Sorry, I can't get beyond point #1.
Yes, the 33% rule (which could also be 25% on a different monitor) is
for OUTPUT considerations. So why does one do testing beyond the
resolution used for output? Secondly, your comparison of the 5MP E-1
and the 5D's 12MP (not 16) is not an output measure. The output measure
is crop and resize to output print size. The only inequity between the
two cameras is if a larger output size is chosen beyond what the E-1 can
do but that the Canon could. Up to the same output size they are the
same camera except for what visual differences you see at the output size.
Try again. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/27/2012 9:48 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> So, how many of your images are you going to be presenting at pixel level?
>
> That's pretty much the heart of the question. Here are several points to
> ponder:
>
> 1. 100% pixels on the E-1 is about equivalent to Chuck's 33% rule with
> a 16MP sensor. The 33% rule is for OUTPUT considerations, though, not
> componant testing.
>
> 2. If presented at 800 pixel width on the web, the differences between
> the lenses is almost insignificant. There are some differences, but
> you really don't learn about them until you zoom in.
>
> 3. Do I present A-B comparison crops? Or do I just show the sample
> images one ofter another on the Gary Reese Lens Test pages for each
> lens? 100% crop or full-frame? And if full-frame, what width?
>
> 4. The application-centric selection. Do I just show the images that
> represent a typical photograph of flowers with wide to moderate
> apertures to exploit bokeh as much as possible? If so, which ranges?
>
> 5. Do I show the apertures which are exclusive to the more expensive lenses?
>
> 6. If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck?
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|