And this drifted totally off the mark - the ONLY thing I meant to highlight was that if you really need top quality pictures in low-light circumstances and don't mind thin DoF's, get a larger sensor camera. Too bad there is none... (except the Samsung that I haven't tested yet).
4/3-format is perfectly fine with F/2 and above, in pictures with same AoV and DoF there's no performance gain to be had by choosing a bigger sensor. But when you aproach the limits of a system, size matters. Compacts have better overall system performance (than larger sensor cameras) in macro uses with extreme demands on maximum DoF, and inversely; larger sensor cameras have better system performance when light is low and DoF isn't important.
Since most normal photography happen between F/2.8 and F/8, all systems available today are perfectly fine, as long as they're coupled to lenses that compliment the camera. 4/3 is perfect for more compact cameras - I just don't see the use for a E-3 type camera (the body-size of a 1D4 or a D3, but with a sensor the size of my thumbnail... why?)
Jonas B wrote:
Heh, OK, I'm an idiot.On a PC just press "Alt Gr" and the M button. I wonder how many extra buttons I pressed in total the last year or so.
/Jonas
Which is terrific for people who have a "Gr" key. I have no idea what that is.
First off, you see in the URL "microft", in the title bar it says "Four Thirds | Micro Four Thirds | Benefits of Micro Four Thirds". The page abstract reads "A new standard for slim high-picture-quality interchangeable-lens type camera - the Micro Four Thirds System". The logo on display reads "Micro Four Thirds", "Micro Four Thirds System" is used repeatedly all over the document. I can't see a single place where it's referred to as "Micro 4/3".
So, shortening "Micro Four Thirds" seems the most sensible to me. It's easy to type, it doesn't cause any confusion with lens mounts whose name are based on mount diameter, etc.
I don't have the exact numbers here but yesterday I checked some of my USAF test chart series. I have no independent reliable way of checking all this; I have to trust the shutter speeds to be reasonably correct, as well as I have to trust the f-numbers engraved into the lens. So already there everything is lost by unknown factors.
But, here is a short description of what i do: The target is a wall with some printed USAF test charts on it. I let the camera decide the exposure time with the EV comp set to +1/3 stop. The raw files are then developed in ACR with correction for the white balance only.
As the test is aimed to give me an idea about resolution, CA and corner smearing the camera is on a steady tripod and all aperture values are tested.
The results, when comparing from f/1.4 to f/4 was that the exposure varied within 0.2 stops. I placed measure spot on a white area of the USAF chart, the same of course for all the images, the "light value" is readable in ACR. The difference was then determined by dragging the exposure handle until I got the same RGB values for each image.
Oh well, this is not of much practical value but it turns out that the G1 gives much better exposures than the 4/3 cameras I have owned does.
My guess is that metering the light from the sensor is much more reliable than it is measuring it from the viewfinder screen. (Different screens give different values and some of them has a metering fall-off earlier than other ones.
OK, this is getting long but now you know why I asked you if this was corner problem or something valid for the whole image.
My conclusion is that the µ4/3 cameras are better at taking advantage of the old legacy lenses than the 4/3 cameras as the practical light measure procedure works much better. I also find that the exposure difference between say 1/000 and f/1.4, 1/500 and f/2 and 1/250 and f/2.8 is veru small. All this with the g1 and lenses like Zuiko OM50/1.4, Leica Summilux-R 50/1.4 and Olympus Pen 42/1.2
cogitech wrote:
Which is terrific for people who have a "Gr" key. I have no idea what that is.
Is it something else in canada? I'm referring to the button to the right of the big SPACE button on my keyboards. here is is called "Alt Gr" while the button to the left of SPACE is called "Alt".
Jonas B wrote:
Is it something else in canada? I'm referring to the button to the right of the big SPACE button on my keyboards. here is is called "Alt Gr" while the button to the left of SPACE is called "Alt".
/Jonas
To the left and right of space-bar on my keyboard are "Alt".
Jonas B wrote:
That's what the world has come to, you even can't trust your keyboard supplier. Go MFT.
Virtually every keyboard in North America is like mine. That's just the way it is. We use basically no special characters, whereas you Europeans have umlauts and accent graves flying about like confetti
cogitech wrote:
Virtually every keyboard in North America is like mine. That's just the way it is. We use basically no special characters, whereas you Europeans have umlauts and accent graves flying about like confetti
That would be a standard US layout keyboard, by far the most common layout.
IN Canada we do get some odd ones, as there is a Canadian French Keyboard layout and laptop-specific dual-layout ones with both US and Canadian French markings.
theSuede wrote:
4/3-format is perfectly fine with F/2 and above, in pictures with same AoV and DoF there's no performance gain to be had by choosing a bigger sensor. But when you aproach the limits of a system, size matters. Compacts have better overall system performance (than larger sensor cameras) in macro uses with extreme demands on maximum DoF, and inversely; larger sensor cameras have better system performance when light is low and DoF isn't important.
Ive always thought the issue of no faster lenses than F2 from Olympus was political rather than technical, after all Panasonic offered a 25/1.4, and it appears to work fine even on Olympus bodies. Indeed it is a very sharp lens wide open, and it meters fine across the aperture range.
I think Olympus have been reticent to relax the telecentric requirement, but I also see that ice melting with the pancake 25/2.8 they released with the 420.
Using ultra fast Alt lenses on 4/3rds can be problematic when the rear of the optic exceeds the diameter of the image circle by a lot. My own Konica 57/1.2 has from memory a 36mm diameter rear optic, the metering goes whaky, its soft and flares a lot below F2, yet my Konica 40/1.8 has a very tight rear optic and is a lot sharper and crisper wide open. These lenses improve contrast wide open if you make a baffle for them, which might have the net effect of reducing the actual aperture range, ~ its pretty much a suck it and see environment.
Looks like this is the next Olympus MFT model and will be called the "Pen E-PL1" and will go on sale in March with a Estimated Street Price of $599.99 with a 14-42mm lens.
new 4/3rds sensor in the pipe, clocked to appear with GH2 this Sept. This puts 4/3rds noise on par with FF (they mention 5DII, but I think 5DII is 2.5 stops in front not 2)
ahhh cancel that
theyre actually talking about a video sensor thats smaller then 4/3rds
and the writer related this to GH1, not that it definitely isnt
but its more unlikely than not i guess
The only time I encountered a GR key was when i was in a hostel in Germany. On study abroad the UK keyboards were different than the North American keyboards but no GR key. As far as I can recall in Amsterdam, Netherlands there was no GR key either.
)
Want to buy my G1? Works great with FD glass especially 7.5 circular fisheyes. 