to pay $100 for some
"good" RAW software but I guess it could be worse with none avalible and
having to buy some 3rd party software and then lose the nice "olympus
color", which is why I bought the camera in the first place. The supplied
software can be used in RAW using "edit" rather than RAW develop to get
better no NR results but you are stuck with the in camera set while
shooting parameters. This NR issue doesn't affect all kinds of shooting and
unless you're making larger than 8X10 prints, it isn't a problem.

Yes the canon has nicer high ISO results so if you need to use ISO800 and
up, you might be better of with something else. The 400ISO's look fine. I
do like the anti dust, the pixel mapping etc just would have changed a few
things if I had designed the camera, isn't that always true? It's not a
perfect camera but I really like the look of the images, especially the
color and saturation they have. E-mail me if you'd like to see a couple of
full size Jpegs.


Hope this helps.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:29:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <396q72F5v96arU1@individual.net>, astrofax says...

> As for other makes - I've given the matter a lot of thought and it's really
> only the Olympus pixel mapping feature that draws me to the brand.

Another big plus of the Olympus DSLRs is the supersonic dust shake
mechanism, which removes the dust from the sensor every time you switch
on the camera. Because of this dust is essentially a non-issue on
Olympus DSLRs (see instead the numerous threads addressing the sensor
dust topic on other brand DLSRs).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:29:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <396q72F5v96arU1@individual.net>, astrofax says...
>
>
>>As for other makes - I've given the matter a lot of thought and it's really
>>only the Olympus pixel mapping feature that draws me to the brand.
>
>
> Another big plus of the Olympus DSLRs is the supersonic dust shake
> mechanism, which removes the dust from the sensor every time you switch
> on the camera. Because of this dust is essentially a non-issue on
> Olympus DSLRs (see instead the numerous threads addressing the sensor
> dust topic on other brand DLSRs).


It sounds like a good idea. If it's not patented,
it will be copied.

And even if it is, the patent will be licensed and/or
eventually expire. Good ideas usually survive.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 5:32:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <422e3c15$0$1505$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
rafe@nowhere.com says...
> In what way is the E300 sensor "full frame"?

As in the sensor uses the full image circle of the lens.

> What kind of lens would you have to use on
> and E300 to get vignetting?

Any of the wide angles wide open, just like on a 35mm camera.

> Maybe I missed something or you're being facetious.

It's all in the specs.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
March 9, 2005 5:32:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:

>> What kind of lens would you have to use on
>> and E300 to get vignetting?
>
> Any of the wide angles wide open, just like on a 35mm camera.

And you know this how, from use? The 11-22 sure doesn't exhibit this so it
can't be "Any of the wide angle lenses".

I understand you like/need to push canon products here but can we at least
stick to facts and not FUD?


--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 5:40:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <396sfqF5uo9gnU1@individual.net>, what@me.com says...
> > If you don't need/want the high-ISO performance of the APS-C sensor
> > dSLRs and you don't mind the 4/3rds system, by all means go for the
> > E300. But I wouldn't let the stuck pixels sway you one way or another,
> > especially since you have ACR.
>
>
> I didn't know that PS RAW removed dead/hot pixels. I don't RAW as much as I
> used to and I can't remember whether I ever put any RAW E20 files through
> with dead pixels - but I certainly used the pixel mapping to get rid of a
> few that I noticed in Jpg's.
>
> Are you absolutely certain that the Adobe converter does this?

Yup. I didn't even know it did it until I shot some JPEGs on vacation.
Sure enough, hot/stuck pixels in the JPEGs, none in any of the RAW files
I snapped.

Pixel mapping is pretty simple to do, and ACR seems to do it without
thinking. I never get any 'hot' pixels in long exposures with ACR
either. It never crossed my mind until I went back and did some
comparisons with File Viewer Utility (the supplied Canon RAW converter)
and noticed a number of hot pixels I never saw in the ACR conversions.

Ever since then, I've loved ACR even more than I did before. I even
tolerate CS's slowwww loading times for it.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:33:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" wrote ...

> So far we have 3 stuck pixels on one body over 4-5 Rebel XT bodies that
> have posted sample photos. I wouldn't worry about it too much...

Well Brian, to paraphrase something I read recently, "Complaining about
(Canon) goes against the unspoken word among (Canon) dSLR shooters: No one
must admit that other dSLRs are better."

Thought provoking words indeed...

Rob
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:48:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <396sfqF5uo9gnU1@individual.net>, astrofax says...

> I didn't know that PS RAW removed dead/hot pixels. I don't RAW as much as I
> used to and I can't remember whether I ever put any RAW E20 files through
> with dead pixels - but I certainly used the pixel mapping to get rid of a
> few that I noticed in Jpg's.
>
> Are you absolutely certain that the Adobe converter does this?

PS RAW can reduce noise, chromatic aberrations and vignetting, but has
no inbuilt function to remove hot or bad pixels.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:04:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <396ncnF5u1hbeU1@individual.net>, "astrofax" <what@me.com>
wrote:

> Could I also ask you for your opinion on the general quality of the Olympus
> 14 - 45 & 40 - 150 lenses when compared to other manufacturers 'kit'
> offerings? - better?, about the same?, worse?

German "Foto Magazin" tested all manufacturer's cheap kit-lenses in
their last issue (2/2005) The Zuiko 14-45 was best.

The current issue (3/2005) has test-data on a number of other E-system
lenses including the 40-150. Optically it scores 83 points (out of a
hundred) and that is very good; 85 is the "excellent" limit.

Exactly how they test lenses, can be found here:
http://cm.jahr-tsv.de/fotomagazin/internet/test_technik...
..php
(German language I'm affraid, but maybe that's no problem.)

Lourens
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:30:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c982a603ae31f2498a7ae@news.verizon.net>,
Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote:
>In article <422e3c15$0$1505$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
>rafe@nowhere.com says...
>> In what way is the E300 sensor "full frame"?
>
>As in the sensor uses the full image circle of the lens.

Funny - all the images I've seen posted from them are rectangular.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:08:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <U0vXd.615348$8l.95463@pd7tw1no>, basic-wedge@shaw.ca says...
> > So far we have 3 stuck pixels on one body over 4-5 Rebel XT bodies that
> > have posted sample photos. I wouldn't worry about it too much...
>
> Well Brian, to paraphrase something I read recently, "Complaining about
> (Canon) goes against the unspoken word among (Canon) dSLR shooters: No one
> must admit that other dSLRs are better."
>
> Thought provoking words indeed...

You have a point, or are you just trying to stir the pot?

Yeah, you're trying to stir the pot. Nice try, hope you have better
luck next time.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:09:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <397e5oF5utf73U1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> > I know that the E-1 has 'in-camera' software to deal with vignetting, but
> > it's not included on the 300

> Actually that is more for correcting light fall off which any wide lens has.

Stacey... don't want to ruin this for you... but light fall off at the
corners... it's called vignetting. Shhh! Don't tell anyone!
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:18:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c98baa34c2ffb4a98aa3c@news.supernews.com>,
alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com says...
> > Are you absolutely certain that the Adobe converter does this?
>
> PS RAW can reduce noise, chromatic aberrations and vignetting, but has
> no inbuilt function to remove hot or bad pixels.

Yes it does.

Go take a long exposure and process it through your standard RAW
converter. Then run it through ACR. Amazingly, no hot/stuck pixels!
Hot pixels are easy to detect and easy to remove - there are stand-alone
plug-ins that do it. Of course, ACR is doing it for me, so why would I
bother?

If you STILL don't believe me I'll post samples. Crickey.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:40:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <397efaF5utf73U2@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> >> What kind of lens would you have to use on
> >> and E300 to get vignetting?
> >
> > Any of the wide angles wide open, just like on a 35mm camera.
>
> And you know this how, from use? The 11-22 sure doesn't exhibit this so it
> can't be "Any of the wide angle lenses".
>
> I understand you like/need to push canon products here but can we at least
> stick to facts and not FUD?

I love how you think that, but no.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:41:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <u6t2g2-mgj.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com says...
> >> In what way is the E300 sensor "full frame"?
> >
> >As in the sensor uses the full image circle of the lens.
>
> Funny - all the images I've seen posted from them are rectangular.

Advanced rectangular sampling techniques. Really hot stuff. You should
check it out.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 4:31:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <397e5oF5utf73U1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Actually that is more for correcting light fall off which any wide lens has.

Any *rectilinear* wide lens has.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 6:00:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote in message news:<MPG.1c98b18d8514294798a7ba@news.verizon.net>...
> In article <397e5oF5utf73U1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> > > I know that the E-1 has 'in-camera' software to deal with vignetting, but
> > > it's not included on the 300
>
> > Actually that is more for correcting light fall off which any wide lens has.
>
> Stacey... don't want to ruin this for you... but light fall off at the
> corners... it's called vignetting. Shhh! Don't tell anyone!

Not if it is just a slight dimming at the edges.
Light fall-off is just that, the image gets slightly dimmer closer to
the corners, isn't completely black/dark and still has discernable
detail there.
Vignetting is when part of the sensor is shaded completely (ie
black/blank) by parts of the lens body, optical design of the lens,
camera mount or other built-in obstruction.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 6:15:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" wrote ...

>> Well Brian, to paraphrase something I read recently, "Complaining about
>> (Canon) goes against the unspoken word among (Canon) dSLR shooters: No
>> one
>> must admit that other dSLRs are better."
>>
>> Thought provoking words indeed...
>
> You have a point, or are you just trying to stir the pot?
>
> Yeah, you're trying to stir the pot. Nice try, hope you have better
> luck next time.

------------------------------------------

Well now Brian, you disappoint me :( 

I thought you'd appreciate the fundamental wisdom bursting forth from that
little kernel of enlightenment.

Don't you recognize those words?

You should...

THEY"RE YOUR OWN WORDS!

If you don't pay any attention to the drivel you write, why should any of
us?

Please try a bit harder to keep up with the group Brian. We just can't spend
the time explaining each one of your nonsensical little contradictions. Just
give it a bit more thought next time.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:54:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <BqEXd.622290$6l.508612@pd7tw2no>, basic-wedge@shaw.ca
says...
> THEY"RE YOUR OWN WORDS!

Like I said, stirring the pot.
March 9, 2005 9:55:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:

> In article <U0vXd.615348$8l.95463@pd7tw1no>, basic-wedge@shaw.ca says...
>> > So far we have 3 stuck pixels on one body over 4-5 Rebel XT bodies that
>> > have posted sample photos. I wouldn't worry about it too much...
>>
>> Well Brian, to paraphrase something I read recently, "Complaining about
>> (Canon) goes against the unspoken word among (Canon) dSLR shooters: No
>> one must admit that other dSLRs are better."
>>
>> Thought provoking words indeed...
>
> You have a point, or are you just trying to stir the pot?
>

Trying to point our that you (and others) are more agressively =pro canon=
than ANY olympus users are. Do you ever see OM users hijack a "which canon
should I buy?" thread telling them to buy an olympus? Yet this happens
EVERYTIME even the word olympus is posted here, along with some nonsense
FUD from people who have never even held the camera in their hand.

--

Stacey
March 9, 2005 9:57:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:

> In article <397efaF5utf73U2@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>> >> What kind of lens would you have to use on
>> >> and E300 to get vignetting?
>> >
>> > Any of the wide angles wide open, just like on a 35mm camera.
>>
>> And you know this how, from use? The 11-22 sure doesn't exhibit this so
>> it can't be "Any of the wide angle lenses".

Still ignoring the BS you posted?


Looks like more canon FUD to me. Wonder why you and rafe can't seem to
ignore any post about an olympus camera? 'Bout time for David to chime
in... And then people want to claim this group isn't "pro canon"?



--

Stacey
March 9, 2005 9:59:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <397e5oF5utf73U1@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Actually that is more for correcting light fall off which any wide lens
>>has.
>
> Any *rectilinear* wide lens has.

Correct, fisheye's don't have this problem.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:26:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dj NME" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4959b3a4.0503091500.18bff3fd@posting.google.com...
> Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:<MPG.1c98b18d8514294798a7ba@news.verizon.net>...
> > In article <397e5oF5utf73U1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> > > > I know that the E-1 has 'in-camera' software to deal with
vignetting, but
> > > > it's not included on the 300
> >
> > > Actually that is more for correcting light fall off which any wide
lens has.
> >
> > Stacey... don't want to ruin this for you... but light fall off at the
> > corners... it's called vignetting. Shhh! Don't tell anyone!
>
> Not if it is just a slight dimming at the edges.

From The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography

"Vignetting: the visual appearance of darkening towards the edges or
periphery... Natural vignetting by a lens is due to the cos^4 law of
illumination..."

> Light fall-off is just that, the image gets slightly dimmer closer to
> the corners, isn't completely black/dark and still has discernable
> detail there.
> Vignetting is when part of the sensor is shaded completely (ie
> black/blank) by parts of the lens body, optical design of the lens,
> camera mount or other built-in obstruction.

Nope: vignetting means any darkening, from slight to total.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:26:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 0o0mu$tgs$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "dj NME" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4959b3a4.0503091500.18bff3fd@posting.google.com...
>> Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:<MPG.1c98b18d8514294798a7ba@news.verizon.net>...
>> > In article <397e5oF5utf73U1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>> > > > I know that the E-1 has 'in-camera' software to deal with
> vignetting, but
>> > > > it's not included on the 300
>> >
>> > > Actually that is more for correcting light fall off which any wide
> lens has.
>> >
>> > Stacey... don't want to ruin this for you... but light fall off at the
>> > corners... it's called vignetting. Shhh! Don't tell anyone!
>>
>> Not if it is just a slight dimming at the edges.
>
> From The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography
>
> "Vignetting: the visual appearance of darkening towards the edges or
> periphery... Natural vignetting by a lens is due to the cos^4 law of
> illumination..."
>
>> Light fall-off is just that, the image gets slightly dimmer closer to
>> the corners, isn't completely black/dark and still has discernable
>> detail there.
>> Vignetting is when part of the sensor is shaded completely (ie
>> black/blank) by parts of the lens body, optical design of the lens,
>> camera mount or other built-in obstruction.
>
> Nope: vignetting means any darkening, from slight to total.

---

Well, whatever it is, it can't be a 4-3 problem - Olympus state quite
clearly on the website:

"All lenses feature a telecentric construction to ensure that light strikes
the photodiodes squarely. This avoids blurring at the edges of the image
(cornershading), which sometimes occurs when using lenses designed for 35mm
cameras with digital SLRs. This construction together with the Olympus
lenses’ high resolution makes sure the full potential of the image sensor is
used. What you get is bright photos with clear colours and sharp contrast,
even at the edges."


'Even to the edges'! - did you read that? - so, there's no vignetting with
Olympus 4-3 lenses.

Unless, of course, the Japs are lying to us again...

What a system! - inherently noisy sensors require aggressive in-camera noise
reduction (that can't be turned off on the 300) which leads to horrible
featureless images (sometimes, almost like a coloured crayon drawing) which,
of course, completely defeats the point of having extra available pixel
resolution..

Still, the end seemeth nigh - the 300 is now being dumped like last night's
curry and prices are collapsing (down a stonking £220 -that's GB pounds,
remember!, in under a week for the twin lens kit)

Olympus are obviously about to halt production of their catastrophically
awful 300 - which will (imho) herald the beginning of the end of the 4-3
experiement (much to the fury of those stupid enough to have paid thousands
of pounds for those diamond encrusted (well, the must be at that price)
Zuiko lenses.
March 10, 2005 11:26:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Knild wrote:

>
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message

>>
>>> Light fall-off is just that, the image gets slightly dimmer closer to
>>> the corners, isn't completely black/dark and still has discernable
>>> detail there.
>>> Vignetting is when part of the sensor is shaded completely (ie
>>> black/blank) by parts of the lens body, optical design of the lens,
>>> camera mount or other built-in obstruction.
>>
>> Nope: vignetting means any darkening, from slight to total.
>

Maybe, but most people use the term for when there is an obvious optical
obstruction (like a filter, lens hood etc), not for the normal light fall
off that wide angle lenses have. My point was the olympus "setting" is for
removing this normal light fall off and is done based on the lens and focal
length used.

>
> Well, whatever it is, it can't be a 4-3 problem - Olympus state quite
> clearly on the website:
>
> "All lenses feature a telecentric construction to ensure that light
> strikes the photodiodes squarely. This avoids blurring at the edges of the
> image (cornershading),

No, they said 'blurring at the edges'. you can't get away from the cos^4
law, even with a canon lens. That's why =they= didn't say they don't have
normal light fall off and why the camera has a setting (or software) to
deal with this.


> which sometimes occurs when using lenses designed
> for 35mm cameras with digital SLRs. This construction together with the
> Olympus lenses’ high resolution makes sure the full potential of the image
> sensor is used. What you get is bright photos with clear colours and sharp
> contrast, even at the edges."
>
>
> 'Even to the edges'! - did you read that? - so, there's no vignetting with
> Olympus 4-3 lenses.

They said the images are sharp with good contrast to the edges, which they
are. Again you can't get around the cos^4 law that all wide angle lenses
have.

>
> Unless, of course, the Japs are lying to us again...
>
> What a system! - inherently noisy sensors require aggressive in-camera
> noise reduction (that can't be turned off on the 300) which leads to
> horrible featureless images (sometimes, almost like a coloured crayon
> drawing) which, of course, completely defeats the point of having extra
> available pixel resolution..
>

Snip of a upset for some reason person's rant.

Good thing this group isn't a bunch of hostile, pro canon fanatics! :-)


--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:26:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:399hp6F5u99vmU1@individual.net...
> Knild wrote:
>
>>
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>>> Light fall-off is just that, the image gets slightly dimmer closer to
>>>> the corners, isn't completely black/dark and still has discernable
>>>> detail there.
>>>> Vignetting is when part of the sensor is shaded completely (ie
>>>> black/blank) by parts of the lens body, optical design of the lens,
>>>> camera mount or other built-in obstruction.
>>>
>>> Nope: vignetting means any darkening, from slight to total.
>>
>
> Maybe, but most people use the term for when there is an obvious optical
> obstruction (like a filter, lens hood etc), not for the normal light fall
> off that wide angle lenses have. My point was the olympus "setting" is for
> removing this normal light fall off and is done based on the lens and
> focal
> length used.
>
>>
>> Well, whatever it is, it can't be a 4-3 problem - Olympus state quite
>> clearly on the website:
>>
>> "All lenses feature a telecentric construction to ensure that light
>> strikes the photodiodes squarely. This avoids blurring at the edges of
>> the
>> image (cornershading),
>
> No, they said 'blurring at the edges'. you can't get away from the cos^4
> law, even with a canon lens. That's why =they= didn't say they don't have
> normal light fall off and why the camera has a setting (or software) to
> deal with this.
>
>
>> which sometimes occurs when using lenses designed
>> for 35mm cameras with digital SLRs. This construction together with the
>> Olympus lenses' high resolution makes sure the full potential of the
>> image
>> sensor is used. What you get is bright photos with clear colours and
>> sharp
>> contrast, even at the edges."
>>
>>
>> 'Even to the edges'! - did you read that? - so, there's no vignetting
>> with
>> Olympus 4-3 lenses.
>
> They said the images are sharp with good contrast to the edges, which they
> are. Again you can't get around the cos^4 law that all wide angle lenses
> have.
>
>>
>> Unless, of course, the Japs are lying to us again...
>>
>> What a system! - inherently noisy sensors require aggressive in-camera
>> noise reduction (that can't be turned off on the 300) which leads to
>> horrible featureless images (sometimes, almost like a coloured crayon
>> drawing) which, of course, completely defeats the point of having extra
>> available pixel resolution..
>>
>
> Snip of a upset for some reason person's rant.
>
> Good thing this group isn't a bunch of hostile, pro canon fanatics! :-)



I've said before that I don't own, nor have ever owned, a Canon camera.

Can we be serious for a moment? - *why* is the 4/3 system so beset with
problems? Why is it so much noisier than a CMOS sensor when the physical
size difference isn't that huge?

Why did Olympus release the 300 with so many know faults? why are they
unable to resolve the Jpeg 'smearing' issue?, why (FFS!) can't they even
turn out a camera that can ESP meter correctly?!!!

Finally - *why* are 300's dropping in price to the point where they are
almost being given away?....well, I think we know the answer to that one! -
they're shifting stock prior to ending production.

One more thing about the famous lenses - the 40 -150 has a retail price of
£200 GBP, yet it's now being included in the 'bargain' kit for only £60 GBP
extra.

So, they can sell that lens at 70% below RRP - and still (presumably) make a
profit or at least break even!

How do you feel about coughing up $7000 - 8000 for the 300 lens, knowing
that they are fleecing you to the tune of some $5600 above their break-even
price?!
March 10, 2005 11:26:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Knild wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> Can we be serious for a moment? - *why* is the 4/3 system so beset with
> problems? Why is it so much noisier than a CMOS sensor when the physical
> size difference isn't that huge?

Kodak chose to go for a wider dynamic range, it's at least a stop more than
the canon sensor. Also has a nice color rendering of saturated colors that
the canon doesn't, at least the shots I've taken with them don't look like
the OM's. If you need high ISO performance, the canon sensor is the way to
go for sure. AFAIK the E1 doesn't seem to have any real problems that
haven't been solved so it isn't a "system" problem.

>
> Why did Olympus release the 300 with so many know faults?

Trying to meet an Xmas deadline? Why did canon release the 20D with so many
faults? Same reason. If I had bought a 20D I'd just be dealing with
different issues.


> why are they
> unable to resolve the Jpeg 'smearing' issue?,

It's nothing to do with "jpeg", it is a fault in the NR being applied too
agressively at low ISO's, which it doesn't need at all. The RAW's look
great developed in their "studio" software and since I'd shoot RAW even if
the jpegs looked fine (which in most cases they will) doesn't really bother
me. Just like the ISO 1600 noise doesn't. I shoot landscapes from a tripod
so ISO 100 is just fine. And no, they don't look like they are drawn with
crayons as you claim.


> why (FFS!) can't they even
> turn out a camera that can ESP meter correctly?!!!

Good question, that was a screw up as well. Again I use a hand held
incendence meter (don't care for reflective metering, got used to this
shooting medium and large format) so it's not much of an issue for me.

>
> Finally - *why* are 300's dropping in price to the point where they are
> almost being given away?...

If they are this cheap, give me one! ;-) At B&W the price has dropped $60
since the first of the year. So what if they have a rebate, like no one
ever does that?

> .well, I think we know the answer to that one!
> - they're shifting stock prior to ending production.

Guess that means the 20D is going to be dropped soon? They sure are a lot
cheaper than when they were released. Must be a sign of the canon line
failing!


>
> How do you feel about coughing up $7000 - 8000 for the 300 lens

I wouldn't and doubt many people would. If you need this FOV (600mm f2.8
equiv), I'd buy another system for sure.

I did "cough up" for the 11-22 lens as it was very reasonable for the
performace it delivers as was the 50mm F@ macro lens. These two lenses are
why I bought the E300, that and the colors the camera produces. I like the
way the images look, reminds me of the way agfa ultra 50 looks when exposed
right.

The main point here is more: why do you and a few other have such a hard-on
to bash something you'll never own and have never used?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:57:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message

> >> Nope: vignetting means any darkening, from slight to total.

>>>>>>>
Maybe, but most people use the term for when there is an obvious optical
obstruction (like a filter, lens hood etc), not for the normal light fall
off that wide angle lenses have.
<<<<<<<<

That it's widely misused isn't the fault of the people in this thread who
used the term correctly.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
March 10, 2005 12:57:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
>
>> >> Nope: vignetting means any darkening, from slight to total.
>
>>>>>>>>
> Maybe, but most people use the term for when there is an obvious optical
> obstruction (like a filter, lens hood etc), not for the normal light fall
> off that wide angle lenses have.
> <<<<<<<<
>
> That it's widely misused isn't the fault of the people in this thread who
> used the term correctly.
>
>

Still it's a little more descriptive to say "The wide lenses have light fall
off" than call any corner darkening (which may be normal for this wide a
lens) vignetting. That's why they sometimes have two different words that
cover things that are approximatly the same.

I just find it odd that because Olympus chose to include a =feature= that
corrects for the cos^4 fall off, the canon fans jump on this as a sign of
some sort of defect in the optics?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:21:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <399g9dF60g6raU1@individual.net>, knild@noway.net says...
>
> "All lenses feature a telecentric construction to ensure that light strikes
> the photodiodes squarely. This avoids blurring at the edges of the image
> (cornershading), which sometimes occurs when using lenses designed for 35mm
> cameras with digital SLRs. This construction together with the Olympus

That's funny, because vignetting is normally NOT a problem when using a
35mm wide-angle lens with a crop sensor.

> lenses=3F high resolution makes sure the full potential of the image sensor is
> used. What you get is bright photos with clear colours and sharp contrast,
> even at the edges."

Yeah, Oly's smoking something.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:22:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <399gnuF5gqnanU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> Trying to point our that you (and others) are more agressively =pro canon=
> than ANY olympus users are. Do you ever see OM users hijack a "which canon
> should I buy?" thread telling them to buy an olympus? Yet this happens
> EVERYTIME even the word olympus is posted here, along with some nonsense
> FUD from people who have never even held the camera in their hand.

I'm not pro-Canon, nor am I anti-Oly.

The E-300 is simply not up to other cameras in its class.

You can like it all you want, but in every measurable aspect, it fails
to best the competition.

For shame, Stacey. And to think I expected you to be a *reasonable*
person at one point.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:23:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <399gs6F5gqnanU2@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> And then people want to claim this group isn't "pro canon"?

You poor thing. If you think everyone is against you... eventually they
will be.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:24:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <399gu7F5gqnanU3@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> > Any *rectilinear* wide lens has.
>
> Correct, fisheye's don't have this problem.

No, semi-fisheyes typically don't have this problem.

True fisheye lenses are completely dark at the corners.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:53:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> >> Nope: vignetting means any darkening, from slight to total.
> >
> >>>>>>>>
> > Maybe, but most people use the term for when there is an obvious optical
> > obstruction (like a filter, lens hood etc), not for the normal light
fall
> > off that wide angle lenses have.
> > <<<<<<<<
> >
> > That it's widely misused isn't the fault of the people in this thread
who
> > used the term correctly.
>
> Still it's a little more descriptive to say "The wide lenses have light
fall
> off" than call any corner darkening (which may be normal for this wide a
> lens) vignetting.

It's simple, correct Engish to refer to vignetting as vignetting. I don't
know where you've been, but I've seen the word used correctly quite a bit
over the past few years, including this thread.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 7:20:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wroteL
> Knild wrote:
> >
> > Can we be serious for a moment? - *why* is the 4/3 system so beset with
> > problems? Why is it so much noisier than a CMOS sensor when the
physical
> > size difference isn't that huge?
>
> Kodak chose to go for a wider dynamic range,

You've said that before. It was wrong then, and it remains wrong. Dynamic
range is, by definition, the inverse of noise: the more noise the less
dynamic range.

> it's at least a stop more than the canon sensor.

It's at least a stop _less_ than the Canon sensor. (Although measuring
dynamic range in "stops" is problematic. Still, since the noise corresponds
closely to the noise in the Canon cameras shifted up one stop, it's a
reasonable informal description.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
March 10, 2005 11:49:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:

> In article <399gs6F5gqnanU2@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>> And then people want to claim this group isn't "pro canon"?
>
> You poor thing.


Still ignoring the FUD you posted? Can't admit you were wrong?
--

Stacey
!