Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.17 #8 · New Olympus OM-D announced | |
Bifurcator wrote:
I think I'm in the middle on that part of it. Like KaaX says sensors are and actually have been for a couple of years now, bumping up against physics. And Nex is no better really. It's the same for what it is as an APS-C. Of course Nex owners might wish it were different but...
Lenses topped out 30 years ago already and all that's happening today is mostly just wheel reinvention. I have 30 and 40 year old lenses that kick ass on the very best Nex and µ4/3 lenses - especially from about 20mm on up! And the very best zooms of today for those platforms pale in comparison to zooms now selling for $75 but are only a few grams heavier. This I've proven to myself extensively. Makers are even having to cheat by devising in-camera "fixes" for their poor lens designs. Besides some anti-reflection & ghost coating technologies used on some upper end pro lenses nothing much has changed or as in the case of many µ4/3 and Nex offerings, has only gotten worse. In fact it may be so for larger platforms too. The New versions (Like ZF and ZE etc) of the Zeiss 100 are also worse than the 30 year old AEG C/Y version as just one example.
Sensors up against a hardened wall, lenses not really improving or only getting worse, what does all this mean? I have no idea personally but I kinda think it might be an indication of a impending and inevitable change in direction. On the sensor side I could see oversampling per exposure or multi-exposure being used for noise cancellation, focus racking, dynamic range expansion, even SFX and etc. On the lens side of things I dunno but I know there are higher quality optical systems in existence than any camera manufacturer ever thought to use. Some systems employ laser quality glass, trapped gasses, and the motors and gears we use today is pretty old-school - even if they've seen a speed increase.
For me the topic of new sensor and lens tech is just about dead. Until some radical new sensor technology is introduced or a new way of using the existing tech is devised, pretty much all I need to know is it's size and pixel density. And the same kinda goes for lenses too; until something pretty bold comes along, except for some new UUWA offerings, the ancient set of lenses I already have competes and compares favorably with what's being designed today - unless I wish to spend thousands and thousands for very small improvements in only a few fairly unimportant areas.
I fully expect to be lambasted now that I've impaled the god of eternal upgrades and thrown his carcass upon the alter.  But that's pretty much for the most part, where I'm at on this.
Fear not however for his resurrection may come of camera bodies, ergonomics, features, and system options - which are of course a different story than sensor and lens IQ.  To bring it all back to the topic at hand this to me is where the OM-D fits in! Olympus couldn't have gotten it nor their timing, more right on!
...Show more →
wjmeyer wrote:
I understand what you are saying here and I would agree that there are some fantastic lenses from yesteryear; however, I think it's somewhat similar to the other ongoing discussion here about equivalence and comparable values between m43 and FF senors/lenses, etc. What lens from yesteryear would you compare to the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 that is as small and is as fast to AF? Sure, you may find some lenses that have better IQ but they're probably not going to be as small and they're certainly not going to have AF. And that is the point I was trying to make with KaaX, that the lenses that Olympus and Panasonic have for m43 are unequalled from any manufacturer at this time when comparing size, AF, aperture, focal range and IQ.
In regard to current sensor technology running up against the laws of physics I also understand what you are saying; however, we have seen time and time again engineers finding ways "around" the laws of physics. The laws of physics cannot be broken (unless the law/theory was found to be flawed by new evidence) but it never ceases to amaze me what our incredible minds can come up with to solve a problem. So the limitations we have today could be overcome by some new technology that gets around some physical limitation, whether through hardware or software.
I won't even pretend to claim that I know as much as posters here talking about the differences between sensor design and lens design etc. What matters most to me is how the final image looks and there are so many variables and factors that go into that I can't even begin to comprehend, but what I know is I can set the shutter, aperture, ISO, focus point and frame the image a certain way which, once I press the shutter button, gives me an image that I can then take into Lightroom and make some adjustments and then possibly take into PS and make more fixes which ultimately ends in an image that is pleasing to me or my family/friends, or to my client who then gives me money for me to print that image on some medium and give it to them so they can now enjoy it themselves The beauty of it all is that anyone with artistic talent for photography can grab almost any equipment today and be able to make beautiful images, some photographers even use noise to enhance their image (I use it all the time with B&W because I used to shoot Ilford 3200 and Neopan 1600 pushed to 3200 and sometimes 6400 to get a certain "look" in the image and loved the grain/noise structure). So regardless of any limitations with current technology we are still able to make fantastic images
...Show more →
Yeah those are good counters. They show the other side of the coin pretty well. And prolly it's in the middle somewhere.
On the sensor thing for sure if I consider the past 2 or 3 years; there's always this big hype at first release about how much better it is. And then 2 months after release, nope! Not even a little bit. Still there's this sense from all the lingering hype no doubt, that it is anyway. So for me anyway I've just stopped listening to the BS. I shoot RAW too tho so I'm barely or not at all, affected by newer conversion engines - which actually do get better over time. Even so they're still not good enough IMO. When they embrace 16bit JPeg files (JPeg-2000) then I'll stop shooting RAW. Why they haven't done that yet is beyond me! Slackers!
Concerning lenses; AF is for wimps. Well, wimps and people trying to make a living by taking pictures. I thought AF was super dorky and downright gimmicky when they first started offering it. 6 or 8 years later I embraced it for a short time. Now I'm back to thinking that it just ruins photography for me. I think about AF like most people thing about power-zoom: It might have a place but it's place is nowhere around me. I'll probably always be the odd man out and I can understand the other side too. As a professional musician I rely on midi sequencing and all kinds of automation to arrange notes more perfectly and etc. yet my friends who started in the 50's and 60's who play for only the sake of fun and accomplishment, just shake their heads. When midi first came out and I showed it to those guys their first remarks were: Oh, no, that's going to breed a whole generation of incompetents. They were right - but I see the other side too... Jan Hammer, Herbie Hancock, etc.
EDIT:
BTW, I should clarify: I'm not saying sensors don't improve at all. I'm merely pointing out that they don't seem to actually ever exceed the sensor-size and pixel density thing. Give me those two specs and I'll know what I can actually expect from the sensor and then I can just ignore the BS hype that Sony and others pay so many plants to hype.
Edited on Feb 18, 2012 at 03:43 PM · View previous versions
|
Do you belive it was a positive comment