 |
 | 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 / April 2006Olympus Evolt-500 vs. these
Is the Olympus Evolt-500 an entry level SLR/pro-sumer? It is equivalent to which of these cameras, and is it a better value than them? KM 70D 6mp Canon Rebel XT(350D) 8mp Nikon D50 Pentax *ist DL - 6mp I like that the kit includes 2 lenses. However, not too many stores carry lenses for the Olympus, and their prices seem to be the same as for Canon lenses. Non-SLR cameras I am considering: Lumix FZ-30, Fuji FinePix S9000, Dimage A200, CANON PowerShot Pro1, Kodak P880. > Is the Olympus Evolt-500 an entry level SLR/pro-sumer? > It is equivalent to which of these cameras, The general opinion is that is where Oly was attempting to position the camera. > and is it a better value than them? > KM 70D 6mp > Canon Rebel XT(350D) 8mp > Nikon D50 > Pentax *ist DL - 6mp That you will get a very WIDE difference of opinions. (Based primarily on what particular camera manufacturer the responder likes or dislikes.) > I like that the kit includes 2 lenses. However, not too many stores > carry lenses > for the Olympus, Check any of the bigger stores. They all carry/stock Oly lenses. > Is the Olympus Evolt-500 an entry level SLR/pro-sumer? > It is equivalent to which of these cameras, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > carry lenses > for the Olympus, That's because there aren't very many lenses to carry. > and their prices seem to be the same as for Canon lenses. > > Non-SLR cameras I am considering: Lumix FZ-30, Fuji FinePix S9000, Dimage > A200, CANON PowerShot Pro1, Kodak P880. If you've got a list of non-DSLR cameras you're considering, then you probably don't need a DSLR. >> Is the Olympus Evolt-500 an entry level SLR/pro-sumer? >> It is equivalent to which of these cameras, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If you've got a list of non-DSLR cameras you're considering, then you > probably don't need a DSLR. or appreciate how much better they are than non dslrs. Image noise will be lower, response times will be faster, AF will be faster. There isn't an lcd viewfinder or screen that can match an optical viewfinder. Against dlrs are increased weight, lenses cost extra, unless you sacrifice quality with and even then you won't get the same range of focal lengths in the one lens. > Is the Olympus Evolt-500 an entry level SLR/pro-sumer? > It is equivalent to which of these cameras, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Non-SLR cameras I am considering: Lumix FZ-30, Fuji FinePix S9000, > Dimage A200, CANON PowerShot Pro1, Kodak P880. Best value is the 350D. What existing lenses, if any, do you have. If you do low light stuff or just indoor the km can be a bargain with its built in antishake system. All the others require buying lenses with antishake built into them so that adds roughly £200 per lens. Whereas its free on all the KM lenses you will buy. If you are considering the nikon D50 then also consider the km 5D. Mr.Bolshoyhuy: > Is the Olympus Evolt-500 an entry level SLR/pro-sumer? Yes, I think it is. But unlike most DSLR it uses the 4/3 sensor format, which is only half as big as the common APS format. Theoretically this should lead to a smaller camera and smaller lenses. In the end, the difference is not all that great. But if you appreciate small and light equipment and want the flexibility of DSLR, then the Olympus might be for your. Otherwise I would recommend getting a more popular DSLR system. With Canon, Nikon or even Pentax you have a much wider range of compatible lenses. The same is true for Minolta, but while lenses are generally rather cheap, the future of Minolta with Sony is kind of uncertain. If size is your main concern, then getting a compact digital may be better. While you can save some money that way, you also lose a lot of flexibility. Thomas > Mr.Bolshoyhuy: >> Is the Olympus Evolt-500 an entry level SLR/pro-sumer? > > Yes, I think it is. But unlike most DSLR it uses the 4/3 sensor format, > which is only half as big as the common APS format. Where did you study math to come up with that figure?  SignatureStacey Stacey: [me:] >> Yes, I think it is. But unlike most DSLR it uses the 4/3 sensor format, >> which is only half as big as the common APS format. > Where did you study math to come up with that figure? The Olympus senser is 17.3mm * 13mm or 225mm^2. The standard APS-C sensor is 23.5mm * 15.6mm or 369mm^2. This makes the Olympus sensor just over 60% the size of the APS-C sensor. Add in the fact that the the Olympus crops more pixels (at least than my Minolta), plus you have to crop the 4:3 format to 3:2 for most purposes (ok, this may be an old fashioned assumption, or maybe not?), and the effective areas are nearly exactly 1:2. Of course you can still get the E series, but you should also know what this means for your field of depth. Thomas > Stacey: > [me:] [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > purposes (ok, this may be an old fashioned assumption, or maybe not?), > and the effective areas are nearly exactly 1:2. Why would you crop to 3:2? The most common print sizes (8X10, 11X14,16X20) are very close to 4:3 not 3:2. When you consider this, there is only 1.5mm difference between these sensors, not 1/2 the size. I understand you want to make your sensor =bigger= but lets be realistic and think about how the end results are used by most people. SignatureStacey > Why would you crop to 3:2? The most common print sizes (8X10, 11X14,16X20) > are very close to 4:3 not 3:2. I'd bet a mint that the most common print size is 4 x6. By far. SignatureJohn McWilliams "Um, his vocabulary, like, uh, really, ah....... sucked." >> Why would you crop to 3:2? The most common print sizes (8X10, >> 11X14,16X20) >> are very close to 4:3 not 3:2. > > I'd bet a mint that the most common print size is 4 x6. By far. This is correct John but I think Stacey is talking about enlargements. Just trying to buy a 8'25" x 11.9" picture frame and see which size is the most popular. It probably doesn't matter much to people of the digital era but the bastardization of thousand year old standards by people trying to adapt their products to existing materials is really rotten and simply won't work in the long term. The first 35mm cameras were designed to use cheaply available film from aerial movie cameras after the war. Instead of use the existing frame proportion, they decided to use the film lengthwise and make a small, compact camera suitable for landscape photos. Call it a mini panorama proportion. While all this was going on, Professional photographers stuck with 8"x10", "Full plate" cameras. The 4"x5" 'Half plate" cameras for serious photography. The smaller sizes derived from that dimension formula, continue right now as the "perfect proportions" for a portrait. 645 67, even 4/3. Proportions devised by people who really did know about portraiture 1000 years ago. Any attempt now to try and make out a longer picture is somehow a better 'perfect proportion' is not going to work. It simply is not. The only flaw in the 4/3 system is the sensor density and it seems even that is soon to be overcome with organic sensors now in the development phase. So basically if all or the majority of your photography is going to be horizontal landscapes, buy a camera with proportions of the sensor to suit. If however, you take a lot of portraits, you'll get a larger image by not needing to crop off the ends to make a perfect proportion, buy an Olympus or similar. It is odd, don't you think? That P&S camera don't have 35mm proportion sensors. Stacey: [4:3 or 3:2] > [35mm] they decided to use the film lengthwise and make a small, compact camera suitable for landscape photos. Call it a mini panorama proportion. > While all this was going on, Professional photographers stuck with 8"x10" I agree that different areas of photografy have different "default" formats. This ranges from square medium format to 16:9 HDTV format. I would also agree that 4:3 is better as a portrait format. However, in landscape it looks rather dull, and that is probably the reason we have 3:2 and 16:9. If there was a 19:6 DSLR, I would be tempted to try it. I have used 4:3 digital cameras, and personally I was not impressed. Maybe I am too used to 3:2, because I have been taking slides for decades. Thomas >> Why would you crop to 3:2? The most common print sizes (8X10, >> 11X14,16X20) are very close to 4:3 not 3:2. > > I'd bet a mint that the most common print size is 4 x6. By far. And in a 4X6 print size are ANY of the dSLRs going to have problems with image quality? It's only in the larger sizes, which most of are close to 4:3, is where you need the extra pixels and image quality. SignatureStacey >>> Why would you crop to 3:2? The most common print sizes (8X10, >>> 11X14,16X20) are very close to 4:3 not 3:2. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > image quality? It's only in the larger sizes, which most of are close to > 4:3, is where you need the extra pixels and image quality. Heck, in 4x6, my little Casio holds its own... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Heck, in 4x6, my little Casio holds its own... Exactly. My 2MP nikon works great at that print size and even the 8X10's of the right subject matter aren't bad. SignatureStacey >> Mr.Bolshoyhuy: >>> Is the Olympus Evolt-500 an entry level SLR/pro-sumer? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Where did you study math to come up with that figure? In terms of the area of the sensor, he's about right. > Is the Olympus Evolt-500 an entry level SLR/pro-sumer? > It is equivalent to which of these cameras, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Non-SLR cameras I am considering: Lumix FZ-30, Fuji FinePix S9000, > Dimage A200, CANON PowerShot Pro1, Kodak P880. Hi, I'm very happy owner of E-500 and I wouldn't change it to any other camera. If you count potential cost of any other camera with lenses that have the same quality as these two bundled with E-500, the cost will be much higher. Body is just a small part of TCO of any system. And believe me, if you buy any lens from Zuiko Digital series it will have better quality then any competitive model for similar price. Maybe ZD line is not as long as Canon or Nikon, but it covers very wide range of focal length. And quality of entry-level cameras and ZD lenses is much better then in other systems. Besides that you can buy any camera and any lens and don't worry about possible problems with BF/FF - QA in Olympus is really highest class. If you would need more information about that camera and lenses - just send me a mail :-) Regards, Robert > Maybe ZD line is not as long as Canon or Nikon, but it covers very wide > range of focal length. And quality of entry-level cameras and ZD lenses is > much better then in other systems. > Besides that you can buy any camera and any lens and don't worry about > possible problems with BF/FF - QA in Olympus is really highest class. You're quite right Robert. With 16 lenses available from Olympus, 9 or 10 from Sigma, and a forthcoming series from Leica, users of the 4/3rds system needn't feel second to anyone. Indeed, since every one of Olympus' ZD lenses was actually designed for use on a digital camera, it's users of other brands who face compromises. Something you didn't mention is that, with just two, very highly regarded, fast, and affordable lenses (the 14-54/2.8 and the 50-200/2.8, an Olympus user can seamlessly cover a vast range of focal lengths. Add to that, the (admittedly expensive) 7-14mm lens, and you have a trio of lenses with a range no other brand can touch, with any number of lenses. Canon, for example has 7 or 8 lenses all beginning at 28mm of focal length. In a world of digital cameras, where most bodies add a "cropping factor", what the hell is the use of a 28mm lens? How does it make any sense to have so many lenses at such a useless focal length? Even for those Canon users with so-called "full-frame" sensors (sized to equal the now outdated 35mm film format - for who knows what reason) what use is a cheap, plastic 28-90mm f/4-5.6 lens? (Amazingly, Canon even put a USM motor into this piece of C#@&!) Yes, Canon's amazing lens selection. Amazingly outmoded perhaps. Nikon, some may argue, is a little closer to having a sensible approach to their lens selection. Rob With high end full frame Canons approaching (acutally, its beating) the resolution of medium format, you'll understand why having 'full frame' sensors in a traditional 35mm body is so beneficial. FF is a good objective, since its a larger sensor size footprint -- it allows for less pixel density, which results in less noise. It also gives 'head room' for MORE pixels, when the technology allows, in the same footprint. Finally, those who have great legacy 35mm 'full frame' oriented lenses, can work with the proportions they are used too. FF isn't for everyone, but i think its a better growth strategy than Nikons APS-sized sensor only. Canon offers both. So while i disagree with your statements about FF, I agree that Olympus has some great glass. Their lens lineup, while perhaps not as deep as Canon's or Nikon's, is no slouch and there's lots of options available. The only place I'd be a bit leary of buying Olympus would be if I'm doing some very long zoom/prime work, such as birding or long distance sports. >With high end full frame Canons approaching (acutally, its beating) the >resolution of medium format Only in your dreams, sadly. ;-) >>With high end full frame Canons approaching (acutally, its beating) the >>resolution of medium format > > Only in your dreams, sadly. > > ;-) Depends on what you define as medium format. 6x4.5, yes, 6x7 or 6x9, no. And it depends on what medium format film, too. Velvia, no, but others, probably, at least in the aforementioned 6x4.5. Don't forget, there's a full frame camera besides the 5D with more res, the 1Ds mkII. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>With high end full frame Canons approaching (acutally, its beating) the >>>resolution of medium format [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >probably, at least in the aforementioned 6x4.5. Don't forget, there's a >full frame camera besides the 5D with more res, the 1Ds mkII. Why not stick with the same kind of system? Beating MF digital, no! >>>With high end full frame Canons approaching (acutally, its beating) the >>>resolution of medium format [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Depends on what you define as medium format. 6x4.5, yes, 6x7 or 6x9, no. The problem is only a couple of lenses that have to be adapted can come close. It's like the old days when people used SUPER high end lenses, super fine grain film with the best technique to try to approach what could be done with average medium format stuff. SignatureStacey Having never shot with medium format, I should not throw out unqualified statements like I did above... you're right Skip that there's alot of film formats that qualify as 'medium format', and that my comment (implied about the 1Ds mkII) comes with numerous qualifications. When I made the comment, I was thinking about this particular (infamous) article: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml My point was: larger sensor = less noise and greater potential resolution. In this way, a 35mm sensor < 6x4.5 sensor < 6x7 sensor, etc, all things being equal. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >> Maybe ZD line is not as long as Canon or Nikon, but it covers very wide [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Amazingly outmoded perhaps. Nikon, some may argue, is a little closer to > having a sensible approach to their lens selection. You may argue that, if you are a devotee of an equally outmoded, and much more discredited, film format, APS. Sound familiar? That's the size chosen by many other DSLR mfrs. for their sensor. To say that a 35mm sensor is outmoded because it is old is like saying that four wheels on an auto is outmoded because that is old. After all, Daimler, among others, put four wheels on the ground in the 1880's, so that idea must be useless. Something is outmoded only if it doesn't work. Equally, to argue that a 28mm lens is irrelevant is like arguing that an 80mm is equally irrelevant, since that's the "normal" focal length on a 6x7cm camera, which, as we all know, is a format used by very few. (I hope the MF guys here note the sarcasm.) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > You may argue that, if you are a devotee of an equally outmoded, and much > more discredited, film format, APS. Sound familiar? That's the size > chosen by many other DSLR mfrs. for their sensor. To say that a 35mm > sensor is outmoded because it is old is like saying that four wheels on an > auto is outmoded because that is old. After all, Daimler, among others, > put four wheels on the ground in the 1880's, so that idea must be useless. The problem with your argument is the ratio for portraits and most enlargements is a ratio that far predates 35mm and film altogether. How many painting do you see done in 3:2? The ONLY reason they chose 3:2 is most 35mm SLR users would freak if they changed this. I suppose since I came from shooting 6X4.5 and 4X5 it seemed more natural to me? SignatureStacey >> You may argue that, if you are a devotee of an equally outmoded, and much >> more discredited, film format, APS. Sound familiar? That's the size [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > enlargements is a ratio that far predates 35mm and film altogether. How > many painting do you see done in 3:2? Stacey, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. APS uses the same ratio as 35mm. And I've not measured any of the paintings I've seen lately to check the ratio, have you? Besides, 4:3 is closer, but still misses 4:5... > The ONLY reason they chose 3:2 is most 35mm SLR users would freak if they > changed this. I suppose since I came from shooting 6X4.5 and 4X5 it seemed > more natural to me? Frankly, I don't care what ratio they use, but the 3:2 probably fit the image circle the lenses for 35mm were designed for. Oly, since they were designing lenses from the bottom up, had the option of using whatever ratio they wanted. I think they should have gone square, in my opinion. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Frankly, I don't care what ratio they use, but the 3:2 probably fit the > image circle the lenses for 35mm were designed for. Or the lens shades. > And I've not measured any of the paintings I've seen lately to check > the ratio, have you? FWIW, the standard sizes in the US are 5x7, 8x10, 9x12, 11x14, 12x16, 16x20, and 18x24. Which is to say, those are the sizes in which you can buy pre-stretched canvases, pre-cut boards, and ready-made frames. Larger sizes too, but I'm not as familiar with them, and I think people working in those sizes are less likely to simply use standard sizes than people working smaller. Anyhow, there are a variety of aspect ratios here, but none are any more elongated than 3:4, and several are more square. Note that while some of those are exactly 3:4, these are probably not as common as the others, perhaps in part because 3:4 is seen as being too elongated. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>> You may argue that, if you are a devotee of an equally outmoded, and much >>> more discredited, film format, APS. Sound familiar? That's the size [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >designing lenses from the bottom up, had the option of using whatever ratio >they wanted. I think they should have gone square, in my opinion. But the same lenses (er, because they produce a circular FOV) could accommodate a 3:2.66 image field very nicely. A pity to lose that 0.66 advantage, just to satisfy a now defunct 35mm FILM standard. -Rich >>Frankly, I don't care what ratio they use, but the 3:2 probably fit the >>image circle the lenses for 35mm were designed for. Oly, since they were [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 35mm FILM standard. > -Rich Off the top, Rich, it isn't defunct. You can still buy, process and show 35mm film. Tried that lately with APS. Rich? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>Frankly, I don't care what ratio they use, but the 3:2 probably fit the >>>image circle the lenses for 35mm were designed for. Oly, since they were [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Off the top, Rich, it isn't defunct. You can still buy, process and show >35mm film. Tried that lately with APS. Rich? There was no reason to make it some kind of standard for digital, none. Except that some disgruntled Canon owners still had old lenses and ancient photogs couldn't get their heads around change. Otherwise, we could have seen something else. What I would have liked to see is a square field with crop gratings indicating a choice for the user of the old format lines, just like some cameras have grid reticles for horizontal or verical alignment. That way, you could still have your 3:2, whatever, but the ability would be there to maximize the illumination circle of the lens. Sensors should be square. -Rich >>>>Frankly, I don't care what ratio they use, but the 3:2 probably fit the >>>>image circle the lenses for 35mm were designed for. Oly, since they [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > square. > -Rich Sheesh Rich, get out and take some pictures, will ya? Then you'll have to give this silliness a rest. That still doesn't change the fact that 35mm is not defunct. And you drop into insults, now, to try to disguise the fact that your point is lame. Those lenses would work as well, no matter the format, as long as the image circle would cover the sensor. Canon went to FF, or maintained it, because they had lenses that worked with it, and the capability to make sensors that size, a capability that, apparently, Nikon, Pentax, et al, lack. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>>>Frankly, I don't care what ratio they use, but the 3:2 probably fit the >>>>>image circle the lenses for 35mm were designed for. Oly, since they [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >capability to make sensors that size, a capability that, apparently, Nikon, >Pentax, et al, lack. My two main points stand; Legacy lens owners and a resistence to change kept the 35mm standard a standard, unlike with film, there is NO reason for it in digital, other than the two I mentioned. This is like the fact we've had NTSC television for 20 years longer than we should have. People HATE change, either because it scares them, or it COSTS them. -Rich > My two main points stand; Legacy lens owners and a resistence to > change kept the 35mm standard a standard, unlike with film, there is > NO reason for it in digital, other than the two I mentioned. This is > like the fact we've had NTSC television for 20 years longer than we > should have. People HATE change, either because it scares them, > or it COSTS them. Existing lenses are a good reason to make sensors no bigger than 35mm, but they're not a reason to make them actually that size; in fact, they seem to be a pretty good reason to make them a bit smaller. As for 3:2, why not? It's what people have been using in 35mm all along, and weren't complaining about. 4:3 sucks, and I'd have to crop every single picture I took if they went that way, which I firmly hope they never do. (Olympus already has, of course, but whatever.) Choosing some other ratio might cause problems we aren't even aware of -- I mean, if you make the frame *taller* than 35mm, you're using part of the image circle that was never used with those lenses before; would it universally work, or have designers from time to time allowed designs to chop off bits of it? And the lens hoods would be a problem, too. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> My two main points stand; Legacy lens owners and a resistence to >> change kept the 35mm standard a standard, unlike with film, there is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >single picture I took if they went that way, which I firmly hope they >never do. No chopping the sides of each picture that doesn't fit the questionable 3:2 frame? Still, it makes it easy, not having to worry about composing for 2 of the 3 planes of an image I guess. :) -Rich > No chopping the sides of each picture that doesn't fit the > questionable 3:2 frame? Questionable how? From an artistic standpoint, it's a matter of preference, so that doesn't really matter. I personally find 4:3 unappealing for horizontal composition, and like other shapes better for vertical. If you take the angle of the "usual print sizes", well, 3:2 matches 4x6 exactly, is close enough to 5x7 to fit nicely, and only becomes an issue with 8x10. 4:3 doesn't match any of them, but is also close to 5x7 from the other direction. So, 3:2 is "better" in that manner. But here's the thing. Who thought of those print sizes? Why in the heck are they what's commonly available? It doesn't even make any sense. They're all different shapes! I guess someone, somewhere, long ago, who made picture frames decided on those sizes for no good reason whatsoever. Then the people who made photo prints sized their prints to match the available frames. And now, here we are, complaining about the camera manufacturers not bowing to some arbitrary decision with no basis in anything, made by someone in a completely different industry? Why are we supposed to *care* about that? Why should we just live with the fact that as soon as you want a bigger print, the picture has to be a different shape? We shouldn't, of course. Nowadays you can get a lot of different sizes of prints, like 8x12, that make more sense. Why should we *still* think in terms of "4x6", "5x7", "8x10"? Who cares about them? They're strictly American anyway; what about the rest of the world? What about the ISO standard, 1.414:1? That's a nice shape. Maybe the sensors should be that shape, since it's at least used worldwide and is a standard, and is based on sound mathematical principles? Anyway, both 3:2 and 4:3 have been in wide use since at least the Middle Ages. I wouldn't define either one of them as "questionable". SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Jeremy Nixon: > We shouldn't, of course. Nowadays you can get a lot of different sizes > of prints, like 8x12, that make more sense. Why should we *still* think > in terms of "4x6", "5x7", "8x10"? Who cares about them? They're strictly > American anyway; what about the rest of the world? What about the ISO > standard, 1.414:1? That's a nice shape. I don't know. It is certainly extremely useful, especially as a system for paper sizes. But nice? No, I don't think so. For portrait I certainly prefer 4:3 or 5:4, which is closer to letter size than to A4. But for landscape there is only one thing that beats 3:2, and it is 16:9 :-) Concerning the print sizes: my prefered size is what they call 20x30cm, which is probably more like 8x12 inches (yep, the printing paper still comes in inches). We even have picture frames for this formal, although at bigger formats it gets more difficult to get anything but about 4:3. Thomas >> No chopping the sides of each picture that doesn't fit the >> questionable 3:2 frame? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >of prints, like 8x12, that make more sense. Why should we *still* think >in terms of "4x6", "5x7", "8x10"? Who cares about them? My point about 3:2 sensors exactly. A group with a vested interest in seeing 3:2 continue forced it on the camera makers. -Rich > My point about 3:2 sensors exactly. A group with a vested interest in > seeing 3:2 continue forced it on the camera makers. The only people I can think of who would have a vested interest in 3:2 would be photographers, the people whose interests *should* be considered. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> My point about 3:2 sensors exactly. A group with a vested interest in >> seeing 3:2 continue forced it on the camera makers. > >The only people I can think of who would have a vested interest in 3:2 >would be photographers, the people whose interests *should* be considered. The same retards who didn't like programmed cameras, didn't like autofocus, don't like live LCDs, etc, etc. Yeah, you really want to take your cues from Luddites when it comes to a piece of electronic equipment. -Rich > The same retards who didn't like programmed cameras, didn't like > autofocus, don't like live LCDs, etc, etc. Get back to us when you become a photographer. > Yeah, you really want to take your cues from Luddites when it comes to > a piece of electronic equipment. I *definitely* don't want to take any cues at all from anyone who looks at a camera as a "piece of electronic equipment". Such people are entirely irrelevant to photography. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> My two main points stand; Legacy lens owners and a resistence to >> change kept the 35mm standard a standard, unlike with film, there is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > work, or have designers from time to time allowed designs to chop off > bits of it? And the lens hoods would be a problem, too. At the moment most english photo albums are 6x4". To get uncropped digital images some printers do 6x4.5". Unfortunately getting an album that will accept them is proving difficult and therefore expensive. Also i have found that despite dividing A4 paper into 4 to get 6x4 prints is actually slightly smaller they are still too big to fit in a typical album. i have had to trim a few extra millimeters off so its more like 6x3.5". 5x7 seem to fit either format with minimal adjustment. > As for 3:2, why not? It's what people have been using in 35mm all along, > and weren't complaining about. 4:3 sucks, and I'd have to crop every [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > work, or have designers from time to time allowed designs to chop off > bits of it? And the lens hoods would be a problem, too. It would be easy to fit a square sensor of APS width in a DSLR but would cost significantly more. 4/3 could be done in the same image circle as APS and it would be just slightly taller, slightly narrower but it's only offered in significantly smaller size. >>>>>>Frankly, I don't care what ratio they use, but the 3:2 probably fit >>>>>>the [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > or it COSTS them. > -Rich Since the topic involved sensors that are SMALLER than 35mm, that "point" of yours is non existent. The so called "legacy" lenses work as well with the small sensors, and in most cases, better, than the lenses designed for those sensor. And the expense in R&D to design an entirely new line of lenses for a hypothetical sensor that is larger than 35mm would be monumental for a company like Canon, or Nikon, who have no history with larger formats. This myth that a bunch of whiny Canon lens owners forced Canon into making a full format 35mm sensor is just that, a myth. Face it, bub, you are just bumping your virtual gums, talking to hear the sound of your own voice. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>>>>>Frankly, I don't care what ratio they use, but the 3:2 probably fit >>>>>>>the [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Face it, bub, you are just bumping your virtual gums, talking to hear the > sound of your own voice. Large numbers of people wanting 35mm sensors is why canon made them. Cos people would buy them if they made it, providing it was affordable. The market was always there and kodak failed spectacularly and pulled out, image quality was abominable. It was also stupidly expensive. Most people bought the 1dsmkII cos of the sensor. The rest of the features were overkill. The 5D is selling quite well, a market segment all to itself. >>>>>>>Frankly, I don't care what ratio they use, but the 3:2 probably fit >>>>>>>the [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >Face it, bub, you are just bumping your virtual gums, talking to hear the >sound of your own voice. You think Canon flipped a coin? You don't seriously believe the prejudices of the 3:2 crowd had nothing to do with Canon and Nikon's decision? -Rich >>Since the topic involved sensors that are SMALLER than 35mm, that "point" >>of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > decision? > -Rich Take a reading comprehension course, and get back to us, will you? C, N, P and M had a considerable investment in existing glass that fit a 3:2 format. What incentive do any of them have to change? On the other hand, if any format they came up with fit the existing glass' image circle, what do any of the owners care? Smaller sensors are smaller sensors. To get a larger sensor than 35mm film would require re-engineering the entire product, body, mount and lenses. An investment in R&D that would be unjustified. Geez, Rich, you've hit a new low in illogical retorts. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>Since the topic involved sensors that are SMALLER than 35mm, that "point" >>>of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >mount and lenses. An investment in R&D that would be unjustified. >Geez, Rich, you've hit a new low in illogical retorts. The investment would only be unjustified if the product Canon or whoever turned out was no better on digitals than what they have now. The IDEA is to bring out lenses that can improve upon what you had before, not just to see how cheaply you can produce a lens. And it introducing new lenses that actually (heavens!) cost MONEY to design and build, then tell it it Zeiss, who made new lenses to sell to Nikon users. If Canon wants to, they can keep selling the same lenses they've had for years, comfortable in the fact the design costs have been amortized many years ago. Just like the Model T costs were for Ford. -Rich >>>>Since the topic involved sensors that are SMALLER than 35mm, that "point" >>>>of [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >The IDEA is to bring out lenses that can improve upon what you had >before, not just to see how cheaply you can produce a lens. What about MY investment, Rich? The incentive would have to be very high for me to justify another format change. I retired my OM -1n kit on the shelf when autofocus and a lightmeter became a worthwhile investment. I put my Nikon kit on the shelf when I decided to go digital. That occurred over a span of 30-years. The IDEA, for me, it to drag around a wagon until the wheels fall off. It isn't like buying the White Album again.... >And it introducing new lenses that actually (heavens!) cost MONEY >to design and build, then tell it it Zeiss, who made new lenses to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >amortized many years ago. Just like the Model T costs were for Ford. >-Rich Canon can be comfortable in the fact there is a viable market for their lenses. Ford can't say the same about the Model T. TR Perna condita delenda est >>>>>Since the topic involved sensors that are SMALLER than 35mm, that "point" >>>>>of [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >Canon can be comfortable in the fact there is a viable market for >their lenses. Ford can't say the same about the Model T. No, but they could about the ancient FOX body, which they kept making from 1979 until 2000. I think however even Canon will start producing lenses if not designed for other formats, designed to work better with their sensors, it's inevitable. -Rich >>>>>>Since the topic involved sensors that are SMALLER than 35mm, that "point" >>>>>>of [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >inevitable. >-Rich Rich, you ignored my response to your ridiculous position (that Canon abandon the 3:2 aspect and develop a new format) and started off on a whole 'nuther, equally ridiculous path. As for your new "prediction", the EF-S series is an example of Canon developing and producing lenses designed to work better with their sensors. And I think it is inevitable Canon will continue to deveolp and produce better lenses. Nikon, too. As for the Ford Fox platform, anything that made a T-Bird look like a Granada can't be considered a good thing. TR Perna condita delenda est If you read the reviews (on the web and magazines) you will find the E-500 is the best for your money. But you need to make sure your deal includes the 14-45 lens, or if you can afford it, the 14-54. Even the 14-45 is a better kit lens than the Canon offer, Don |
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.