C.H.Ling wrote:
> From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Here, I have to disagree, to the extent that your statement is meant to
>> say that the technology doesn't make much difference in how images are
>> produced. I agree that 12 mp is overkill for the vast majority of uses -
>> IF - you think only in terms of the past limitations of technology. 12
>> mp of really clean, pixel sharp sensor, like the 5D, is better than a
>> teleconverter, without any additional lens aberrations and without
>> losing any speed or having to swap lens bits. 1/4 of 12 mp is 3 mp,
>> just in your happy range. So for that 99% of shots you define, a 100/2.8
>> lens is, in effect, a 100-200/2.8 lens, with zooming by cropping.
>>
>
> I hope you are just talking about emergency and not real photography.
Oops, I guess I'm in trouble now! Or maybe I can just classify most of
my photography as emergency. :-)
More seriously, over the years I've been on this list, I've very much
enjoyed the many fine photos you've posted, and look forward to more.
And I hope you have enjoyed some of mine. Its also clear that we value
different qualities in images. It's a little like when I went
birdwatching with a prior girlfriend. Given only a few seconds view of a
bird we didn't know flying by, she would catch the colors, but no
details of stripes, bars, etc. and might be way off on the size. I would
often miss even bright colors, but catch the size, shape and contrast
details. Between us, we could usually track down an ID in the book.
Similarly, given full pixel samples of several different subjects shot
with different equipment, you and I would probably, as often as not,
pick different ones as "better". I value those differences in our "eye"
for images and have learned a lot from your images and comments.
Also, we tend generally to shoot quite different subjects that often
require different tools and techniques
>
> Compare with a real zoom lens your digital zoom has different OOF effect and
> difficult to estimate perspective by looking at the center of a full frame
> image.
For many of the shots I'm talking about, those aren't issues. I love
long tele shots. A shot like this may not appeal to all, but it just
knocks me out
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/TamSharp/pages/River-300mm.htm>.
I love the perspective on a meandering river, meadows and trees - green,
barren/dead and turning color. It would look completely different down
in or near it. Here's another couple in that vein
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/TamSharp/pages/Lake-183mm.htm>
&
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/TamSharp/pages/Trees-300mm%5D.htm>.
For these and many of my shots OOF isn't a factor and perspective is fixed.
Perspective is only a factor of distance, not lens or sensor size. In
theory, If I had a lens and sensor of infinite resolution, I could take
the river picture with an 18 mm lens, crop it to the same view, and it
would have the same perspective. In that case, I climbed up a shortish,
but quite steep, trail, part of it slick rock, climbed up into an old
stone tower and stretched out over chain link fencing designed to keep
folks from falling out, to get that shot. At the time, I was using a 1.6
factor camera body, so the 300 mm long end of my zoom had a field of
view eq. of 480 mm on 35mm film.
One aspect of what I am proposing is that I could now climb to a similar
outlook with a FF sensor camera and, instead of having to fly across
country with a 500 mm lens and carry it up the mountain, I can simply
use the same zoom I carry everywhere. Not only can I crop to the same
FOV as before, with better image quality, I can crop less for a
different view, if I like. So, for the majority of the shots I would
take with the long end of the zoom, it is, in effect, a 28-500 mm zoom,
not just 28-300.
I absolutely agree that for many shots, most using shorter focal
lengths, the factors you raise do make a difference. And it is easier to
deal with them using the full viewfinder, and why not, if the lens
covers the shot.
> May be it is just me but I'm not interest to use my lens in this way,
> slightly cropping due to error in composition is ok but still I will hate
> myself for making this error.
>
Many people feel that way. I know many on the list have stated that. And
that's fine for them. What I was proposing is that new technology offers
opportunities to try new ways of working that may enable us to things we
couldn't before. I used to have the same outlook. I spent a lot of
effort to get my framing right, although it was mostly generated by
limitations in my film, equipment and ability after taking the shot to
do all the darkroom things to it that I can now do. Framing a shot in my
mind in less than the full viewfinder when the lens isn't long enough
doesn't seem to me like an error. It seems a specific technique for a
photographic purpose, no more right or wrong than using a filter. YMMV,
of course.
>> This approach was severely limited with most films by the grain. That
>> just isn't true with the best sensors. The whole trade off of
>> grain/noise, aperture, size/weight of lenses and DOF becomes
>> significantly different than it was. The uses may not change, but the
>> solutions do.
> Photography is a hobby for me, lossing an image due to incapable tools is
> not dead or alive for me. Sometimes I enjoy using limited resources for my
> works, when it came out right I will enjoy much more then I did it with real
> capable expensive tools.
It's a hobby for me, too. It is less the missed shots that bother me
than it is the thrill when I get a shot that I couldn't before. I get
real satisfaction from that. And, as you do, I enjoy working around the
limitations of my resources and savor those shots of that sort that work
out. And to me, that's what I'm talking about here. Instead of buying
bigger, faster, IS equipped and wildly expensive lenses, I have found a
way to accomplish the same end result without them - by using the new
capabilities of sensor systems.
> Consider one day everyone is using a 12MP video camera with a 100x zoom lens,
> just record anything they see and go back to select some good one, do you
> also want that?
No, not for me. In fact, I was just shocked to see that I took only
three shots from the top of that tower. I looked through the viewfinder
at lots of angles and FOVs, and only took the ones I liked, and didn't
even bother to take duplicates. Two keepers I really like out of three
shots is very satisfying to me.
> Again, not me, honestly say I enjoy using manual focus Zuikos on the E-1 much
> more than the DZ lenses. I appreciate the process of photography not spending
> money to make it easier to get a shoot.
I'm starting to prefer shooting with an OM, sometimes just an OM-1, for
one kind of experience. I had quite a good time a few months ago just
wandering with OM-1, 50/1.8, 100/2.8 and 200/5. And I got some shot I
like out of that little walk, one a TOPE entry. Time to do it again, I
think. With the DSLRs, I'm slowly moving to using the AF lenses most of
the time, especially when traveling. It's two very different ways to do
photography, both enjoyable for me.
> If there is a full frame digital back for the OM4 I will pay double the price
> of a 5D to buy it even if it is only 8MP.
I'd like one of those too, although I don't see myself paying US$5,400
for one. Can I wait until they are available used? :-) 8MP is more
than enough for most uses. I wanted FF for a number of others reasons,
and as long as it comes with 12mp, I figure why not use them to my best
advantage. In fact, calculations of the number of pixels in an APS sized
part of the FF sensor and viewing samples osted on the web to see if the
technique I have been talking about would work was a part of my
evaluation of whether to buy the camera.
> Ok, I also enjoy new technology and appreciate stylish toys so don't
> challenge me when I have went for a E-3.
>
Hey, I think we all know you like those new toys! Few people on this
list who don't. I know I do. I sincerely hope Oly pulls a really great
E-3 out of the hat - and soon. And I'll only congratulate you when you
buy one.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|