 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2006How important is Oly's dust reduction system?
I'm just starting to research DSLRs to replace my 25 years of investment in the OM-2 system. My only experience with digital so far is a Cannon PowerShot (which is wonderful for what it's designed to do). The one feature the Olympus E-series seems to have which nobody else does is the sensor dust reduction system. How important is this is real life? Is dust a real problem? Does the dust reduction system really work? What do people with other systems do? Can you just clean the sensor with a soft brush? > I'm just starting to research DSLRs to replace my 25 years of investment > in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > soft > brush? You would think it would be really important, but in the two years I've had my D70, I haven't found a single speck of dust on the sensor (I have 15 lenses and change them whenever I feel like it). The only thing I do differently vs. film cameras is that I hold the camera body close to me, turn my back to any breeze, and hold the camera downward when changing lenses. Granted, I haven't changed lenses in a dust storm, or at the sand dunes , or in a blizzard but I think I'd probably decline doing that with a film camera, too. For my D70, I had to buy a Nikon EH-5 to make it possible to clean the sensor...it'd be nice if there were at least one speck of dust on it to make that seem like a wise purchase! BTW, everything I've heard says that Oly's dust reduction system works. And yes, a camel hair blower brush is the usual mfg's recommendation for cleaning the sensor (you do see postings from people from time to time advocating something much harsher because they've got chunks of something or another attached to their sensors...don't ask me how they do it). >I'm just starting to research DSLRs to replace my 25 years of investment in >the OM-2 system. My only experience with digital so far is a Cannon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >do people with other systems do? Can you just clean the sensor with a soft >brush? It's totally unimportant. Just learn to clear your sensor. Here's all about ways to clean it. http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/ccd_cleaning ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ > I'm just starting to research DSLRs to replace my 25 years of investment in > the OM-2 system. My only experience with digital so far is a Cannon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > do people with other systems do? Can you just clean the sensor with a soft > brush? Your question might start a thread war. It will likely go like this: those who don't have a DSLR will tout their sealed P&S cameras and say dust is a critical decision factor in choosing. Those with DSLRs will say dust happens, just like dirty lenses, learn how to clean, and get over it. I have used many many digital cameras, both P&S and numerous DSLRs (both at work and I have owned 3 DSLRs personally). I do a lot of outdoor photography (both work and personally), and dust does happen. But I find it rare. Example, I just returned from a week in Florida doing bird photography, changing lenses and TCs a lot. Never had a dust problem, after about 2000 pictures. In more dusty areas, like the Colorado plateau, I get occasional dust. On a two week trip to Australia and New Zealand last year this time, I got a couple of dust specs and had to clean them. I check each day when on a photo shoot. I have had dust on images, but it has always been just a few seconds to clone them out, and much less work than fixing dust spots on scanned film. Personally, the Oly system is interesting and other camera manufacturer's should work to something similar. However, I would have concern about the vibration impacting electronics over time. Vibration can loosen wires, which initially would increase noise, then failure. This may or may not be an issue with the Oly, but since the vibration is right next to the sensor and its electronics, what are the long term issues with such a system? But I would evaluate other aspects of the camera and dust would be low on the list. For me it would be: number of megapixels size of pixels (larger = better) (number of pixels * larger pixels = larger sensor is better) low noise (especially read noise and dark current) lens selection and image stabilized lenses (I only want IS lenses) shutter lag autofocus speed frames per second and buffer size power up time user interface lower but considered: manufacturer reputation dust What are the pixel and sensor size of the Oly you are considering and how does it compare to other DSLRs? Roger Photos, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com > I'm just starting to research DSLRs to replace my 25 years of investment in > the OM-2 system. My only experience with digital so far is a Cannon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > do people with other systems do? Can you just clean the sensor with a soft > brush? Using several Olympus E-series cameras for a year now, I saw a dust speck once on a test shot, which stopped to appear on subsequent shots after cleaning the sensor by switching the camera off an on again. So, as far as I can see, it seems to work. I'm not the one to judge how much or how little of a problem dust may be on other systems, but I'm quite happy with the fact that I don't have to care about it ;-) My reason for the decision to buy an Olympus DSLR, despite people around me deciding to go to Canon or Nikon and me thereby sacrificing the chance to share lenses and accessories, was another unique feature, though - its "FourThirds" sensor format, which is the smallest throughout the competition. While smaller sensors do have inherent disadvantages, mainly a slightly more profound tendency to show noise at higher ISO settings, they also have advantages, like allowing for faster and especially more compact lenses, most significantly in the telephoto range. One such already existing lens, which has become my favourite, is the 2.8-3.5/50-200, equaling 100-400 on a 35mm camera, measuring only 16 centimetres in length, 8.7 in diameter, so I can carry it with me even on an extensive hike quite nicely. There are no telephoto lenses with image stabilization yet, but as Panasonic and Leica just joined the FourThirds consortium and announced a compatible, optically image-stabilized Leica standard zoom, that will probably only be a matter of time. The FourThirds standard has one other advantage - you don't have to worry whether a lens that fits into the bayonet will work or not. It will, and, except for those Sigma lenses also available for other systems, they all were specifically calculated and constructed to deliver optimum image quality on a FourThirds type digital sensor. Some of what the FourThirds manufacturers say about "telecentricity" and such stuff may well be marketing talk, but one fact remains - all the Olympus "Zuiko Digital" lenses do deliver decent to excellent results. Cheers Robert snipped >on an extensive hike quite nicely. There are no telephoto lenses with >image stabilization yet, but as Panasonic and Leica just joined the >FourThirds consortium and announced a compatible, optically >image-stabilized Leica standard zoom, that will probably only be a >matter of time. Snipped... Leica did not join the 4/3 consortium other than license their name to third parties to make lenses under their name. Both the Leica R digital module and the soon to be announced M body digital will continue to use a 1.3 sensor. Sorry you'll never know the joy of ISO 3200 and full frame like the Canon 5D delivers. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ > snipped >> on an extensive hike quite nicely. There are no telephoto lenses with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Leica did not join the 4/3 consortium other than license their name to > third parties to make lenses under their name. The word was that Leica and Panasonic design the lenses in cooperation, Leica calculating the optics and Panasonic adding the OIS, and that Panasonic build them in Japan under supervision by Leica. Even if that was all just marketing bull and even if Leica acutally did only "license their name", I couldn't care less as long as the resulting lenses will deliver what the name promises. As Olympus already set a rather high mark with their "digital" lenses, one should think that the Leica lenses will have to be even better, if only slightly, to justify the price tag they'll probably get. > Both the Leica R digital module and the soon to be announced M body > digital will continue to use a 1.3 sensor. Of course. They wont ditch the analog R or M from one day to another either. Latest news from Leica representatives at CeBIT though is, that at Photokina this autumn they will present a complete line of lenses (no idea whether they will already show something or just announce the details), and probably also a Leica branded version of the lately announced Panasonic DMC-L1 FourThirds DSLR. > Sorry you'll never know the joy of ISO 3200 and full frame like the > Canon 5D delivers. While I would happily like to give one a try, well, without the necessary lottery win, probably not. (But then there's still the case of telephoto requirements - hiking, I wouldn't want to carry even a 5.6/400 for 35mm, let alone a faster lens. So in any case, alongside a 5D I still would want to keep the FT system...) Until then, at least ISO 1600 out of the E-330 is already quite usable for not-too-demanding purposes, and "full frame" by itself is only a word, not a feature... Cheers, Robert >> snipped >>> on an extensive hike quite nicely. There are no telephoto lenses with [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >Cheers, >Robert ******************************************************* ""Lord!" he said, "when you sell a man a book you don't sell him twelve ounces of paper and ink and glue - you sell him a whole new life...."" "Parnassus on Wheels" by Christopher Morley >> snipped >>> on an extensive hike quite nicely. There are no telephoto lenses with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >will have to be even better, if only slightly, to justify the price tag >they'll probably get. If they aren't made in Solum they aren't Leica. >> Both the Leica R digital module and the soon to be announced M body >> digital will continue to use a 1.3 sensor. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >details), and probably also a Leica branded version of the lately >announced Panasonic DMC-L1 FourThirds DSLR. The only thing I care about from Photokina is the announcement of the M body digital. >> Sorry you'll never know the joy of ISO 3200 and full frame like the >> Canon 5D delivers. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >out of the E-330 is already quite usable for not-too-demanding purposes, >and "full frame" by itself is only a word, not a feature... Second job? Full Frame is a feature if you shot ultra wides and want the best possible print quality. ******************************************************* ""Lord!" he said, "when you sell a man a book you don't sell him twelve ounces of paper and ink and glue - you sell him a whole new life...."" "Parnassus on Wheels" by Christopher Morley > Full Frame is a feature if you shot ultra wides and want the best > possible print quality. Actually you need good wide angle optics for this, something canon doesn't have.  SignatureStacey > Full Frame is a feature if you shot ultra wides and want the best > possible print quality. In my experience, Full Frame is a PROBLEM if you shot ultra wides and want the best possible print quality. Lourens > > Full Frame is a feature if you shot ultra wides and want the best > > possible print quality. > > In my experience, Full Frame is a PROBLEM if you shot ultra wides and > want the best possible print quality. Well, there's no real substitute for a 14mm or 12mm lens on a full-frame body, for angle of view. I personally don't have either lenses that wide, or a full-frame body, so I can't comment on the problems some people report. For *most* people, the 12mm, 11mm, or 10mm wide-end of various zooms times the 1.5x or 1.6x factor is wider than anything they've ever had before. My widest before was a 17mm, and that's a lot wider than most photographers go. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > I'm just starting to research DSLRs to replace my 25 years of investment in > the OM-2 system. My only experience with digital so far is a Cannon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > do people with other systems do? Can you just clean the sensor with a soft > brush? It's a great innovation, but not enough in itself to hold sway over the advantages of systems with a larger sensor and a better future growth path. Having said that, if you intention is to make photos that you will not print larger than about 12 x 9 and you will shoot at ISO 400 or slower for those sizes, then it's as good as any other system. Certainly many of their lenses for the system are very good to excellent and priced accordingly. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I'm just starting to research DSLRs to replace my 25 years of >> investment in the OM-2 system. My only experience with digital so far [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It's a great innovation, but not enough in itself to hold sway over the > advantages of systems with a larger sensor and a better future growth path. The further into the future, the less important will those advantages become, since technology keeps advancing for all types and sizes of sensors. And until theoretical limits are drawing closer, new technology tends to come first for smaller sensors. Latest proof is the Fuji (FourThirds consortium member, though not yet producing FourThirds sensors) F10/F11/F30 series - the day has already come that you don't need a DSLR anymore for ISO 3200, not even a sensor larger than 1/1.7". FourThirds is already more than four times as large as that. > Having said that, if you intention is to make photos that you will not > print larger than about 12 x 9 and you will shoot at ISO 400 or slower Even if that is supposed to be inches it is grossly misleading. At ISO 400 or below, enlargeability is limited only by resolution. The reasonable limit for print size at a constant viewing distance depends only on the number of megapixels, in no way on any other sensor attribute. It is absolutely no problem to enlarge 7.5 or 8 megapixel FourThirds images to excellent, clean and sharp 16"x12" prints - virtually no difference to 8 megapixel cameras of other makers, slightly if not significantly better than 6 megapixel cameras of other makers. [...] Cheers, Robert > Even if that is supposed to be inches it is grossly misleading. At ISO > 400 or below, enlargeability is limited only by resolution. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > virtually no difference to 8 megapixel cameras of other makers, slightly > if not significantly better than 6 megapixel cameras of other makers. You're welcome to your optimistic opinion of print quality. It really depends what you consider an acceptable print. Make a print from a Sony 828 (8 mpix) to the rough dimensions above and it will be clear to you that it is not as clean and crisp as an Oly E-500 (8 mpix) printed to the same size. The same applies to the Oly v. the 20D. and so on. Noise trumps resolution at the limiting print sizes. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Even if that is supposed to be inches it is grossly misleading. At ISO >> 400 or below, enlargeability is limited only by resolution. The [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the same size. The same applies to the Oly v. the 20D. and so on. > Noise trumps resolution at the limiting print sizes. Of course there are the limiting effects of noise, and if an E-500 or E-330 begins to show them above ISO 400, a compact camera like the Sony 828 (or the Olympus C-8080WZ, which I used for quite some time before switching to FourThirds) begins to shows them at even lower ISO numbers, according to the even smaller size of their sensor. I used to try to stay below ISO 160 with that camera, which delivered about as much noise there as I was inclined to tolerate. Nevertheless, in fact I do still have several 16"x12" prints here, made from low-ISO C-8080WZ JPEGs, which, if anything, even seem slightly sharper than those out of my later E-System cameras - thanks to a slightly stronger default in-camera sharpening, maybe, but probably also to a different, less softening type of antialising filter. As for specifically the 20D, its advantages in noise compared to the E-500, and to some extent still to the E-330, are even greater than the simple difference between sensor sizes would account for. The FourThirds sensor is four times as large as the Sony 828 or the C-8080WZ sensor (a 2/3" Sony sensor). Four times the size = four times the amount of light = 2 F-stops = 2 EV. That would account for about the same amount of noise from the Sony at ISO 100 as from the E-500 at ISO 400. The APS-C sensor, on the other hand, is only 1.5 times the size of the FourThirds sensor. That would only account for about 1/2 F-Stop or 1/2 EV. Based on exactly the same kind of sensor technology, given the noise the E-500 produces at ISO 400, the 20D would already produce the same amount of noise or more at ISO 640. In reality, the distance seems to be somewhat larger - because right now Canon unquestionably has the best control over noise when it comes to DSLR sensors. But, as technology advances, both formats will most probably advance further... and, at the same time, come closer. I don't think what I express here is some overly optimistic view of someone who wants to publicly - or even to himself - justify his already made decision to invest in one specific DSLR system, but a rational evaluation of the facts and technical basics... Cheers, Robert >>> Even if that is supposed to be inches it is grossly misleading. At >>> ISO 400 or below, enlargeability is limited only by resolution. The [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > made decision to invest in one specific DSLR system, but a rational > evaluation of the facts and technical basics... Which you have not made. Sorry to be brutal, but the technical facts are simply that the 20D produces less noisy images than the E-500 based on sensor sites being larger and thus having higher S/N. As I said, printed to a reasonable noise / "grain" limiting size, the E-500 can't print as cleanly nor as crisply as the 20D for that reason. Once you bring in-camera JPG images into the mix, the whole exercise becomes further qualitiative as it's difficult if not impossible to judge the unique camera processing effects on the image. You may "see" sharpness where it is really lack of real detail. If ever intending to print to large sizes, I do hope that you capture in RAW to allow you maximum dynamic range in editing before rendering to print. Then we get to the real reason that there is some (well warranted) prejudice against the Oly 4/3 format: They bounded the dimensions of the sensor at 18 x 13.5mm. The 35mm "cropped" sensors are larger, so for a given pixel density they will have less noise; and of course the FF sensors less again. For every advance in pixel densities and less noise prone sensors, the advance will be that much less bounding for the larger sensors. So again, up to any given print size where the Oly becomes intolerably noisy or grainy, the larger sensors at the same pixel count will do better as the sensor sites receive more photons over noise. As others have pointed out, the Oly system has many advantages, but for those intending to make large prints, or normal prints from tight crops, the bias will be to the larger sensors. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. [...] > Then we get to the real reason that there is some (well warranted) > prejudice against the Oly 4/3 format: They bounded the dimensions of the > sensor at 18 x 13.5mm. 17 x 13.5, to be exact. > The 35mm "cropped" sensors are larger, Yes, as I said, and the 20D sensor with 22.5 x 15 mm amounts to exactly 1.5 times the area. If the FourThirds sensor were simply cut out of a 20D sensor, and you print a FourThirds image from that identical sensor to 16"x12", you will see the same print quality in a 19,6"x14,7" print out of the original 20D sensor (ok, to be really exact, there would have to be taken some from the vertical and given some to the vertical numbers to get 3:2 instead of 4:3). That difference is what physics and geometry dictate, but there we're discussing theoretical sensors, with the FourThirds one having significantly less resolution than the 20D sensor. In reality, the E-500 sensor does have higher noise level than the theoretical cut-out sensor, but on the other hand it has approximately the same resolution as the 20D sensor - and as the Sony 828 and Oly C-8080WZ sensor. And it is a simple fact, that if conditions let you stay at low enough ISO, and you take the same picture with an Oly C-8080WZ, an E-500 and a 20D with decent lenses, enlarge it to any size you choose, be it 20"x15", you won't be able to visually distinguish by resolution, crispness, sharpness, or visible noise (because neither picture will show a significant amount) which picture comes from which camera. At the same megapixel count, larger sensors show their advantages only starting with a critical ISO number. At the current state of FourThirds sensors, they begin to show there disadvantage in size above ISO 400. The Sony 2/3" sensor already starts above ISO 100. All that is simple physics and geometry; a four times size sensor get four times light and that's two F-stops, 2 EV, difference. ISO 100 to 400. Aberrations from that rule are due to different sensor technology with different effectiveness, differently effective internal noise reduction and so on, but the facts are pretty clear. Stick to your opinion that FourThirds has some enormous inherent drawbacks in resolution and/or achievable noise behaviour, if you wish to; I prefer geometry, physics and arithmetic... and practical experiment and experience, of course, which shows nothing different... Cheers, Robert > Then we get to the real reason that there is some (well warranted) > prejudice against the Oly 4/3 format: They bounded the dimensions of > the sensor at 18 x 13.5mm. > > 17 x 13.5, to be exact. Per dpreview it's 18 x 13.5; 4/3 of 13.5 is 18. Not that it matters at all for the subject at hand, as Oly have made that size "hard" bound. >> The 35mm "cropped" sensors are larger, > Stick to your opinion that FourThirds has some enormous inherent > drawbacks in resolution and/or achievable noise behaviour, if you > wish to; I prefer geometry, physics and arithmetic... and practical > experiment and experience, of course, which shows nothing > different... First of all you're misrepresenting me by claiming that I have an opinion that FourThirds has enormous inhenent drawbacks. I never said that and I've stated the advantages of the Oly system as well. Next you're not showing your preference to "geometry, physics and arithmentic". You can go on introducing as many variables as you like to justify your opinion but the physics just don't support it. To clarify: -At a given ISO -for a given subject (reflectance and detail) -in a given light -and equal (or very similar) "correct" aperture and speed settings* -for a given number of pixels for the entire image the sensor with the larger sensor sites will produce a larger print before rendering images with unacceptable quality loss. It is as open and shut as that. That "geometry, physics and arithmetic" that you refer to. Notes: *I avoid "EV" here as it allows to much broad interpretation for possibly ridiculous aperture/speed settings. I say "correct" as for any lighting situation there are a variety of "correct" EV settings depending on the artistic bent of the photographer. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > the sensor with the larger sensor sites will produce a larger print > before rendering images with unacceptable quality loss. It is as open > and shut as that. Well you did ignore that there are optics good enough to cover that larger sensor with enough resolution. :-) If a lens must be stopped down to F8 to cover up it's faults, the system NEEDS good high ISO performance! I guess much of this depends largely on how big a print you're going to be making and what type of light you shoot in (and how good you are?) how all of this pans out. I've heard people make ridiculous claims that 4/3 are useless for available light photography etc. These were shot in some really awful light and they look useable to me. http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/A_2+.jpg http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/A_3.jpg SignatureStacey >>the sensor with the larger sensor sites will produce a larger print >>before rendering images with unacceptable quality loss. It is as open [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > useless for available light photography etc. These were shot in some really > awful light and they look useable to me. Again: All other things being equal (and Oly do not have monopoly on high performance glass), the larger sensor is less limited in print size. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> the sensor with the larger sensor sites will produce a larger print >>> before rendering images with unacceptable quality loss. It is as open [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Again: All other things being equal (and Oly do not have monopoly on > high performance glass), the larger sensor is less limited in print size. So you're going to go to medium format sensor size? >> Again: All other things being equal (and Oly do not have monopoly on >> high performance glass), the larger sensor is less limited in print size. > > So you're going to go to medium format sensor size? No, but I'm not going down to 4:3 size either. (Actually I did just buy a MF film camera and lenses, just waiting on the MF scanner). Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> Again: All other things being equal (and Oly do not have monopoly on >>> high performance glass), the larger sensor is less limited in print [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Alan he he i was looking at roll film cameras whilst shopping for my tripod. mint condition mamiya 645 with lens. The whole thing was tiny. My 20D setup is bigger. Flatbed scanners are good enough for MF. even 1200dpi is enough. The advantages of such a large original image. Been looking at the epson 4490 and canon 9950. The only downside is the processing costs. roll film was always a niche market. Processing myself and scanning and printing what keep costs down but i don't know. Convenience v quality. I would have to print a lot more a3+ before it beat my 20D and the L lenses. > Flatbed scanners are good enough for MF. No they aren't, the dynamic range is the problem. SignatureStacey >> Flatbed scanners are good enough for MF. > > No they aren't, the dynamic range is the problem. no it isn't. http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_13.htm > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message >> (Actually I did just buy a MF film camera and lenses, just waiting >> on the MF scanner). [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > down but i don't know. Convenience v quality. I would have to print > a lot more a3+ before it beat my 20D and the L lenses. I don't find the cost of roll film processing to be at all expensive. What is a PITA is getting high quality scans. The minilabs are not that good for scanning (but are cheap), and the drumscans are very expensive (CAD$25 per frame in Montreal) but the quality is of course outstanding. So, now waiting for the alignment of simultaneous 9000ED + glass holder and a trip to the US to get it all to occur. One thing that _is_ reasonable is commercial quality printing from digital images. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >But, as technology > advances, both formats will most probably advance further... and, at the > same time, come closer. Yep.. SignatureStacey >>But, as technology >>advances, both formats will most probably advance further... and, at the >>same time, come closer. > > Yep.. Nope. Because for every advance for a sensor, the larger sensor, with the same advance will always have a lower noise figure. So, in the end, all other things being equal, the smaller sensor will hit a print size limit before the larger sensor does. I and others have explained this to you dozens of times, but you're simply obstinate in refusing to see that is very simple and true. Note that the same film emulsions are usually available in a variety of sizes, in some cases all the way up to 11 x 14". Those with the most critical printing requirement go for larger films. This physics is no different for camera sensors. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>But, as technology >>>advances, both formats will most probably advance further... and, at the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nope. Because for every advance for a sensor, the larger sensor, with > the same advance will always have a lower noise figure. But at some point in reasonable print sizes you won't be able to see the difference. I relate it to shooting 4X5 vs medium format. In a 11X14 print it's almost impossible to see any difference. You also assume the exact same technology can be used across all sensor sizes. > So, in the end, > all other things being equal, the smaller sensor will hit a print size > limit before the larger sensor does. Of course but what will that print size be? 20X30+? > I and others have explained this to you dozens of times, but you're > simply obstinate in refusing to see that is very simple and true. What's simple and true is these "small sensor" cameras already make great 11X14 prints. If they get even a touch better, that's all I or most people will ever need. Also people look at the noise in the E1 or E300 and assume it's because the sensor is a touch smaller. Most of it is the kodak sensor used, not the sensor size. If these had the same sensor a 20D has, you'd be hard pressed to see the difference in noise performance. Don't believe me? Download a 20D and a E1 file and crop the 20D down to the size of a 4/3 sensor. > Note that the same film emulsions are usually available in a variety of > sizes, in some cases all the way up to 11 x 14". Those with the most > critical printing requirement go for larger films. How many people do you know that use even 4X5? Most of the people argueing this shot with 35mm and though it was good enough (I didn't), now all of a sudden they feel the need to have something good enough to make 20X30 prints? 99% of the people using these aren't obcessed with making giant prints and just want a good 8X10 or 11X12 print. SignatureStacey >How many people do you know that use even 4X5? Most of the people argueing >this shot with 35mm and though it was good enough (I didn't), Quite number of them, myself included, would have moved to a larger format if it had been as convenient or cost effective. >now all of a >sudden they feel the need to have something good enough to make 20X30 >prints? 99% of the people using these aren't obcessed with making giant >prints and just want a good 8X10 or 11X12 print. The primary criteria for me moving from film to digital was that I did not risk further restrictions on my capability due to the new medium. Increased capability, such as being able to create larger prints, was a bonus. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>>>But, as technology >>>>advances, both formats will most probably advance further... and, at the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Download a 20D and a E1 file and crop the 20D down to the size of a 4/3 > sensor. Only a side by side test in the same conditions with lenses that are of near equal MTF and light transmission would be a useful test. Turn that up and I'll look. (It's easy to find a not so hot 20D shot to compare to a hot 4:3 shot). >>Note that the same film emulsions are usually available in a variety of >>sizes, in some cases all the way up to 11 x 14". Those with the most [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > prints? 99% of the people using these aren't obcessed with making giant > prints and just want a good 8X10 or 11X12 print. Stop spinning Stacey. That was said as a point of illustration and it remains that those people (companies) printing very large are still using MF/LF film and/or large (MF) digital backs. They are not waiting line for a 4:3 camera. Why talk about prints? Because it is a _useful_ proof of what a camera can and cannot do. It is sudden and drastitic. And what a camera can do at its limit, it can do better below its limit. Include then, faster ISO speeds, and the Oly will be limited further still where the larger sensor still has headroom. For a comparably priced and sized system, the Oly is not going to be stealing many away from Canon and Nikon. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. I'm afraid the supposed size and price advantage of 4/3 just isn't happening. The added electronics that compensate for things like distortion and vignetting haven't equated to cheaper glass either. having a smaller circle of coverage and less necessary optical correrction should have made for small light and cheap lenses. This hasn't happened. The smaller sensor hasn't made for a smaller body. The pentax bodies are competitively sized in this regard. You can't have too small either. The proper feel of an slr requires a certain chunkiness and grip. Some people add a battery grip just to aid counterbalancing the longer lenses. >I'm afraid the supposed size and price advantage of 4/3 just isn't >happening. The added electronics that compensate for things like distortion >and vignetting haven't equated to cheaper glass either. Does anyone know if they actually do correct for image distortion electronically in any of the existing 4/3 dSLRs. With that size of sensor I would not have thought it was necessary. Its bad enough having a titchy little sensor with tiny pixels without having the image further softened by unwanted interpolation to correct for lens geometry issues. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) > Does anyone know if they actually do correct for image distortion > electronically in any of the existing 4/3 dSLRs. No, not by default and it's only an option in software in PP. I've never seen the need for it. > Its bad enough having a titchy little sensor with tiny pixels LOL it's 1.5mm smaller in hight and that's "tiny"? It's a 2X "crop factor" in width but only 1.7 in hight. Yea that .1X makes a 20D "huge"? From all your coments we must assume you've owned and used one personally or just yet another canon user bashing anything "non-canon".. SignatureStacey >> Does anyone know if they actually do correct for image distortion >> electronically in any of the existing 4/3 dSLRs. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >LOL it's 1.5mm smaller in hight and that's "tiny"? It's a 2X "crop factor" >in width but only 1.7 in hight. Yea that .1X makes a 20D "huge"? Who cares how much smaller the height of the frame is, it is the pixel *size* for a given pixel count that matters, and in this respect the 4/3 format *is* tiny and is forever doomed to *be* tiny. So until Olympus start shipping lenses with negative refractive index glass in them to overcome the diffraction limits imposed by the laws of physics then they ARE tiny. And before shipping lenses with negative refractive index glass they have to invent some, since nothing with a negative index of refraction currently exists as visible light wavelengths! > From all your coments we must assume you've owned and used one personally >or just yet another canon user bashing anything "non-canon".. You would be wrong then wouldn't you. For your information I have been using Olympus gear since 1974, soon after the original M-1 (!) was released. I still have an extensive range of Olympus camera bodies (8?) and lenses (19?) and a huge range of accessories. At a guess, I would say I have invested more than 25 times as much in Olympus kit than I have in Canon! I was disappointed to see them openly state that they were abandoning the advanced amateur and professional market over a decade ago to concentrate on the consumer camera business. Their inevitable end of support for the OM system three years ago came as no surprise as they had done little to develop it following their previous announcement - despite releasing a cheap OM body in Y2K that was manufactured by someone else, sold under their name and clearly targeted at the consumer user. Their adoption of a "cheap as chips" image format for digital came as no surprise either, totally in line with all of their previous marketing statements. As a design engineer specialising in imaging sensors I could understand the implications of that format as soon as it was announced - the laws of physics are against it. So don't tell us that Olympus have serious professional products when every statement the company has issued in the past decade and a half has indicated that professional camera products are no longer compatible with the company strategy! They were even unwilling to release an adapter for their new digital format that would enable OM lenses to be fitted to it - only a campaign by OM users made them aware that a significant amount of OM users were in their target market and they finally rescinded and made one available! Faced with that open strategy from the company, anyone seriously interested in moving to digital without accepting significant system and capability reduction has no choice but to abandon Olympus. That is something I was reluctant to do because IMO, far more than any other camera company, Olympus have introduced very significant and innovative technologies in the time I have been involved in photography - which appears to be decades more than you! From their pioneering work on small format SLRs such as the PEN-F, the revolutionary OM-1 which proved that professional SLRs didn't have to weigh more than a house brick, real time exposure OTF metering, TTL flash metering, high shutter speed flash operation, right through to the dust removal system in their current dSLR range. However, their decision to *stop* digital development (while the technology was still immature) at a format that will always be hampered by the laws of physics was merely a continuation of their stated strategy of concentrating on the consumer market and ignoring the advanced amateur and professional segment entirely. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>Does anyone know if they actually do correct for image distortion >>electronically in any of the existing 4/3 dSLRs. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > From all your coments we must assume you've owned and used one personally > or just yet another canon user bashing anything "non-canon".. I'm not a Canon user. I've handled the E-1 and E300 in the store. Neither so different than other SLR's that the form factor contribution of 4:3 makes any difference. IOW, 4:3 does not make it more convenient. At longer FL's then the benefit is very apparent, eg:the 300mm f/2.8 being equivalent to a FF 600mm lens but faster and more compact. Not many people will spring $7000 for this, however, but I can see its appeal to niches like nature and sports photography. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I'm not a Canon user. I've handled the E-1 and E300 in the store. > Neither so different than other SLR's that the form factor contribution > of 4:3 makes any difference. I think they figured out what shape works best a LONG time ago. > At longer FL's then the benefit is very apparent, eg:the 300mm f/2.8 > being equivalent to a FF 600mm lens but faster and more compact. Only if you're comparing the width and actually print 3:2 without any cropping. In an 8X10 print (cropped 3:2 to fit), it's a 1.7X factor not 2X. That's why I don't get the "tiny sensor" arguement. Yes Canon is king of sensor low noise technology right now but the size of the sensor isn't why the 4/3 cameras are noisy at ISO 800+. SignatureStacey >Yes Canon is king of >sensor low noise technology right now but the size of the sensor isn't why >the 4/3 cameras are noisy at ISO 800+. No, its the size of the *pixel* - and 4/3 pixels in anything like the count that Canon are achieving in FF or even APS size *are* tiny. You are stuck between a rock and a hard place - diffraction optics or noisy pixels. 4/3 is a toy format based on yesterdays technology limits. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >> Yes Canon is king of >> sensor low noise technology right now but the size of the sensor [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > noisy pixels. 4/3 is a toy format based on yesterdays technology > limits. Well, I think there are three effects here: - the size of the sensor (the capture area) determines the low-frequency signal-to-noise ratio (given everything else is equal). - the size of the pixels determines the frequency response (up to the lens limit). but - smaller pixels may be less efficient in capturing the available photons because the non-sensitive fraction (the backup electronics) may be a larger part of the nominal pixel area. Personally, I see room for both full-frame and 4/3, depending on what the user wants, although I find the present implementation disappointing in that the size and weight are no better than 35mm. It is, perhaps, the cropped DSLR sensors which are the toys, stopping people using many of their existing wide-angle lenses to the full. David >>> But, as technology >>> advances, both formats will most probably advance further... and, at the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > critical printing requirement go for larger films. This physics is no > different for camera sensors. And all this applies equally well to medium format vs 35mm. Why did most people switch from 120/220 to 35mm 50 years ago? Because you could get good enough performance with a smaller camera with smaller lenses. Why did people switch from 8x10" or 4x5" view cameras to roll film 100 years ago? The historical trend over the last 100+ years has been to smaller sensor sizes with advances in technology. > And all this applies equally well to medium format vs 35mm. Why did most > people switch from 120/220 to 35mm 50 years ago? Because you could get > good enough performance with a smaller camera with smaller lenses. Exactly. SignatureStacey >>>> But, as technology >>>> advances, both formats will most probably advance further... and, at [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ago? The historical trend over the last 100+ years has been to smaller > sensor sizes with advances in technology. Sort of. Commercial and discerning photographers still shot MF and LF (and still do). How many pros who use 35mm will go down to 4:3? Not many at all. Don't forget that some people print LARGE. And 35mm was never enough and often MF was not enough. In a world (today) where there are serveral SLR makers at the "cropped" sizes (1.5 to 1.6) and one SLR maker at 4:3 for comparable prices, then the remaining benefit of the 4:3 is a more compact system and more limitation in light and print size. So, let the market decide as it did back then. The compactness offered by an Oly 4/3 v. a 35mm sized DSLR is marginal, whereas tween 120/200 and 35mm it is significant. Further, 35mm offers 36 frames v. 120's 12 ans 220's 20 (for 6x6, never mind wider formats where 120/220 looks even "worse" from a frame count POV making it less appealing still. Finally, assuming people even learn about Oly, they are still more likely to buy Canon and Nikon. Oly have a steep hill to climb. At least their still on it. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Noise trumps resolution at the limiting print sizes. I disagree. Some types of noise doesn't look bad while other types do. It's like film grain, some film has grain that isn't distracting while other types are. If shot RAW and developed with the right software, the "ugly" noise can be mostly eliminated and I'm not talking about using noise reduction... SignatureStacey >>Noise trumps resolution at the limiting print sizes. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > noise can be mostly eliminated and I'm not talking about using noise > reduction... While some kinds of grain do give an image a certain appealing look it has to be appropriate to the subject matter, the lighting and for that matter the intended viewer. There are many requirements in photography where the end print is required to be tack sharp and grain / noise free. In these cases, the larger sensor, with less noise, will print larger than an image from a smaller sensor. As said to you by others and myself in the past, smaller sensors, all other things being equal, will be noisier. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > The further into the future, the less important will those advantages > become, since technology keeps advancing for all types and sizes of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > need a DSLR anymore for ISO 3200, not even a sensor larger than 1/1.7". > FourThirds is already more than four times as large as that. Believe that if you want, but we are already there. Current sensors are photon noise limited at their quantum efficiencies, which are in the 30% range. A factor of 3 improvement is possible. Consider a 1D Mark II camera with a full well of 80,000 electrons. at ISO 50. The mid-histogram level for a standard image is ~20x less, so only 4000 electrons. Boost up to ISO 400 and the max signal is 13,300 electrons, and a mid-histogram of only 665 electrons. Now compare a smaller pixel camera, e.g. I have data for Canon S60 with 2.8 micron pixels and full well of 22000 electrons. At iso 50, the mid level histogram is 1100 electrons and at iso 400, it drops to 138 electrons. Photons are finite, and larger pixels collect more photons, and that will not change. See: Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter? Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter Roger >> The further into the future, the less important will those advantages >> become, since technology keeps advancing for all types and sizes of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > are photon noise limited at their quantum efficiencies, which are > in the 30% range. A factor of 3 improvement is possible. [...] I follow your arithmetic, but where does the Fuji F10/F11/F30 fit in there? If I extrapolate their results to FourThirds or to APS-C sized sensors, I arrive at 35 to 50 megapixels with only barely visible noise up to at least ISO 800. Cheers, Robert > I follow your arithmetic, but where does the Fuji F10/F11/F30 fit in > there? If I extrapolate their results to FourThirds or to APS-C sized > sensors, I arrive at 35 to 50 megapixels with only barely visible noise > up to at least ISO 800. I looked up the F30 and it has 2.9 micron pixel spacing. A general rule is a sensor's full well is 1000 times the area of the pixel (rough but usually within a factor of 2), so 2.9 microns is about 8.4 square microns, or about 8900 electrons, But small sensors seem to be doing better (I don't know why), so let's double it, and you get about 18,000 electrons, which is roughly similar to the S60 full well which has similarly sized pixels. Thus mid histogram would be about 18000/20 = 900 electrons at ISO 50, for a S/N ~ 30. At ISO 800, it would be only 7.5, plus degraded more by read noise. You may actually perceive higher S/N in tif converted images as the raw conversion process averages pixels, sacrificing spatial resolution. Interesting that you say you see barely visible noise at ISO 800 on a small pixel camera. I guess everyone has different standards. For me, noise in 1D Mark II images is too much at ISO 50, and this is one of the highest S/N cameras around, giving mid histogram ISO 50 S/N ~ 63. At ISO 800, that drops to ~18, and read noise is negligible at that level. In general, the larger pixels produce better images, but S/N scales linearly with pixel size, while cost does up faster (approximately), so everyone must decide where their trade point is of quality versus cost (and weight and bulk). For me, the cost, weight and bulk is worth it to get images like these: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/great.blue.herons.the.kiss .JZ3F8149.f-700.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3 F1314.b-700.html which I would not get from a F30, or non DSLR camera. With a small sensor camera I feel I could not make sharp 16x24 inch and larger prints that meet my standards. And besides, lugging around all the equipment helps keep me in shape ;-). Roger [] > I follow your arithmetic, but where does the Fuji F10/F11/F30 fit in > there? If I extrapolate their results to FourThirds or to APS-C sized [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Cheers, > Robert As far as I know, the supposed high-ISO performance of the Fuji sensors has never been satisfactorily explained, so we are left with Fuji "magic". Doesn't cut ice for me. I want to know the physics behind the improvement (if any). Cheers, David > [] > > I follow your arithmetic, but where does the Fuji F10/F11/F30 fit in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Doesn't cut ice for me. I want to know the physics behind the improvement > (if any). At one level, I certainly want an analytical understanding. At another level, I'm happy to use something if my experiences with it show that it works, even if I don't fully understand it (yet). (Currently using a Fuji S2 and a Fuji F11). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >At one level, I certainly want an analytical understanding. At >another level, I'm happy to use something if my experiences with it >show that it works, even if I don't fully understand it (yet). > >(Currently using a Fuji S2 and a Fuji F11). Where do you get the benefit? In the shadows? In the highlights? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >At one level, I certainly want an analytical understanding. At > >another level, I'm happy to use something if my experiences with it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Where do you get the benefit? In the shadows? In the highlights? If you're talking about noise, I notice it most in the midtones and dark areas. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> >At one level, I certainly want an analytical understanding. At >> >another level, I'm happy to use something if my experiences with it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If you're talking about noise, I notice it most in the midtones and >dark areas. I wish SOME reviewer would shoot some side by side images with the S3, Nikon D200, the Olympus E-330 and Canon's new D30, at all ISOs. -Rich > >> >At one level, I certainly want an analytical understanding. At > >> >another level, I'm happy to use something if my experiences with it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with the S3, Nikon D200, the Olympus E-330 and Canon's new > D30, at all ISOs. See www.dpreview.com -- although, over time, they've changed their sample photos for noise, but those are all pretty new and should be the same. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >>> >At one level, I certainly want an analytical understanding. At >>> >another level, I'm happy to use something if my experiences with it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >with the S3, Nikon D200, the Olympus E-330 and Canon's new >D30, at all ISOs. Real ISOs, too; not based on the camera's metering. There's probably at least a stop of variance in the metering of different cameras. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > I'm just starting to research DSLRs to replace my 25 years of investment in > the OM-2 system. My only experience with digital so far is a Cannon > PowerShot (which is wonderful for what it's designed to do). > > The one feature the Olympus E-series seems to have which nobody else does > is the sensor dust reduction system. How important is this is real life? Totally unimportant. Dust only shows up against bright, clear backgrounds where it is easily cloned out anyway. > Is dust a real problem? If you mean by that, will dust get on your sensor? Yes. > Does the dust reduction system really work? People who have the system say it does. > What do people with other systems do? They clean their sensors regularly, or they just ignore it. > Can you just clean the sensor with a soft brush? No. Well, maybe. But no. The Visible Dust sensor cleaning brush is really only a mascara brush, despite claims by the Visible Dust people to the contrary. Most brushes are contaminated with glues and/or more dust. I prefer the Copper Hill method, myself. http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/ccd_cleaning Camera manufacturers have all kinds of "Do Not Try This at Home" warnings about cleaning your sensor. Oddly enough, these warnings only appear in countries noted for a legal climate that is hostile to manufacturers. Everywhere else in the world the manufacturers sell their own branded sensor cleaning kits that are very similar to the Copper Hill method. > I'm just starting to research DSLRs to replace my 25 years of investment > in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The one feature the Olympus E-series seems to have which nobody else does > is the sensor dust reduction system. How important is this is real life? People with other camera systems say it doesn't work and isn't important, as they later explain the correct procedure for cleaning their sensor. > Does the dust reduction system really work? Yes it does. SignatureStacey > > I'm just starting to research DSLRs to replace my 25 years of investment > > in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > People with other camera systems say it doesn't work and isn't important, as > they later explain the correct procedure for cleaning their sensor. The reports I hear say it *does* work. I've cleaned my sensor on my Fuji S2 twice in the more than three years I've owned it, and spent somewhere close to half an hour over that time cloning dust specks out of pictures where they showed (I can spend more than 5 minutes, sometimes considerably more, cloning gunk from inadequately filtered water off of one single scanned image). In other words, dust on the sensor hasn't been a significant issue for me, but it's certainly required some attention from me. I probably should clean my sensor, oh, about *now* again. I change lenses casually, frequently, and not terribly carefully; basically exactly as I did when I was shooting film; I'm not being extra-specially-careful. So, for the kind and amount of work I do, I don't find that the Olympus dust shaking off system, assuming it worked 100% perfectly, would be a big improvement. Other people doing different kinds of work might have different experiences and opinions. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >>The one feature the Olympus E-series seems to have which nobody else does >>is the sensor dust reduction system. How important is this is real life? > > People with other camera systems say it doesn't work and isn't important, as > they later explain the correct procedure for cleaning their sensor. Most people with other camera systems are envious of the Oly dust reduction system and are quite happy to acknowledge that it works. What you don't seem to grasp is that we want the dust reduction system in our systems, not abandon our systems for Oly. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>The one feature the Olympus E-series seems to have which nobody else does >>>is the sensor dust reduction system. How important is this is real life? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What you don't seem to grasp is that we want the dust reduction system > in our systems, not abandon our systems for Oly. The question was from someone who isn't "abandoning" anything. :-) SignatureStacey >>>>The one feature the Olympus E-series seems to have which nobody else does >>>>is the sensor dust reduction system. How important is this is real life? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The question was from someone who isn't "abandoning" anything. :-) This is what you wrote and what I replied to: "People with other camera systems say it doesn't work and isn't important, as they later explain the correct procedure for cleaning their sensor." That is a false statement as I pointed out to you. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>>>The one feature the Olympus E-series seems to have which nobody else >>>>>does [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > That is a false statement as I pointed out to you. No it's not, they say this all the time. Sounds like sour grapes to me, why else would they say it isn't important or claim it doesn't work? SignatureStacey >>This is what you <Stacey> wrote and what I replied to: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No it's not, they say this all the time. Sounds like sour grapes to me, why > else would they say it isn't important or claim it doesn't work? You generalized about all other photographers erroneously, so you were wrong. I've always touted the Oly dust system and lamented its absence in other systems. Another poster has said essentially the same thing. While Oly have an admirable system, its upsides are not enough to move people to 4:3 and that is your "sour grapes". Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I'm just starting to research DSLRs to replace my 25 years of investment > in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > soft > brush? I've shot 70 weddings with an E1, and not one dust spot yet to worry about. I have yet to need to clean my sensor in the last 2 1/2 years. Patrick |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.