Home · Forums · My Profile · PM · Buddy list · Search · FAQ · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting · Avatar · Software

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses
Pages: [1] 2 3
 
  My Oly - I'm In Love (archived topic)  
Robert Watcher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 04, 2005
Total Posts: 131
Country: Canada
View this photographer's profile
icon My Oly - I'm In Love


Got a chance to test shoot the new Olympus E-3 this evening. I mainly wanted to feel the camera in hand and play with the controls to see how intuative they are. Also, 2 concerns for my style of shooting are Image Stabilization and decent 1600 and 3200ISO PRINT quality (I sell prints so I don't care what they look like on a monitor).

THIS ISN'T/WASN'T A TECHNICAL TEST. I don't care about all of the details or benchmarks - - - I just wanted to see results that were satisfying to me, for my work.

I fell in love instantly with the feel in my hand. The E3 sample was mated with the new and impressive 12 to 60mm f2.8-4 ultrsasonic lens (24mm to 120mm in 35mm film format). It was perfectly balanced in my smallish hands and amazingly felt very light compared to my D200 - even though reviews show it as heavier. As it was when I tried the E1 years ago, I could swing my arm all over the place and hang iot by my side and never feel like I was losing the grip. This sample did not have the battery pack. Auto Focusing was incredibly quick.

Here are a few samples using the camera in IS mode and higher ISO settings. It was evening and the room I had to work in was gaudy colouring as a result of the carbon arc lighting the camera store uses. These images except where noted, are straight out of the camera without cropping, levels, sharpening or any processing. They could all be improved slightly with post processing, however I just printed out the series of 1600 and 3200 ISO images AS-IS on 8x10 glossy paper using my Epson 1400 - and the 1600ISO image of the sales lady is stunning, while the 3200ISO shot of the camera bags is incredible considering it is 3200 ISO.

This was the first shot I took when I went in - the camera was set at 800ISO. That was the perfect place for me to start as my standard general purpose ISO when I shot film wsa 800 Fujicolor:



This image is copyrighted by the owner



I asked the sales clerk if she minded if I took a shot of her to see the skin tones. Keep in mind that I new nothing about the camera and had little time to play - and so did not change many of the defaults it was set at including Auto WB which accounts for the ruddier skin under the carbon arc lighting - plus the fact that I think the Auto Exposure was trying to retain detail in the bright white signs in behind her. Still not bad though when I printed it out at 8x10. Could easily be adjusted in PS. This was shot at 1600ISO:



This image is copyrighted by the owner



This was the true test - - - 3200ISO. Not that I expect noiseless images or grainy deep shadows like the new Nikons exhibit - but I know what the 3200 setting on my D200 looks like and besides the excessive noise, there is a loss of detail and colour. If these camera bags could maintain their texture and colour, I was going to be happy. In the 8x10 glossy print, the detail is amazing and the colour is just fine - - - and this from a file straight from the camera without tweaks. Sure if I look hard enough I can see some noise in the blurred out background - but the print is perfectly usable and probably salable. I'm sure a dose of Neat Image could easily cure any noise if I chose to use it.



This image is copyrighted by the owner



----


Nov 24, 2007 at 03:22 AM
Robert Watcher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 04, 2005
Total Posts: 131
Country: Canada
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


I shot these one after the other for a direct comparison of 100ISO and 3200ISO on a white sign. There is a huge difference between the 2 obviously, with the 100ISO being creamy smooth and the 3200 showing more texture or noise. Is the 3200ISO shot useless - it depends - I don't think so for the type of work I shoot. These are the only files from this test, where I tweaked the curves to brighten the whites and also adjusted the WB in photoshop to have them match colour as closely as possible:

100ISO (slow shutter speed so a little movement and blur incurred):



This image is copyrighted by the owner



3200ISO (noise/grain is noticable in the dark shadows and orange highlights in the background)



This image is copyrighted by the owner



Nov 24, 2007 at 03:23 AM
Robert Watcher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 04, 2005
Total Posts: 131
Country: Canada
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


This shot to see the efrfect of image stabilization, was the only one where I free handed the camera in a normal fashion as I would at a wedding. I was standing in the middle of an aisle turned and shot as steadily as I could. Most of the other shots I was able to set my stance for stability or lean against a counter or wall. Equivalent 90mm focal length at 1/15'th of a second isn't too bad I don't think.:



This image is copyrighted by the owner



Just before leaving I gave a quick jab at Live View, setting the camera on the counter and using the LCD screen to compose and set the WB. It's pretty cool when you can see the white balance change on the screen before you take the shot. Made it very easy to select the right setting for the light, just by scrolling through the presets and stopping at the one that looked best. It does not function like a point and shoot LCD live view does - - - it is great for shots where you can take the time for the second or two of delay that is required. That doesn't bother me either. I will be using it for the impossible shots that I used to be able to take while laying donw on the floor or climbing up on narrow trespaces when I was young - room shots, cake shots, macro shots where the off axis viewfinder puts the screen right where I want it:



This image is copyrighted by the owner



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

I am a die hard Olympus guy since the early 1980's - who has been shooting Nikon out of necessity (not that I have a problem with that) for the last 6 years - - - and am so pleased that they have finally brought this camera out. I was afraid it was all just going to to be talk and no go. I will start buying into the system next week with an E-510, couple of lenses and the new FL-50R wireless flash. When I get back from Costa Rica in a few months and am ready to start my 2008 wedding season, I will already have a head start with the Olympus system and add in the E-3 and 12-60mm 2.8-4 lens. In my hand, this combo was the perfect setup. For weddings I don't know if I'll need anything more (well I'll need the E-510 backups). What a perfect focal length. I've always felt too restricted in the wide angle end of my standard zooms, with 28mm equiv - 24mm is perfect. I also dislike the short long end of the fast 2.8 standard zooms that only reach to 75 or 80mm - 120mm is perfect.

Just thought some might enjoy the results of my playing tonight. I'm not really trying to convince anyone and am not saying this is the best out there. The battlefield is strong with the mainstream Canon 40D and Nikon D300 - - - and after playing with the Olympus E-3, have to say that it also is a strong contender in my eyes.

www.rwoutsidethebox.com/?page_id=91

--


Nov 24, 2007 at 03:24 AM
Malcolm Stitt
Online
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Oct 04, 2004
Total Posts: 827
Country: United States
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


You don't have to convince me. I just sold a bunch of Canon stuff and got a e510. For me it is the sensible combination of lenses and body IS that is important. I don't want to carry a big bag of junk around with me all the time. The 12-60 is just a perfect size, focal range, and fstop for most everything. The two kit lenses are fantastic for travel. E3 in future, when the price drops.

Nov 24, 2007 at 06:15 AM
Edward Castro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 19, 2006
Total Posts: 699
Country: United States
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Cool, nice to see some one using Oly for weddings. I'll probably stick with Canon. But I've been looking at the Panasonic DMC-L10 for walk around stuff (cause of the 4/3 standards). I like it cause of the rotation LCD. I would love to pair it with the Leica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5. Too bad Panasonic doesn't sell it with out the kit lens. Have you played with it by any chance?

Nov 24, 2007 at 06:20 AM
ICQ
Robert Watcher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 04, 2005
Total Posts: 131
Country: Canada
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


For me it is the sensible combination of lenses and body IS that is important. I don't want to carry a big bag of junk around with me all the time. The 12-60 is just a perfect size, focal range, and fstop for most everything.

Just wondering how you find the comination of E-510 and 12-60 for focusing. My presumtion would be that the built in ultrasonic lens motor on this faster lens may give a boost in Autofocus speed and maybe acuracy - over the E-510 and kit lenses. Do you find that to be true (I am getting this combo for backup next week and so am a little curious)?


Nov 24, 2007 at 09:21 PM
Malcolm Stitt
Online
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Oct 04, 2004
Total Posts: 827
Country: United States
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Robert Watcher wrote:
[Just wondering how you find the comination of E-510 and 12-60 for focusing. My presumtion would be that the built in ultrasonic lens motor on this faster lens may give a boost in Autofocus speed and maybe acuracy - over the E-510 and kit lenses. Do you find that to be true (I am getting this combo for backup next week and so am a little curious)?


Well, from what I can see the 14-42 kit lens is a pretty fast focuser. The motor in it is fairly quiet, and since the barrel has little mass, it can move it quickly. Nobody in the room will hear this lens but you.

The 12-60 is really quiet, just like Canon USM, and maybe slightly quicker than the kit lens. The nice thing is it can do its focusing work at f2.8, and the viewfinder is brighter. This lens reminds me of the Sony 717 Zeiss lens. It has stunning detail, a nice wide range, wide max aperature, and is small. If you had one of those cameras, you would know what I mean.


Nov 25, 2007 at 03:22 AM
pahrens
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 08, 2005
Total Posts: 680
Country: Australia
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


I find this very interesting. I have been looking at the Olympus system and thinking of moving from Nikon, the lens range is just perfect. The biggest plus is the small size of the equipment. My biggest issue is the small view finder, and Im not sure the small sensor is going to be perfect for landscapes.

Nov 25, 2007 at 08:06 AM
Robert Watcher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 04, 2005
Total Posts: 131
Country: Canada
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


I printed up a set of 8x10 glossys of these shots - and yesterday took them into the the Henry's Camera store where I did the test. They were equally as impressed with the high ISO shots from the E-3 and 12-60 lens.

Just to dispell the myth that the 4/3 sensor is too small and while may be fine for printing from the full frame, is no good when heavy cropping is involved - - - I also printed out this heavy crop that is probably 1/3 of the frame area from the 1600ISO picture I posted above. It held up very well and I suspect would easily blow up larger than the 8x10 size I provided them:



This image is copyrighted by the owner



So if anyone is from the London Ontario area, you can go into to the north end Fanshaw Road "Henrys Camera Store" and ask to have a look at the prints.


Nov 25, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I.G.I.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Total Posts: 256
Country: Belgium
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


pahrens wrote:
Im not sure the small sensor is going to be perfect for landscapes.


Depends on the final aim. For printing where standard paper sizes can act as framing I often find I have to crop more from the 3:2 frame format than from 4:3. Same and even more apply for printing square format for aesthetic reasons.

In addition, as I adhere to precise framing any viewfinders less than 100% again result in unwanted cropping.

Considering all of the above for print purposes the actual difference between 10 Mp and 12 to 14 Mr 3:2 format camera could be much smaller than the numbers suggest.

Another side is that higher pixel densities result in more finely detailed images. For landscape photography I think this is good.


Nov 25, 2007 at 02:33 PM
Schemeloong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 30, 2003
Total Posts: 318
Country: China
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Me too I've just picked up myE3 and it is great, image quality and control are leagues above the E510! Much lower noise, better DR and great body!

Nov 25, 2007 at 04:00 PM
pascal03
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Total Posts: 3215
Country: United States
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


The lenses are good and the E-3 body is simply what I have always wanted in a digital SLR - all the features that make sense and are easy to get to. I am very impressed with what Olympus has achieved with this body.

While I am a big fan (right now) of Olympus D-SLR's and lenses, still waiting for the other shoe to drop.


Nov 26, 2007 at 05:25 AM
cdnguyen
Online
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 19, 2003
Total Posts: 615
Country: United States
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Sold all my Canons stuff. I currently own an E1 and pan L1 with lenses. I just love the corner to corner sharpness from 4/3rds pics. With my Canon I have try hard to stop down at smaller apertures to get similar results also with certain Canon lenses only. with 4/3rds most of the lenses are good even with kit lenses. With all light rays hitting the chip perpendicularly ... I think it helps.

Nov 28, 2007 at 04:12 PM
Robert Watcher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 04, 2005
Total Posts: 131
Country: Canada
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


I have today purchased the Olympus E-510 body and the same 12-60 f2.8/f4 lens that I tested the E-3 with. When I first took the 12-60 lens out of the box I was surprised at how heavy it was - - - hadn't noticed that when it was mounted on the E-3. I immediately worried that it may be a bad choice when used on the small and lightweight E-510, but after opening the E-510 and mounting the lens - was amazed at how the lens felt so much lighter and was really balanced feeling in my hand. I now have to wait for 5 hours for the battery to charge before I can start using the combo - but have to say that even though I am still in love with the E-3 with this lens attached (and will be getting it also before too long), I also love the feel of the the smaller E-510 with this lens attached and look forward to using it professionally without hesitation. I have a wedding next Saturday (Dec 8'th) where the E-510 with 12-60 lens will be my primary camera. I will be sure to post some of the images and my findings on how the camera handled and performed in a professional wedding photography scenario.

Nov 29, 2007 at 09:49 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 16, 2004
Total Posts: 7385
Country: Australia
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


The main area of concern for me is compared to FF like the 5D is the 4/3 system can't offer the creative shallow DOF. Even their fastest f/2 lenses act like f/4 lens equivalents on FF. You'll never get the magical super shallow results an 85 f/1.2 could say.

However, I'm mightily impressed by Roberts results at high ISO and seem far superior to any previous 4/3 images I've seen. The detail was maintained.

However, a more tortuous test would be to see what it's like in a very dim lighting situation or try underexposing a stop or 2 and see how it holds up when you bring the exposure back up in the RAW converter. I've got well exposed ISO 1600 shots that are cleaner than poorly exposed ISO 400 shots. Cameras like the Nikon D2X are punishing on underexposure at high ISO's. At some point those tiny little pixels are going to cause problems.


Nov 30, 2007 at 03:30 AM
Jorgen Udvang
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 01, 2005
Total Posts: 1118
Country: Thailand
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Pixel Perfect wrote:
The main area of concern for me is compared to FF like the 5D is the 4/3 system can't offer the creative shallow DOF. Even their fastest f/2 lenses act like f/4 lens equivalents on FF. You'll never get the magical super shallow results an 85 f/1.2 could say.


You don't need to be concerned. Either you need f/1.2 or you don't. I don't.

If I wanted to be concerned, I could choose to be concerned about weight, but I'm not. An E-3, a 12-60, a 50-200 and a Sigma 30/1.4 and/or Zuiko 50/2 is around 3 kilos. Just right when I'm out and about.

The weight of a 5D with some fast primes and similar reach? I don't know, but I seem to remember that the body with the 85/1.2 approaches 2 kilos. No flash, no weather-sealing, no live-view, no in-body IS, and the price?

The 5D is a great camera and the 85/1.2 a great lens, but if I should choose only one system, Olympus wins with a clear margin.


Nov 30, 2007 at 04:00 AM
Alevan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 02, 2004
Total Posts: 30
Country: Canada
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Well I am from London and I will go into the Henry's store in Masonville and check out the pics. I bought the 12-60 last week from Henry's and love the lens. I have the E1/E500/E330 and will get the E3 in the spring.

Dec 01, 2007 at 02:38 AM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 1167
Country: United States
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


I.G.I. wrote:
Another side is that higher pixel densities result in more finely detailed images. For landscape photography I think this is good.


Ya, thats why a P&S digital camera is so superior for shooting landscapes than my 5D or a MF Digital back, right?



Dec 01, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 1167
Country: United States
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


pg turn

Dec 01, 2007 at 01:42 PM
Robert Watcher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 04, 2005
Total Posts: 131
Country: Canada
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Well I am from London and I will go into the Henry's store in Masonville and check out the pics.

Please post back on what you think of the image quality in the prints after you see them - good or bad.


Dec 01, 2007 at 03:06 PM
I.G.I.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Total Posts: 256
Country: Belgium
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Tariq Gibran wrote:
I.G.I. wrote:
Another side is that higher pixel densities result in more finely detailed images. For landscape photography I think this is good.


Ya, thats why a P&S digital camera is so superior for shooting landscapes than my 5D or a MF Digital back, right?



If you say so it ought to be "right".... indeed only a genius in rhetoric can put P&S, the ubiquitous 5D and MF Digital Backs in the same sentence.

In case in your universe exist something like D2x you may try and compare 5D with in terms of detail rendition relative to pixel size.



Dec 01, 2007 at 09:08 PM
CKrueger
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jul 06, 2005
Total Posts: 2551
Country: United States
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Pixel Perfect wrote:
The main area of concern for me is compared to FF like the 5D is the 4/3 system can't offer the creative shallow DOF. Even their fastest f/2 lenses act like f/4 lens equivalents on FF. You'll never get the magical super shallow results an 85 f/1.2 could say.


I think more people should look at a two-system solution.

I waffled on buying into Four Thirds for a long time because the sensors are noisy, the viewfinders are (were) small, and there's no way to replicate the DOF results even from my modest primes on my 5D, like my 85/1.8 or 50/1.4, or even my workman 28-75/2.8. The FT system has a few really important downsides that prevents me from hocking all my Canon gear.

But the positives about FT are very attractive to me: small cameras and tele lenses, an anti-dust system that apparently works, Olympus ergonomics and build quality, and pixel density and viewfinder framing that makes even my old OM 135/3.5 into a moderate tele, or a 50-500 or 300/2.8 with a handful of TC's into great wildlife lenses.

Instead of selling off my Canon system and miss the DOF, ISO3200, and overall resolution, I simply bought an E-410 with Olympus' "twin lens kit". I now have a tiny DSLR with two tiny (yet optically-impressive!) lenses that cover 28-300mm. I can fit the whole kit and a 50/1.8+adapter in a Think Tank Chimp Cage (you know, the case that's designed to hold JUST a 1D body). And if the KatzEye focus screen I have on order ends up making manual focus a pleasant experience, I'll likely spring for some super telephotos... you know, an Olympus 200/4, or a Nikon 300/4.5, or maybe even a Tamron 300/2.8 and a 1.4x TC. :)

But I digress. Olympus' system certainly has some weaknesses. There is no 5D or D3 or 1DMk3 or 1DsMk3 for the Olympus system. But the E-410 is an absolutely tiny camera with some tiny lenses available, and the E-3 is a great compact weather-sealed body that can do some really neat tricks. Use them for what they're good at, and bring your Canikon system for things they aren't.

Personally, I'm loving finally having a camera the size of a P&S strung around my neck that can do most of what my 5D can do. The E-410 is the best digital P&S camera ever made, IMHO. And it makes a pretty nice SLR system, too. :)


Dec 01, 2007 at 09:40 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 1167
Country: United States
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Thats my point. Your remark is not accurate. Take a 5D and a D2X, frame the exact same landscape shot with both and the equivelent lens which results in the same framing for both, and the D2X will not give more detail simply because it has a higher pixel density. Its the output resolution(MP) of a camera which determines detail rendition, not the input resolution(Pixel Density).

There is a very good explanation with some examples of this here:
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm



I.G.I. wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I.G.I. wrote:
Another side is that higher pixel densities result in more finely detailed images. For landscape photography I think this is good.


Ya, thats why a P&S digital camera is so superior for shooting landscapes than my 5D or a MF Digital back, right?



If you say so it ought to be "right".... indeed only a genius in rhetoric can put P&S, the ubiquitous 5D and MF Digital Backs in the same sentence.

In case in your universe exist something like D2x you may try and compare 5D with in terms of detail rendition relative to pixel size.




Dec 01, 2007 at 10:01 PM
I.G.I.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Total Posts: 256
Country: Belgium
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Comparing image results from cameras positioned at distinctly different price levels could be misleading, especially from a manufacturer infamous with their product line stratification.


You don't mind if I consider Bjorn Rorslett as a more authoritative source, do you?

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page


Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thats my point. Your remark is not accurate. Take a 5D and a D2X, frame the exact same landscape shot with both and the equivelent lens which results in the same framing for both, and the D2X will not give more detail simply because it has a higher pixel density. Its the output resolution(MP) of a camera which determines detail rendition, not the input resolution(Pixel Density).

There is a very good explanation with some examples of this here:
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm



I.G.I. wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I.G.I. wrote:
Another side is that higher pixel densities result in more finely detailed images. For landscape photography I think this is good.


Ya, thats why a P&S digital camera is so superior for shooting landscapes than my 5D or a MF Digital back, right?



If you say so it ought to be "right".... indeed only a genius in rhetoric can put P&S, the ubiquitous 5D and MF Digital Backs in the same sentence.

In case in your universe exist something like D2x you may try and compare 5D with in terms of detail rendition relative to pixel size.





Dec 01, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 1167
Country: United States
View this photographer's profile
icon Re: My Oly - I'm In Love


Not at all. I like Bjorns reviews, have used them for years and read this particular review way back when the D2X was released. He shows a different FOV compariosn to begin with and then demonstrates my point by equalizing the FOV further down. Any advantage of the D2X over the Canon in this last example example is NOT due to pixel density. In his example, the difference is due to the Canon lens used as well as DOF differences between shooting with a cropped sensor camera vs a Full Frame sensor camera.

The FACT remains thus, and this is quoted from my previous link.

"if the output pixel resolution is the same and the FOV is the same, image content will be drawn with the same number of pixels."

In laymans terms, that simply means that given two different size sensors of the same number of MP where both are presented with the same FOV, any details in the frame will use the exact same number of pixels. For what your saying to be true, the smaller sensor with a higher pixel density would have to use more pixels to render the same detail as the larger sensor. This cannot be if the FOV and MP are the same. The math simply will not allow it to happen! No doubt there are many other factors such as lens quality, DOF,sensor design, image processing, ect. but pixel density is not a factor on its own.


I'm really fond of Olympus equipment in general and I think they make some great gear and exceptional lenses. No doubt one of their cameras will find its way into my bag someday. But I do not think we should be spreading inaccurate statements and your statement that higher pixel densities result in finer detailed landscapes is simply not true.





I.G.I. wrote:
Comparing image results from cameras positioned at distinctly different price levels could be misleading, especially from a manufacturer infamous with their product line stratification.


You don't mind if I consider Bjorn Rorslett as a more authoritative source, do you?

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page


Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thats my point. Your remark is not accurate. Take a 5D and a D2X, frame the exact same landscape shot with both and the equivelent lens which results in the same framing for both, and the D2X will not give more detail simply because it has a higher pixel density. Its the output resolution(MP) of a camera which determines detail rendition, not the input resolution(Pixel Density).

There is a very good explanation with some examples of this here:
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm



I.G.I. wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I.G.I. wrote:
Another side is that higher pixel densities result in more finely detailed images. For landscape photography I think this is good.


Ya, thats why a P&S digital camera is so superior for shooting landscapes than my 5D or a MF Digital back, right?



If you say so it ought to be "right".... indeed only a genius in rhetoric can put P&S, the ubiquitous 5D and MF Digital Backs in the same sentence.

In case in your universe exist something like D2x you may try and compare 5D with in terms of detail rendition relative to pixel size.






Dec 02, 2007 at 12:11 AM

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses
Pages: [1] 2 3