Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Olympus E-system, one person's opinion

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 10:37:27 PM

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

"It may be the case that a modern D-SLR with 10 to 12 MP and a lens
designed for 35mm photography or a lens adapted to the APS capture
circle will not produce better results than the combination of a small
sensor and a dedicated lens design, as for example the E-system of
Olympus."

The whole article;

http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c007.html
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 11:38:50 PM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:lish915i4ql8ok92u290p4log57l6crnhm@4ax.com...
> "It may be the case that a modern D-SLR with 10 to 12 MP and a lens
> designed for 35mm photography or a lens adapted to the APS capture
> circle will not produce better results than the combination of a small
> sensor and a dedicated lens design, as for example the E-system of
> Olympus."

The problem with articles like this is that the proof is easily available,
and the proof, the pictures, show that this isn't the case. It's a good
read, but all the theory is irrelevant when you can simply examine some
pictures.

Besides, there's those damned laws of physics involved. Smaller sensors
will, in general, mean higher noise given the same resolution.

>
> The whole article;
>
> http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c007.html
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 3:36:21 AM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:lish915i4ql8ok92u290p4log57l6crnhm@4ax.com...
> "It may be the case that a modern D-SLR with 10 to 12 MP and a lens
> designed for 35mm photography or a lens adapted to the APS capture
> circle will not produce better results than the combination of a small
> sensor and a dedicated lens design, as for example the E-system of
> Olympus."
>
> The whole article;
>
> http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c007.html

Oh please.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 4:49:55 AM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:lish915i4ql8ok92u290p4log57l6crnhm@4ax.com...
> "It may be the case that a modern D-SLR with 10 to 12 MP and a lens
> designed for 35mm photography or a lens adapted to the APS capture
> circle will not produce better results than the combination of a small
> sensor and a dedicated lens design, as for example the E-system of
> Olympus."
>
> The whole article;
>
> http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c007.html


You're really going to have to cease this pointless trolling, my lad.

However, while we're on the subject of 'dedicated digital lenses', it's
worth pointing out that this is one of 'the' great con-tricks being
perpetrated by the manufacturers.

I have yet to see any real advantage of this 'designed for digital' glass.
The theory is good - but, in practice, it just doesn't pan out. Take
Pentax, for example, they've started on this 'designed for digital'
nonsense - yet the best results come from the use of their top notch 35mm
lenses.

It's all kidology - and expensive kidology at that.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 4:49:56 AM

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 00:49:55 +0100, "Trapezium" <nothing@nothing.com>
wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:lish915i4ql8ok92u290p4log57l6crnhm@4ax.com...
>> "It may be the case that a modern D-SLR with 10 to 12 MP and a lens
>> designed for 35mm photography or a lens adapted to the APS capture
>> circle will not produce better results than the combination of a small
>> sensor and a dedicated lens design, as for example the E-system of
>> Olympus."
>>
>> The whole article;
>>
>> http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c007.html
>
>
>You're really going to have to cease this pointless trolling, my lad.

It's only trolling if you disagree with it I guess?
>
>However, while we're on the subject of 'dedicated digital lenses', it's
>worth pointing out that this is one of 'the' great con-tricks being
>perpetrated by the manufacturers.
>
>I have yet to see any real advantage of this 'designed for digital' glass.
>The theory is good - but, in practice, it just doesn't pan out. Take
>Pentax, for example, they've started on this 'designed for digital'
>nonsense - yet the best results come from the use of their top notch 35mm
>lenses.

Where can a comprehensive comparison between both be seen? I don't
mean just photos but actual optical tests.
-Rich
May 29, 2005 6:12:57 AM

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

Trapezium wrote:


>
> I have yet to see any real advantage of this 'designed for digital' glass.
> The theory is good - but, in practice, it just doesn't pan out.

Really now.. My experience using film OM lenses vs their ZD lenses is
exactly the opposite.


> Take
> Pentax, for example, they've started on this 'designed for digital'
> nonsense - yet the best results come from the use of their top notch 35mm
> lenses.


And this means that any "designed for digital" lenses made for other systems
will follow pentax, if this is even true?


--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:12:17 AM

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

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> >You're really going to have to cease this pointless trolling, my lad.
>
> It's only trolling if you disagree with it I guess?

C'mon Richy boy! We all know your trolling ways from
rec.arts.movies.current-films. You just keep posting
seemingly innocent things about inflammatory subjects
and then you watch the threads go down in flames.

It's getting annoying.

-Em
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 1:19:36 PM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ft4r9F9c584U1@individual.net...
> Trapezium wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I have yet to see any real advantage of this 'designed for digital'
>> glass.
>> The theory is good - but, in practice, it just doesn't pan out.
>
> Really now.. My experience using film OM lenses vs their ZD lenses is
> exactly the opposite.<<]


Given the generally noisy image quality for the two current Oly DSLR's, I'm
surprised you can see any difference.

And let's not forget the vignetting of those so-called 'Designed for digital
from the ground up' Zuiko's - a phenomenon so bad that Olympus gave the E1
vignetting compensation, and was later forced to add the same feature to the
E300 via firmware.



>> Take
>> Pentax, for example, they've started on this 'designed for digital'
>> nonsense - yet the best results come from the use of their top notch 35mm
>> lenses.

> And this means that any "designed for digital" lenses made for other
> systems
> will follow pentax, if this is even true?<<


Perhaps it's to do with the decision by Olympus to use that little toy
sensor of theirs?
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 2:31:31 PM

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

RichA wrote:

> "It may be the case that a modern D-SLR with 10 to 12 MP and a lens
> designed for 35mm photography or a lens adapted to the APS capture
> circle will not produce better results than the combination of a small
> sensor and a dedicated lens design, as for example the E-system of
> Olympus."
>
> The whole article;
>
> http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c007.html

It is not "whole" at all. For example, there is no mention of noise.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 3:00:39 PM

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

Trapezium wrote:

> You're really going to have to cease this pointless trolling, my lad.
>
> However, while we're on the subject of 'dedicated digital lenses', it's
> worth pointing out that this is one of 'the' great con-tricks being
> perpetrated by the manufacturers.

The Oly E 4/3 system is not 'dedicated digital lenses' it is a whole new
lens system and camera mount.

Pointless trolling indeed.




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 5:27:11 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> RichA wrote:
>
>> "It may be the case that a modern D-SLR with 10 to 12 MP and a lens
>> designed for 35mm photography or a lens adapted to the APS capture
>> circle will not produce better results than the combination of a small
>> sensor and a dedicated lens design, as for example the E-system of
>> Olympus."
>>
>> The whole article;
>>
>> http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c007.html
>
>
> It is not "whole" at all. For example, there is no mention of noise.
>

Could it be because most people aren't "Noise Nerds"? Take one factoid;
E-series sensors are noisier than Canon & Nikon. Then state your opinion
as a fact, "E-series noise is unacceptable at ISO XXX." Now take your
opinion, and extrapolate it to absurdity "Noise will be unacceptable at
ISO 100", and use that to sound the death-knell of the whole concept. Is
Olympus paying of ALL of the actual professionals? I've read lots of
reviews of the Olys, and haven't seen one mention of unacceptable noise.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 6:54:11 PM

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 00:49:55 +0100, Trapezium <nothing@nothing.com> wrote:
>
> I have yet to see any real advantage of this 'designed for digital' glass.

Weight matters a lot to me, and I think it's nice that one can buy
fast lenses that don't weigh a ton. Your mileage may of course vary.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
May 29, 2005 8:52:45 PM

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

Trapezium wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Really now.. My experience using film OM lenses vs their ZD lenses is
>> exactly the opposite.<<]
>
>
> Given the generally noisy image quality for the two current Oly DSLR's,
> I'm surprised you can see any difference.
>

Here's something to consider, that some people actually shoot at ISO 100
rather than leaving the camera set to ISO1600!

If you had a clue about any of this, you'd know at ISO 100 they are right
there with any other camera is at "normal" ISO levels.

--

Stacey
May 29, 2005 9:02:35 PM

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

Brion K. Lienhart wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> It is not "whole" at all. For example, there is no mention of noise.
>>
>
> Could it be because most people aren't "Noise Nerds"? Take one factoid;
> E-series sensors are noisier than Canon & Nikon. Then state your opinion
> as a fact, "E-series noise is unacceptable at ISO XXX." Now take your
> opinion, and extrapolate it to absurdity "Noise will be unacceptable at
> ISO 100", and use that to sound the death-knell of the whole concept. Is
> Olympus paying of ALL of the actual professionals? I've read lots of
> reviews of the Olys, and haven't seen one mention of unacceptable noise.


Yep, it's comical reading Alan and David HARP on this one facet of image
quality, looking at 100% crops of images, none of which can be seen in the
size prints or on full screen size images these cameras are designed to
produce anyway. Notice these same people NEVER post anything other than
test shot crops?

Maybe this review don't mention it because in real world use the noise at
iso 100-400 isn't an issue? Nah we all must restrain ourselves to ONLY look
at 100% crops from anything we shoot to judge the image by!

I'm sure these same people were the ones who would decide which film
negative shot was best by looking at it through a microscope rather than
judging the "image quality" by it's content, the colors rendered, overall
lens contrast etc. Guess it makes it simple if you only have one thing you
look at?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 9:11:08 PM

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

Brion K. Lienhart wrote:

> Could it be because most people aren't "Noise Nerds"? Take one factoid;
> E-series sensors are noisier than Canon & Nikon. Then state your opinion
> as a fact, "E-series noise is unacceptable at ISO XXX." Now take your
> opinion, and extrapolate it to absurdity "Noise will be unacceptable at
> ISO 100", and use that to sound the death-knell of the whole concept. Is
> Olympus paying of ALL of the actual professionals? I've read lots of
> reviews of the Olys, and haven't seen one mention of unacceptable noise.


Let me refresh you on the issue that's been bothering some of us about
the 4/3 system.

1) We're not concerned about current noise in current images, while
recognizing that most images are being taken at ISO 400 or lower.

2) The noise graphs at dpreview put current Oly cameras at a serious
noise disadvantage with other current cameras.

3) As pixel densities go up over time, it is thought / assumed that Oly
will have more and more difficulty with the margin of noise. If they
manage well, all the power to them.

4) In Oly's favour, some lenses are faster than their 35mm counterparts,
so at least for wide open shooting, a stop of ISO is effectively gained.

As to the 'nerd' issue, this is an equipment group. Discussions of
equipment (of any kind) usually revolve around limits. Everyone talls
about "how much resolution", "how fast is the glass", "how fast is the
data transfer", "how many frames per second",... so talking about
limitations in noise is just another parameter. As the sensor size is
the smallest of the DSLR lot at this time and unable to be larger in the
4/3 system, then it's not surprising that it is a magnet for doubters
regarding the noise issue.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 9:11:09 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:


> As to the 'nerd' issue, this is an equipment group. Discussions of
> equipment (of any kind) usually revolve around limits. Everyone talls
> about "how much resolution", "how fast is the glass", "how fast is the
> data transfer", "how many frames per second",... so talking about
> limitations in noise is just another parameter. As the sensor size is
> the smallest of the DSLR lot at this time and unable to be larger in the
> 4/3 system, then it's not surprising that it is a magnet for doubters
> regarding the noise issue.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>

And once again, this is all your *OPINION*. Yet, you keep stating it as
if it's a widely accepted fact.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 9:26:59 PM

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

Stacey wrote:


>
> Yep, it's comical reading Alan and David HARP on this one facet of image
> quality, looking at 100% crops of images, none of which can be seen in the
> size prints or on full screen size images these cameras are designed to
> produce anyway. Notice these same people NEVER post anything other than
> test shot crops?

BS

>
> Maybe this review don't mention it because in real world use the noise at
> iso 100-400 isn't an issue? Nah we all must restrain ourselves to ONLY look
> at 100% crops from anything we shoot to judge the image by!

Again, you're missing the key point. The concern with 4/3 is the future
of the system, not its current state (which is already slightly limited,
but where will that limit shrink to?).

>
> I'm sure these same people were the ones who would decide which film
> negative shot was best by looking at it through a microscope rather than
> judging the "image quality" by it's content, the colors rendered, overall
> lens contrast etc. Guess it makes it simple if you only have one thing you
> look at?

Funny, how when faced with technical facts you suddenly revert to 'safe'
areas like "content", "color" and "lens contrast" where there is are no
or few issues.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 29, 2005 9:33:29 PM

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

C'mon Richy boy! We all know your trolling ways from
rec.arts.movies.current-films. You just keep posting
seemingly innocent things about inflammatory subjects
and then you watch the threads go down in flames.

It's getting annoying.

-Em

So the only things that should be posted
are things that the status quo can simply
nod sagely about? What planet are you
from? If you don't agree, say so, but don't
try to stifle any debate because it bothers
you. In fact, you're best bet would be
to avoid the thread, it's easy, even you
can do it.
May 29, 2005 10:34:49 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:


>>
>> I'm sure these same people were the ones who would decide which film
>> negative shot was best by looking at it through a microscope rather than
>> judging the "image quality" by it's content, the colors rendered, overall
>> lens contrast etc. Guess it makes it simple if you only have one thing
>> you look at?
>
> Funny, how when faced with technical facts you suddenly revert to 'safe'
> areas like "content", "color" and "lens contrast" where there is are no
> or few issues.
>


Hmm so lets see which is more important to image quality, "content, color
and lens contrast" or noise in crops at 100% that can't be seen in the
final print..

--

Stacey
May 29, 2005 10:45:40 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:


>
>
> Let me refresh you on the issue that's been bothering some of us about
> the 4/3 system.

Why do you even care -this- much? Elsewhere you posted "I couldn't care
less" yet anytime olympus and/or 4/3 is mentioned you start posting this
garbage.

>
> 1) We're not concerned about current noise in current images,

That's not what you've said in other posts. And again why should you care so
much that you can't let go of the subject?

>
> 2) The noise graphs at dpreview put current Oly cameras at a serious
> noise disadvantage with other current cameras.

Compare them to other cameras using the -kodak sensor- and get back to us.

>
> 3) As pixel densities go up over time, it is thought / assumed that Oly
> will have more and more difficulty with the margin of noise.

Again it's the kodak sensor not the slightly smaller sensor that acounts for
most of the difference.


>
> As to the 'nerd' issue, this is an equipment group. Discussions of
> equipment (of any kind) usually revolve around limits. Everyone talls
> about "how much resolution",

Really?

> "how fast is the glass",
> "how fast is the
> data transfer", "how many frames per second",... so talking about
> limitations in noise is just another parameter.

Yet you blow off issues such as lens bokeh, color saturation and detail
separation issues etc as being unimportant when they have MUCH more of an
effect than noise seen in 100% crops ever will.

BTW since you brought it up, what's the data transfer rate on your minolta?
The E300 is doing 9MBs with the extream III sandisk cards.. ;-)





--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:35:17 AM

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

In message <WMadnYU4V9s-uAffRVn-oQ@comcast.com>,
"Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote:

>Could it be because most people aren't "Noise Nerds"? Take one factoid;
>E-series sensors are noisier than Canon & Nikon. Then state your opinion
>as a fact, "E-series noise is unacceptable at ISO XXX." Now take your
>opinion, and extrapolate it to absurdity "Noise will be unacceptable at
>ISO 100", and use that to sound the death-knell of the whole concept. Is
>Olympus paying of ALL of the actual professionals? I've read lots of
>reviews of the Olys, and haven't seen one mention of unacceptable noise.

Well, truth be told, any DSLR you can currently buy new has low noise at
ISO 100, with a normal exposure, and transfer curve in the RAW
conversion, but if you want to drag the shadows or under-exposure up
into visibility (to match the human eye/brain response), the noise
difference will start to show.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:36:45 AM

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

In message <3fuovcF9mhttU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Notice these same people NEVER post anything other than
>test shot crops?

Part of the reason for that may be that technical issues are often
obscured by composition. People are prone to ignore technical problems
when the composition is interesting.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
May 30, 2005 6:36:46 AM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <3fuovcF9mhttU1@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Notice these same people NEVER post anything other than
>>test shot crops?
>
> Part of the reason for that may be that technical issues are often
> obscured by composition. People are prone to ignore technical problems
> when the composition is interesting.


IMHO other technical issues like how easily highlights are blown or poor
color saturation are just as easily obscured in these tiny sniplets that
the noise nerds post.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:23:28 PM

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

Brion K. Lienhart wrote:


> And once again, this is all your *OPINION*. Yet, you keep stating it as
> if it's a widely accepted fact.

It's a fact that larger sensors have a S/N advantage over smaller.

The doubt is raised regarding the future.

If somebody locks into the Oly system now, then he will experience that
future for bettor or worse.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:27:38 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

>
> Hmm so lets see which is more important to image quality, "content, color
> and lens contrast" or noise in crops at 100% that can't be seen in the
> final print..

The best images will come from camera systems that have the most trade
space for the photographer to work with. The 4/3 today has less trade
space than a Canon 20D, D70, *istD or K-M 7D (and others).

As pix desnities go up, that trade space will narrow.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:50:55 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Let me refresh you on the issue that's been bothering some of us about
>>the 4/3 system.
>
>
> Why do you even care -this- much? Elsewhere you posted "I couldn't care
> less" yet anytime olympus and/or 4/3 is mentioned you start posting this
> garbage.

I've only had two issues with the Oly 4/3 for SLR's:

1) Lenses are not the Oly promissed panacea of value. eg: very good to
excellent lenses, but the price is high.

2) They are currently noisy. How will they fare in the future as Pix
densities go up.

>
>
>>1) We're not concerned about current noise in current images,
>
>
> That's not what you've said in other posts. And again why should you care so
> much that you can't let go of the subject

Specifically? If most people shoot at ISO 100/200, then the current Oly
4/3 in the E300 is more than decent enough. What I did point to,
specifically, were the current noise measurements at dpreview which put
Oly at a clear margin above others in noise.

>
> Again it's the kodak sensor not the slightly smaller sensor that acounts for
> most of the difference.

We all hope that Oly finds a better sensor.

>
> BTW since you brought it up, what's the data transfer rate on your minolta?
> The E300 is doing 9MBs with the extream III sandisk cards.. ;-)

This has nothing to do with photographic quality.

Max 7D on that card: about 6.5 MB/s. I shoot at a rate of about 25
frames per hour. Even if I shot 10 frames / minute, I would have a 3:1
safety margin. Just does not apply to me at all. An exceptional case
was a fashion show a few months ago where I would shoot volleys of 3 to
6 frames within about 20 seconds, and then wait for the next model. No
problem at all.

It's an issue for those who shoot "machine gun" style. Some nature
photogs. Some sports shooters. Some other special applications.

Sorry, for me (and most shooters) that's a non starter. Like 2s startup
time v 1 sec. startup time. Not a useful point of discussion. But keep
digging.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 2:08:25 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

> JPS@no.komm wrote:

>>Part of the reason for that may be that technical issues are often
>>obscured by composition. People are prone to ignore technical problems
>>when the composition is interesting.
>

> IMHO other technical issues like how easily highlights are blown or poor
> color saturation are just as easily obscured in these tiny sniplets that
> the noise nerds post.

Not at all.

As far as I know, excepting a few Fujifilm cameras such as the S3,
highlight behavior is pretty much the same DSLR to DSLR. The Fujifilm
S3 (extra dynamic range) sensors are the the only ones equipped to
control highlights well.

I have had some funnies regarding highlights that confirm some of JPS'
observations about histogram implementation. Most recently,
photographing some woodwork, the highlights off of one facet of the
(pale) wood were blown depite all metering and histogram checks to
prevent it. Required a return to shooting and a full stop down to
correct it and a fill reflector on the other side as a consequence of
the aperture correction. (Also shot frames with the woodwork turned to
reduce that specific highlight).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 30, 2005 5:21:56 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Brion K. Lienhart wrote:
>
>
>> And once again, this is all your *OPINION*. Yet, you keep stating it as
>> if it's a widely accepted fact.
>
> It's a fact that larger sensors have a S/N advantage over smaller.
>
> The doubt is raised regarding the future.
>

Who's raising this "doubt"? It's only people who use another system.

Given olypus has already said they are working on 2 new dSLR's they plan to
release this fiscal year and have 3 new lenses, why would a user "doubt"
the future? What exactly has minolta comited to in any press releases as
far as dSLR's for this year? An 8-10MP version? Any new optics? Where is
the future in the minolta dSLR line going beyond your speculation....
--

Stacey
May 30, 2005 5:25:23 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:

>>
>> BTW since you brought it up, what's the data transfer rate on your
>> minolta?
>> The E300 is doing 9MBs with the extream III sandisk cards.. ;-)
>
> This has nothing to do with photographic quality.
>

LOL So we're back to -high ISO noise spec- is the only spec that matters to
anyone..


--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 8:41:53 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

> Given olypus has already said they are working on 2 new dSLR's they plan to
> release this fiscal year and have 3 new lenses, why would a user "doubt"
> the future? What exactly has minolta comited to in any press releases as
> far as dSLR's for this year? An 8-10MP version? Any new optics? Where is
> the future in the minolta dSLR line going beyond your speculation....

No DSLR announced, but several high end "G" lenses last year and a few
lenses late last year and early this year. (A couple of those dedicated
to 'digital' cropped, alas).

It is true that Minolta's DSLR future is not certain. Nobody knows
either way, and Minolta have been famously tight lipped, as they've
always been over future plans and models. The only 'hint of trouble'
are the words in their recent 5 yr plan that indicate waning interest in
consumer imaging. They do mention "high added value" pursuits, which
hopefully means DSLR's and attendant optics and accessories.

Having said that, I hope to see an announcement for the next PMA
regarding a digital body.

I just fear it will be a "5D" (repeat of the 7D at 6 or 8 Mpix or
without A-S, and other high end features removed).

I would love for it to be a "8D" (Say the 10 Mpix that Leica are using
in 1.37x crop on an A-S) or a "9D" with full frame (though perhaps
without A-S given the larger sensor size).

We'll see.

But, in the unlikely event that I have to abandon Minolta for digital, I
will look mostly at Canon.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 8:44:50 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>> Stacey wrote:
>
>
>>> BTW since you brought it up, what's the data transfer rate on
>>> your minolta? The E300 is doing 9MBs with the extream III sandisk
>>> cards.. ;-)
>>
>> This has nothing to do with photographic quality.
>>
>
>
> LOL So we're back to -high ISO noise spec- is the only spec that
> matters to anyone..

Please show me how CF write speeds improve your photography. Do you
shoot bursts of shots often? For necessity?

Or please state every important photographic system spec item that
matters to you.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 30, 2005 10:15:18 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

>
> Or please state every important photographic system spec item that
> matters to you.
>
>

Good detail in highly saturated colors and optics that are sharp enough for
the sensor density being used are a couple of starters..
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 11:14:26 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Or please state every important photographic system spec item that
>>matters to you.
>>
>>
>
>
> Good detail in highly saturated colors and optics that are sharp enough for
> the sensor density being used are a couple of starters..

Excellent reply. Glad to see you're over the irrelevancies (to most
users) of things like CF card write rates.

Why "highly saturated colors"?

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 1:53:26 AM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fuoctF9fhn4U1@individual.net...
> Trapezium wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Really now.. My experience using film OM lenses vs their ZD lenses is
>>> exactly the opposite.<<]
>>
>>
>> Given the generally noisy image quality for the two current Oly DSLR's,
>> I'm surprised you can see any difference.
>>
>
> Here's something to consider, that some people actually shoot at ISO 100
> rather than leaving the camera set to ISO1600!
>
> If you had a clue about any of this, you'd know at ISO 100 they are right
> there with any other camera is at "normal" ISO levels.


----------

As luck would have I visited a stately home/museum today, and found when I
arrived that flash photography was verboten (damages the paintings, or so
they said)

What's more, the sun blinds were pulled down and parts of the interior were
quite dark. Happily, I was able to use ISO 800 (and 1600 for a few shots)
secure in the knowledge that the results wouldn't be plagued by excessive
noise.

With an Olympus DSLR it would have been something of a wasted trip, I think.
If people are restricted to the low ISO's that you call 'normal' they might
as well be using a point & shoot camera.
May 31, 2005 1:53:27 AM

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

Trapezium wrote:

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

>>
>> Here's something to consider, that some people actually shoot at ISO 100
>> rather than leaving the camera set to ISO1600!
>>
>> If you had a clue about any of this, you'd know at ISO 100 they are right
>> there with any other camera is at "normal" ISO levels.
>
>
> ----------
>
> As luck would have I visited a stately home/museum today, and found when I
> arrived that flash photography was verboten (damages the paintings, or so
> they said)
>


>
> With an Olympus DSLR it would have been something of a wasted trip, I
> think.

Lets see the shots, my guess it was a wasted trip irregardless of the camera
you were carrying.. ;-)

I've rarely seen images shot in a museum that were in the least bit
interesting. I'll be shocked if the ones you took were...

Lets see what you got and I'll post some ISO1600 shots then see which ones
are "a waste"..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 2:01:06 AM

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

I'd like to see SOMEONE think outside of the box a bit and introduce a 9
Mpx camera with a square 3000x3000 format that would use most of the
coverage of DX type lenses.
May 31, 2005 5:21:14 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:

>>
>> Good detail in highly saturated colors and optics that are sharp enough
>> for the sensor density being used are a couple of starters..
>
> Excellent reply. Glad to see you're over the irrelevancies (to most
> users) of things like CF card write rates.
>
> Why "highly saturated colors"?
>
>

Because I like em! Seen way too many digital flower shots with zero detail
if the image has anywhere near the actual color saturation of the flower or
other highly saturated colored objects.

There are many digicams that would blow this into a mass of detailess
purple. I know cause I've used a couple that would.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/web2flower...

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 12:49:23 PM

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

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>
>
>>>Good detail in highly saturated colors and optics that are sharp enough
>>>for the sensor density being used are a couple of starters..
>>
>>Excellent reply. Glad to see you're over the irrelevancies (to most
>>users) of things like CF card write rates.
>>
>>Why "highly saturated colors"?
>>
>>
>
>
> Because I like em! Seen way too many digital flower shots with zero detail
> if the image has anywhere near the actual color saturation of the flower or
> other highly saturated colored objects.
>
> There are many digicams that would blow this into a mass of detailess
> purple. I know cause I've used a couple that would.

Yellows can be tricky too.

> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/web2flower...

I use a shoot through umbrella to cast a softlight onto the flowers and
bring the contrast down. Much more pleasing than a "loud" photo like
this, OTHO the slightest breeze will ruin the shot. Difused flash works
well too, but is often a pain to set up in the field where you have to
block the sunlight and get the flash onto the subject.

I suppose the flower type should determine this, harsh/hard/contrasty
flowers best show their character in hard light; gentle/soft/creamy
flowers look best in a soft difused light.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 31, 2005 2:18:38 PM

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

Bubbabob wrote:
> I'd like to see SOMEONE think outside of the box a bit and introduce a 9
> Mpx camera with a square 3000x3000 format that would use most of the
> coverage of DX type lenses.

There might be a problem getting a mirror to fit between the back of the
lens and the sensor on a DSLR.
But a ZLR with a DX lens mounts, high mp square format, and decent
viewfinder could be one hell of a camera.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 1:30:08 AM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> The best images will come from camera systems that have the most trade
> space for the photographer to work with.

Nonsense. The best images will come from cameras used by the best
photographers.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 1:30:09 AM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>The best images will come from camera systems that have the most trade
>>space for the photographer to work with.
>
>
> Nonsense. The best images will come from cameras used by the best
> photographers.

Nonsense, the best photographer will make more use of a camera with less
limitations. While a bad photographer can't get the best out of the
best camera; the best photographer in the world can't make a limited
camera do more than those limits impose.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 2:17:42 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> While a bad photographer can't get the best out of the
> best camera; the best photographer in the world can't make a limited
> camera do more than those limits impose.


Well, sort of but with imagination, one could do marvelous things with a
limited tool. Play with the limitations, find the strengths and
emphasize that.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
June 1, 2005 7:08:51 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:


>>
>> Nonsense. The best images will come from cameras used by the best
>> photographers.
>
> Nonsense, the best photographer will make more use of a camera with less
> limitations. While a bad photographer can't get the best out of the
> best camera; the best photographer in the world can't make a limited
> camera do more than those limits impose.
>


Actually it's more a good photographer can see the good and bad points of a
specific tool and use it's good points to their advantage while working
around the bad ones. No camera ever made is perfect. What some consider
important to their photography needs, may be totally meaningless to
another. That's why you can't say "X is the best camera"..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 12:30:17 PM

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

Paul Furman wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> While a bad photographer can't get the best out of the best camera;
>> the best photographer in the world can't make a limited camera do more
>> than those limits impose.
>
>
>
> Well, sort of but with imagination, one could do marvelous things with a
> limited tool. Play with the limitations, find the strengths and
> emphasize that.

Of course, that is really the point. However there is no way to use a
hampered tool for work that covers a lot of range. When you get into
full featured cameras with ever diminishing differences, there is less
and less that can't be done.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 12:37:38 PM

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

Stacey wrote:


>
> Actually it's more a good photographer can see the good and bad points of a
> specific tool and use it's good points to their advantage while working
> around the bad ones. No camera ever made is perfect. What some consider
> important to their photography needs, may be totally meaningless to
> another. That's why you can't say "X is the best camera"..

I generally agree. It's a runaway point. I had added pretty much what
you said and then cut it out. In general "recognize limitations, work
within or around the limitations"

I think most photographers (amateur) learn the limitations of their
equipment pretty quick; it's learning the clever tricks to get around
them that take a long time to acquire (if the drive is there).

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 12:59:02 PM

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

In message <3g1ha6Fa3mkeU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I've rarely seen images shot in a museum that were in the least bit
>interesting. I'll be shocked if the ones you took were...

What a bizarre statement ... the conversation was about image quality at
low light levels, and you conveniently switch it by talking about
"interesting images", and subjectively eliminate any possibility.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 2:42:36 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> I think most photographers (amateur) learn the limitations of their
> equipment pretty quick; it's learning the clever tricks to get around
> them that take a long time to acquire (if the drive is there).

An analogy is learning to ski, most start out with bad equiptment and
that can be good for learning because you confront the problems & learn
to compensate. Then after a couple years, get some long sharp skis &
stiff boots and wow, it's a whole 'nuther world. The pro equiptment can
be too agressive for a beginner to handle.

I'm probably wandering a bit into the abstract here, sorry <g>.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 6:37:39 PM

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

Paul Furman wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>
>> I think most photographers (amateur) learn the limitations of their
>> equipment pretty quick; it's learning the clever tricks to get around
>> them that take a long time to acquire (if the drive is there).
>
>
> An analogy is learning to ski, most start out with bad equiptment and
> that can be good for learning because you confront the problems & learn
> to compensate. Then after a couple years, get some long sharp skis &
> stiff boots and wow, it's a whole 'nuther world. The pro equiptment can
> be too agressive for a beginner to handle.

I still haven't given up my 210 skinnies. I've been told I'll be
laughed off the hills if I do much more (didn't ski this past year even
once). I tried a pair of parabolics (a friend and I had the exact same
sole size), but the conditions (ice in the shaddows, porridge in the
sun) didn't favour them much. For cruising fast, nothing like my 210's.
The thought of skiing on 185's or whatever seems freaky.

The parabolics encourage new skiers to carve tighter and slalom more.
Like the old surfboards, long skis are soon to be a thing of the past.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 6:37:40 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think most photographers (amateur) learn the limitations of their
>>> equipment pretty quick; it's learning the clever tricks to get around
>>> them that take a long time to acquire (if the drive is there).
>>
>>
>>
>> An analogy is learning to ski, most start out with bad equiptment and
>> that can be good for learning because you confront the problems &
>> learn to compensate. Then after a couple years, get some long sharp
>> skis & stiff boots and wow, it's a whole 'nuther world. The pro
>> equiptment can be too agressive for a beginner to handle.
>
>
> I still haven't given up my 210 skinnies. I've been told I'll be
> laughed off the hills if I do much more (didn't ski this past year even
> once). I tried a pair of parabolics (a friend and I had the exact same
> sole size), but the conditions (ice in the shaddows, porridge in the
> sun) didn't favour them much. For cruising fast, nothing like my 210's.
> The thought of skiing on 185's or whatever seems freaky.
>
> The parabolics encourage new skiers to carve tighter and slalom more.
> Like the old surfboards, long skis are soon to be a thing of the past.

I haven't down-hill skied since leaving Colorado in '88 and only
telemarked in CA a couple times since then. Talk about skis with
limitations!! But it's possible to leave some beautiful tracks in virgin
snow that way.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 11:54:20 PM

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

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:42:36 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> I think most photographers (amateur) learn the limitations of their
>> equipment pretty quick; it's learning the clever tricks to get around
>> them that take a long time to acquire (if the drive is there).
>
>An analogy is learning to ski, most start out with bad equiptment and
>that can be good for learning because you confront the problems & learn
>to compensate. Then after a couple years, get some long sharp skis &
>stiff boots and wow, it's a whole 'nuther world. The pro equiptment can
>be too agressive for a beginner to handle.
>
>I'm probably wandering a bit into the abstract here, sorry <g>.

But in skiing, the tight books and bindings will break you legs
if you get tangled up, whereas in photograpy, it's not quite as
bad. :) 
-Rich
!