> I've had a hard time figuring why people believe there is such big a
> difference. The formats essentially the same height, but different widths.
> So a 4/3 sensor with the same pixel count actually has a slightly higher
> nominal resolution. Not enough to make a meaningful difference in practical
> resolution, but there is just no loss, either.
>From the perspective of resolving ability, (pixel density), there is
very little difference between the two formats. However, from native
shooting perspective, there is a huge difference.
When I'm shooting portraits, I MUCH MUCH MUCH prefer the 4/3 sensors.
The format is right between 5x7 and 8x10 standard crops. This results
in almost no loss of image for printing. And I don't have to avoid the
ends of the image when shooting.
However, after decades of shooting with 35mm film, I see how certain
focal lengths result in a certain coverage angle horizontally. To
achieve the same image width, the 4/3 format gives you a whole lot
more sky. Again, for shooting people, you can get closer to your
subject, but for shooting landscapes, you can't get far enough away.
End result of a print may or may not be any different, but getting
there requires a different mindset when framing up the image in the
viewfinder.
> If you are talking about the kind of color rendering, curve, secret sauce,
> etc. differences that AG tends to see where I tend not to, I can't say. But
> that's a difference in other aspects of sensor and processing. If it's the
> idea of greater resolution of detail, it just ain't so.
I'm not the only one. But I am reminded that you profiled your scans
to dumb down every type of film to look the same.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|