ZenitE
newbie
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 31
Loc: Leicestershire
|
|
Now that Nikon has announced the D-700, a full frame 12.3 mil sensor, at £ 1,995 body only, It re-ignights the debate whether the 4/rds system can survive in this environment.We all know the 4/3rds System can produce great pictures, however, can the system improve upon the current technology so that the sensors on the E-3 can be as good as those on the Nikon and Canon equivilant Cameras, or do we wait for the "improved" E-3 sensor in 2009 . Olympus, I'd rather have the E-5 sooner than later !
--------------------
Journeyman photographer since 15, loves technology and photographic skill
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 488
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Oh no, full frame versus 4/3rds? We've only just swept up the last lot of blood stained wood shavings.  
Realistically, 4/3rds is never going to compete with FF in absolute image quality, but it is really a beast of a different nature and not one that is trying to compete with FF. Those who see not just the disadvantage but also the advantages in a smaller sensor will continue to show interest in 4/3rds. After all, 35mm became the most popular general use format with film in spite of the better quality available from medium and large format. It only maintained that position because it delivered the goods to a high enough standard for most purposes. If the same can be said of 4/3rds today, and I personally think it can, it will maintain its appeal to those who appreciate high quality miniaturised photography.
There has always been and will always be those who feel they need the ultimate in IQ available and are prepared to carry around with them whatever it takes to achieve that; and there are those who find they can achieve high (publishable) quality with a smaller format and who love it's portability as they find they have a decent camera with them more often. These are different markets which represent photographers with different strategic approaches to their photography and never the twain shall meet. That doesn't mean that 4/3rds manufacturers shouldn't try to improve performance and I have no doubt that technological advances will bring benefits to sensor performance generally across all formats.
In the end, doesn't there come a point where more and more performance is simply superfluous as it becomes undetectable due to the limitations of the human eye? I'm not saying we're there yet, but I don't think that mile post is a million miles away.
--------------------
Rob
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4444
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
In the end, doesn't there come a point where more and more performance is simply superfluous as it becomes undetectable due to the limitations of the human eye? I'm not saying we're there yet, but I don't think that mile post is a million miles away.
My eyes are pretty sharp (when I'm wearing the right glasses) but my Canon 5D with the "standard" 24-105 f/4L IS lens will resolve at least as much detail as I can see without optical aid when the zoom is set at 70mm or greater. And I've often used it, mounted on a telescope, to take images of comets which I can't see with the same telescope.
Photography, to me, is an extension of vision ... I'm simply not satisfied with image quality which is less than I can manage without the hardware.
Having said that, four thirds is not that all far behind - it's way, way ahead of the popular "grain of sand" compact & mobile phone cams. I see four thirds as a lightweight compact alternative to larger cameras, not as a direct competitor.
My personal opinion is that the E-3 (and the E-1 before it) are not adequate as competitors because they aren't light or compact enough, and that the "consumer" model Oly SLRs are hampered rather than helped by an excessive pixel count - I really like the image quality the 5MP sensor on the E-1 delivers. There's still time to deliver a product that consumers will love for its positive qualities, but attempting to compete with FF cameras on image quality terms alone is a recipe for disaster - it's a mismatch as bad as that between the bantamweight and heavyweight boxing world champions would be.
|
zuiko
Olympian...
Reged: 19/06/2006
Posts: 427
Loc: Norfolk.
|
|
In the same way that film developed over the years with finer detail the same will happen to sensor design . Photography is big enough church to accommodate all what ever size of sensor. Lets not forget marketing and advertising. How much quality do you really need? There a lot of FF hype out there. When was the last time a picture editor, competition judge or RPS assessor asked when looking at an image. Is it FF.? They don't because it doesn't matter, its the picture that counts.
David
--------------------
" ENCEFFC!" "ENNSEAEFFSEA!"" ENNCEFFC!" "ENNCEEFC!"
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1059
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Throughout the history of photography there have been different formats. Where a new format offers something not available before it has survived and even been successful. Leica introduced 35mm and its compact size and acceptable image quality carved out a place amongst the technical cameras and medium format. APS (film) didn't really offer any advantage over 35mm and died.
Regretably I feel the same is true with 4/3 and full frame. The 4/3s can be a little smaller than say the 5D, D700 or Sony FF (all of which have a detachable vertical grip) although the E3 isn't that small but the difference in image quality, for many, would make the difference not worthwhile.
Of course, for the present, it is APSc that is Olympus's competitor and there the difference is much less. However my personal opinion is that we will end up with compacts and full frames and possibly medium frames if Hasselblad do bring out a real 645 but that's not of interest to many.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36969
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
In the same way that film developed over the years with finer detail the same will happen to sensor design . Photography is big enough church to accommodate all what ever size of sensor. Lets not forget marketing and advertising. How much quality do you really need? There a lot of FF hype out there. When was the last time a picture editor, competition judge or RPS assessor asked when looking at an image. Is it FF.? They don't because it doesn't matter, its the picture that counts.
David
Yes and no - certainly some picture libraries (Getty springs to mind) have a list of approved cameras in much the same way as they used to not accept 35mm film, or only Velvia if they did. Are they right to? Well, that's up to them, really, but you have to assume that they know their business.
But for me, the reasons I prefer the larger format aren't really much to do with ultimate image quality (although that's nice), but more to do with the greater control I have over DOF effects and in particular, differential focus - and on the other hand, it's nice with a smaller format to have more DOF at times. There are strengths and weaknesses for most of the currently available sensor sizes (not sure that Canon's APS-H still has much validity, though) and it's really a case of selecting a format whose characteristics match your requirements best.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Repton
Mr Test Shot
Reged: 05/07/2005
Posts: 1759
|
|
...........just when you thought it was safe to ventuire back into Olyforum Forest!!!!! 
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4444
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
There are strengths and weaknesses for most of the currently available sensor sizes (not sure that Canon's APS-H still has much validity, though) and it's really a case of selecting a format whose characteristics match your requirements best.
I agree.
As for the APS-H sensor - the only cameras that have ever had it are great heavy expensive lumps (so no size, weight or cost advantage), they need lenses designed for full frame coverage, so what's the point? I wouldn't be at all surprised if they disappeared fairly soon.
Having said that, because of the sensor technology and the relatively large pixel size, the best low-light camera available at the moment is an APS-H model - the Canon 1D Mk III. (The full frame Nikon D3 appears better until you start looking at the raw data, not the usual software interpretation of it.) However the 5D is very nearly as good, is much lighter and considerably more affordable! Compromises ...
... which brings us back closer to the topic ... every camera is a compromise in some way, what different users require vary, what I (as an individual) require varies according to the subject ... there never will be one "universal" format, there's plenty of room for several - or even many - provided they each play to their individual strengths, not their opponents'.
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7170
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
But for me, the reasons I prefer the larger format aren't really much to do with ultimate image quality (although that's nice),.....
Ultimate image quality or just the best you can realistically afford and are willing to carry? I would have thought ultimate image quality still comes from digital formats much larger than FF (not that I can afford to find out either!).
Quote:
....but more to do with the greater control I have over DOF effects and in particular, differential focus.
Do you have or know of any images where this can be demonstrated clearly? I understand the theory about aperture values on full frame allowing for finer control and shallower DoF but when it comes to differential focus am not sure it's all that clear cut if you take into account the "telephoto effect" smaller formats have.
I can accept FF is better for shallow DoF but I'd need to see proof to accept that you're better off with FF for differential focus (i.e., sharp subject against a blurry background) to accept it as a practical advantage. APS-C (and I assume 4/3rds) is far more capable of differential focus than a compact!
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36969
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But for me, the reasons I prefer the larger format aren't really much to do with ultimate image quality (although that's nice),.....
Ultimate image quality or just the best you can realistically afford and are willing to carry? I would have thought ultimate image quality still comes from digital formats much larger than FF (not that I can afford to find out either!).
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply that I have ultimate image quality, simply that that wasn't the issue - lost a bit in pre-posting edits.
Quote:
....but more to do with the greater control I have over DOF effects and in particular, differential focus.
Do you have or know of any images where this can be demonstrated clearly? I understand the theory about aperture values on full frame allowing for finer control and shallower DoF but when it comes to differential focus am not sure it's all that clear cut if you take into account the "telephoto effect" smaller formats have.
I can accept FF is better for shallow DoF but I'd need to see proof to accept that you're better off with FF for differential focus (i.e., sharp subject against a blurry background) to accept it as a practical advantage. APS-C (and I assume 4/3rds) is far more capable of differential focus than a compact!
If you're using the same lens on different formats, then there's no advantage. However, in practice you use a greater focal length lens on full-frame than with a smaller format to get the same angle of view. I can't track anything down right now, but there is quite a diffence between a 50mm f1.4 on APS-C and an 85mm f1.4 on full-frame, for instance - I'll try and get round to posting some examples.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4444
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Do you have or know of any images where this can be demonstrated clearly? I understand the theory about aperture values on full frame allowing for finer control and shallower DoF but when it comes to differential focus am not sure it's all that clear cut if you take into account the "telephoto effect" smaller formats have.
Try this DOF calculator - which shows the effect very clearly, adjusting the circle of confusion appropriately for the format of the camera you select.
Whilst the extra DoF with small formats is not likely to be an embarassment when using tele lenses, if you need a combination of wide angle of view and differential focus then a large format has a clear advantage - sure, the angle of view of a 10mm four-thirds format lens is very similar to that of a 20mm full-frame lens, but the depth of focus is not, unless the aperture is opened two full stops.
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1059
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Quote:
if Hasselblad do bring out a real 645 but that's not of interest to many
Now history in the Phase One 60MP P65.
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7170
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
I just tried one.....APS-C wanted f/8 where FF wanted f/16 for (roughly) the same DoF and (roughly) the same AoV. Not a problem as you'll be hard pushed to find a lens that can't do f/8 or f/16.
To me selective or differential focus means carefully controlled DoF not shooting wide open...shooting wide open is usually for shallow DoF IMO. Yes there will be limits to how far you can go with differential focussing until you are shooting wide open on FF but you are likely to be shooting something very thin or something very small in the frame for me to consider it as differential focus rather than "just" shallow DoF.
Agreed about the wideangle bit...a 10-22 on APS-C isn't going to be able to match a 16-35/2.8 (unless they get the 10-22 down to f/1.7  ).
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36969
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Differential focus is nothing more nor less than controlled depth of field - the relative size of the subject really has nothing to do with it. It's not specifically a wide-open thing, but it's certainly not not a wide-open thing - depends on the subject. Certainly wide open would be a lot more common than f16 for the effect. *EDIT* Except for with macro, of course! 
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
Edited by Benchista (14/07/2008 16:04)
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7170
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
....Certainly wide open would be a lot more common than f16 for the effect.
Depends if you are shooting a butterfly 50cm away or a footballer 50m away. I think it may depend on what you want to shoot as to which format size is more suitable for differential focus.
EDIT - ah yes....was distracted by a tight pink jumper 
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
Edited by daft_biker (14/07/2008 16:17)
|
RogerMac
Yah Boo
Reged: 25/03/2007
Posts: 424
|
|
Just in case it helps here are two images taken from the same viewpoint but with with different focal lengths.
Of course DOF is itself subjective (Oh dear!) as a sharp image is much less tolerant of degradation than one that is a bit iffy.
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7170
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Roger, I can only see the pics as thumbnails at the mo but if you shot the same scene(same magnification) on two different lenses and at the same aperture DoF should be the same. Does DoF look the same in the shots?
Shooting the same scene on a larger format would mean shooting at a higher magnification and reduce the DoF for the same aperture so you would need to stop down more if you wanted the same DoF.
Changing focal length and shooting at the same magnification should just change the angle of view.
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
RogerMac
Yah Boo
Reged: 25/03/2007
Posts: 424
|
|
The images were in fact shot on the same lens the 100mm version is a crop from the center of the picture. In fact I believe that this is an accurate simulation of one image from 4/3 (the 100mm one) and the other from a FF sensor.
The two images very clearly show that the 200mm one has a much more blurred background and the main bloom (fuchsia) stands out clearly from the OOF hosta blooms. Although not intended as an exhibition shot I do prefer the simulated FF version (Oops!)
Edited by RogerMac (14/07/2008 19:21)
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2380
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Quote:
...shot on the same lens...
Nice shots, but now you've totally confused me...
And more seriously, I can't see how the FF simulation helps the argument either way in this instance.
Now, I'll just have to set up a subject possessing depth and shoot with both my 50mm and 100mm macro lenses - taking care to have the same linear field at the focal plane?
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7170
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Still got your 30D Malcolm? I was thinking more of a shot from FF and a shot from a smaller format both with the same lens, the subject the same size in the frame and the same DoF in each shot. No easy task! (This would mean shooting from further away and with a wider aperture when using the smaller format)
As a subject I guess a letter in large print would do....newspaper headline....cereal box....cover of AP....anything to hand
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
