Dr Flash wrote:
> I guess I have abandoned Oly but I prefer to think of it as having
> abandoned 4/3.
I almost joined you.
> Itwill forever be behind the 8 ball compared to a full frame sensor
> with 4 times the area.
I don't dispute the mathematical calculation of 4x the area. But I do
dispute the advantage of it. We both shoot weddings. The bulk of your
2x3 format images are trimmed for actual enlargement/printing. So, at
best, your talking 3x surface area. Then consider the wasted pixels
due to the fact your viewfinder isn't 100%. That means that your
images will experience more cropping on average than with a camera
with a proper viewfinder. When comparing short-side
usable/predictable dimension, the 4/3 isn't so far off the mark. The
reality is, we're comparing the difference in image quality between a
645 and a 6x7. There does come a point of dimishing returns. When is
good, good enough?
> I bought the Canyon 5D specifically to get a Canyon
> full frame sensor. Ergonomically, I don't like the camera very
> much but that's minor compared to the image quality it can produce.
I disagree that it is minor. It is very major! These ergonomic
issues (viewfinder quality, for example), are what make you high-risk
to purchase the 5D-replacement. If it was just about the
image-quality, there would be no reason for the incredible interest
in the replacement. I sense upgrade-fever coming on and an aspirin
won't help.
> The 4/3 sensor will forever be the comparative weak point.
It will be forever brought up as a weak point by those who choose to
believe it. I'll give you a case in point. Last night I was
photographing a wedding reception where the dance was in a very
darkened room and I chose to not use any flash. With the 14-54, I put
it at 14mm, shot at F2.8 and just zone-focused. With 4/3, I have
enough DoF to work with. I got shots that wouldn't have been possible
with a narrower DoF. Don't saythat you have an ISO advantage, because
I was already shooting ISO 3200. I'm looking forward to picking up a
11-22 at some point which will give me even more capability.
> But it could be forgiven if there were size and weight saving
> advantages as everyone expected. But it hasn't materialized.
I believe the 400/410 proves it has. The E-1/E-3 isn't where
ultra-light belongs.
Oh, and any arguments about "Ultra-wides" is bogus. Not only does
Olympus have three wides (7-14, 8mm, 11-22), but the 7-14 is of
legendary status. Oh, and most people who grouse about the lack of
ultra-wides have never owned one before. Ultra-wide is the new
Ultra-telephoto. A few years ago the discussions were all about who
had the longer/bigger/better telephotos.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|