ptomsu Posted January 1, 2007 Share #41 Â Posted January 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Exactly what one should do, follow the feeling and waht is really needed for a certain way of work and then get the right product for it. This can be perfectly clear the 4/3 system. Â Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 1, 2007 Posted January 1, 2007 Hi ptomsu, Take a look here Digilux 3 or Nikon D200?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Riley Posted January 1, 2007 Share #42  Posted January 1, 2007 If Oly really can release a E1 successor for PMA (what was already promised for the last 2 PMAs :-(( ) this will have 10 or 12 MP - so what? Canon will release a 16 and 22 MP models of their full frame by then and Nikon, who are admittedly a bit slow here might surprise with 14 or 16 MP in APS size or even a new full frame pro model. So what has Olympus achieved then, they are again followers and they are in this position for sure fighting with noise. But I doubt anyway that Oly will be able to show their new E2 :-((  actually its E3, and the M8 has proven that 10Mp+ has all the res you need  Noise is no issue? One example, I made yesterday lot of pictures during New Years night with ISO800 on my D2X and a small flash - the SB400. Results are awesome, the flash ust fills in like natural, keeping all the colours of available light, and this only because of the high ISO used. But there is NO noise which disturbes the impression. Doing same with Oly would have meant to at least go down to ISO400 and then the available light already gets very reduced compared to the flash part of the light.  nope, not many people shoot the architecture of low lit bars at 3am, 400 iso will get him through, and he still has a stop to go  Again, if you are satisfied with the boundaries of 4/3 then ok, but this system will always be following the APS and full frame solutions in terms of capabilities, this is a given and it is perfectly ok if one can accept this. I could not so I had to change.  Peter  actually, FF is probably not going to be much good for him, they dont do ultra wide as well as all that. The canons in FF survive because of the machines other properties, rapid shooting/great AF/pure speed, ultra wide is to my mind a weakness they have. Soft at the edges, flares light in the middle and has a propensity to blow whites out a tad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankA Posted January 1, 2007 Share #43 Â Posted January 1, 2007 ptomsu, The difference between 5mp and 10mp is real. The difference between 12mp and 16mp is not great at all. Full frame is not all that it is cracked up to be. The Canon 5D is not a setting sales records. If you want to argue full frame I have it. 4/3 is full frame. APS is full frame. If 35mm is the full frame gold standard who set it? They are all full frame for their format. Your argument keeps coming back to low light. Again, you made your choice. That does not make 4/3 bad. Just does not work for you. I have a computer full of noiseless 4/3 photos. No problems here. Thanks for you insight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted January 1, 2007 Share #44 Â Posted January 1, 2007 Interesting how easy 4/3 proponents can be heated up. Â If you are happy wit 4/3 and the limitations, then this is perfectly ok. Many peple are not, because otherwise 4/3 would have evelved to be The system today already. There are certain needs for many photographers, which cannot be fullfilled with 4/3 and nver will be. Â So just be happy and satisfied with your system - ok? Â Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted January 1, 2007 Share #45  Posted January 1, 2007 @ Rob  why in all the world do they call the E1 successor E3 and not E2? Is this because E2 should have been there the last 2 years and is now virtually replaced by E3?  I don't get this marketing strategy :-))  Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 1, 2007 Share #46 Â Posted January 1, 2007 its one of those things thats hard to answer isnt it, tho perhaps that explains the delay if you have a close look at any of the letter number systems, do any of them make sense ? Â Nikon seem to go backwards Canon put D front or back, and pick a number between 1 and 400 Leica call everything deluxe, d lux, digilux, v lux, they have lux coming out of their ears Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted January 1, 2007 Share #47  Posted January 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica call everything deluxe, d lux, digilux, v lux, they have lux coming out of their ears  He he. Lux - also known as mesurement for light.. I now have a strong mental image of a leica engineer with light beaming out the ears.. In the world of photography this might be useful   Bo   My Leica scratch page - random thoughts , pictures such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwcolvin Posted January 1, 2007 Share #48 Â Posted January 1, 2007 There are certain needs for many photographers, which cannot be fullfilled with 4/3 and nver will be. Â Interesting how we tend to forget history. Â For decades, 35mm film was a niche market (a 'miniature' camera). There were certain needs for many photographers which could not be fulfilled with anything less than Medium Format or larger film, and never would be. Until they were. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 1, 2007 Share #49 Â Posted January 1, 2007 Denny, the problem is that that's exactly what we were told about the Kodak disc cameras. Just because something new is introduced doesn't mean it's going to succeed ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted January 1, 2007 Share #50  Posted January 1, 2007 Interesting how we tend to forget history. For decades, 35mm film was a niche market (a 'miniature' camera). There were certain needs for many photographers which could not be fulfilled with anything less than Medium Format or larger film, and never would be. Until they were.  If once 4/3 can offer 24MP and low noise up to ISO 6400 then it is real time to reconsider changing systems ..... maybe in 2015 ?  But maybe then some other vendors will start with 16/9 full digital full colour full ISO range and the first incarnation will come with 36MP .....  Good that one always can hope.  Meanwhile I work with Nikon and have fun with DMR and maybe soon with M8  Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwcolvin Posted January 1, 2007 Share #51 Â Posted January 1, 2007 Denny, the problem is that that's exactly what we were told about the Kodak disc cameras. Just because something new is introduced doesn't mean it's going to succeed ;-) Â I suspect your point better applies to APS, and is valid (Pocket Instamatic was always destined to be a niche) Â I personally think 4/3 passed the critical mass when Panasonic/Leica joined and Sigma started releasing some of their better lenses (reportedly releasing all their lenses in 4/3). No matter what happens, 4/3 owners don't have to worry about the film no longer being available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwcolvin Posted January 1, 2007 Share #52  Posted January 1, 2007 If once 4/3 can offer 24MP and low noise up to ISO 6400 then it is real time to reconsider changing systems ..... maybe in 2015 ? But maybe then some other vendors will start with 16/9 full digital full colour full ISO range and the first incarnation will come with 36MP .....  Good that one always can hope.  Meanwhile I work with Nikon and have fun with DMR and maybe soon with M8   How many of your Nikon lenses (no, how many of any of our lenses) have the resolution for a 16, 24, ..., mp sensor?  For most of us, ~8mp is more than we'll ever need. But I can certainly see how 10-12 would be useful. Beyond that, you've reached the point of diminishing returns.  Isn't the limiting factor already the life form operating the camera, whatever it is?  Enjoy your Nikon and DMR and maybe M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted January 1, 2007 Share #53  Posted January 1, 2007 How many of your Nikon lenses (no, how many of any of our lenses) have the resolution for a 16, 24, ..., mp sensor?  For most of us, ~8mp is more than we'll ever need. But I can certainly see how 10-12 would be useful. Beyond that, you've reached the point of diminishing returns.  Isn't the limiting factor already the life form operating the camera, whatever it is?  Enjoy your Nikon and DMR and maybe M8.  24 - 30 MP should be somehow lightly above the resolution of most 35mm lenses. So this will somehow be the limit. If it makes sense to really go beyond 18MP for Full Frame 35 is questionable, but mathematicaly it should make sense. So at least one could do correcting interpolation from sensor data if you have somehow higher resolution, in best case 2x. Which would mean the absolute limit for 35 would mean 2x18 = 36MP. I don not believe that in praxis this makes too much sense.  But lets see what next PMA brings  Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted January 1, 2007 Share #54  Posted January 1, 2007 A simple fact ... if Sony chose to cut the D2X CMOS sensor into 35FF size, the pixel count would be 29.8MP at the same pixel pitch (5.5 x 5.5 µm). Who says the Nikkors don't have enough resolution? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted January 1, 2007 Share #55 Â Posted January 1, 2007 he wants to shoot architecture and landscapesi don't think higher iso would be an issue ... it is an issue with the shadow areas which are quite prevalent in cities. I used a E-1 and a E-300 with a 11-22 lens for documenting landscape work, as in commercial, broad acre and private. The deep DOF was fantastic as I was able to get all in focus, but I lost too much detail in the shadows created by plants and buildings. Using 800iso became quite regular over time, I couldn't always wait for for a slightly overcast day where the Oly worked brilliantly In the end I found the system inadequent, too many shortfalls so I sold all the Oly stuff. Solution bought a OM 4 for $200 and a 24mm lens, shoot selectively and supplement with a borrowed D-200 and my D2 and keep this type of work to a minimum. As for the stuff on my site I do as I please and use any camera I find useful. Peter is pretty spot on with his assessment of the 4:3 system, if you want to support it to the death so be. It all became about lower end cameras as there is no E-3 in sight.......maybe the 4:3 just didn't work for a high end camera, a pity as I put a lot of faith into Olympus, sure the cameras got smaller but not better as the E-1 still sits on top and it is .......how old now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 1, 2007 Share #56 Â Posted January 1, 2007 Imants, I think the rise of the cheap APS DSLRs took them by surprise. For _me_ if I had to choose between a D200 and Digilux 3 I wouldn't have to think for a second - and my money wouldn't be going to Leica I'm afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 1, 2007 Share #57 Â Posted January 1, 2007 My money would be with the Nikon as well. The D200 is an entry ticket to a much more comprehensive system - lenses, flash, wireless. I just don't see the same depth of functionality available with the D3 and I wonder where 4/3 is headed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankA Posted January 1, 2007 Share #58 Â Posted January 1, 2007 for ptomsu - one can always tell when one begins to make it personal in an argument, that logic has left that person and they can't defend their position. So they resort to making condescending statements. No need to do that. Just argue you position on the merits. I am not defending 4/3 blindly. I said the Nikon system would be very good in a previous post. I know. I owned it. The final decision is not the camera, but the system. And each have their weaknesses and strengths. And opponents of 4/3 usually distill their arguments to sensor size and noise as if that is all that matters. Important, but not the only things that matter. In the end sensors will be very closely competitive in the next few years. Glass will matter. The 4/3 will survive and serve it owners well. Just as Nikon and Canon will. The E-whatever will be out and it will have more mp, better autofocus, etc. And it will turn some heads. Will it be number one? Probably not. But it still works and pros today are getting great results from 4/3 right now. Â Regarding the E-3 and not the E-2. It is said that E-2 was already protected under a trademark and Olympus could not use it. Regarding mp. I read somewhere a couple of years ago that the human eye can resolve about 22mp of detail. Someone can correct me if this is wrong. Beyond that there is no gain. 12 to 16mp cameras given appropriate viewing distance will be just fine. Sure all want more, but the diminishing retuns kick in. Â Of course all of this is just ballyhoo and you can flame away. I won't be kicking the dog if you disagree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted January 1, 2007 Share #59 Â Posted January 1, 2007 I had the D200 and it was a very nice camera and for the money in my mind beat the canon equivelent as far as features erogonmics and such but I just did not like the files visually compared to the DMR and i sold it (boring). But it really is a nice camera . The D3 sounds interesting and now i have 2 M8's and a DMR i question the need for my DMR now. if i can stick my 180 f2 and a shift and macro lens on a D3 for those times i need it maybe the d3 would be a interesting choice but not so sure that the advertising term a mini DMR is really going to fit the D3 but maybe i am wrong also. Just not enough info or images more importantly that i have seen of it. i played with one last week as my leica rep had one and the supplied lens seemed very nice and the VF was pretty good. I will just sit out and watch what comes of it . Interesting discussion guys , carry on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted January 1, 2007 Share #60 Â Posted January 1, 2007 MY D2 and elpro easily matched anything that the 4:3 sensor has put out to date in terms of closeups to plants etc. and with a bit of help from Alien Skin's BlowUp matches most other cameras printed at A3+ Â In the end sensors will be very closely competitive in the next few years. Glass will matter... glass matters now and I take photos now not in the future. Oly promised a lot a few years ago saying..... in the next few years, those years are up. The 7-14 is a big bit of protruding glass, one is compelled to place a filter to protect and way too heavy for their smaller cameras, it really makes for an unbalanced unit. Sure Oly wants to reduce the weight of lenses but those lenses are not made yet. Wasn't that the catch cry smaller sensor smaller camera coupled with smaller lenses? Even the new panaleica 25mm is big compared to its competition. The E-330/D3 well no improvement in picture quality, sensor wise.............. The colour rendition of oly is superb and flogs nikon in that dept but waiting again.. no thanks.. I was counting on the D3 for some answers but it sorta didn't really happen..... so whatever happened to the L1 even the panaboys and girls are luke warm towards it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.