Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: luminous-landscape\'s comments

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hobart, Australia
    Posts
    1,320
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    0
    Real Name
    Craig

    Default luminous-landscape\'s comments

    luminious-landscapes article
    I have recieved a couple of personal e-mails about the comments made on luminious landscape, and the \"slam\" against the 4/3 sensor.
    I have for the most part ignored them, and I am sorry if you were ignored, but i wanted to think about Michael\'s comments.
    I know that Michael is a much better photographer than I am. I respect his opinion a lot. I think though that the 4/3 system is not a dead end. In fact I have spent a lot of money in the past, and continue to spend a lot of money in support of the 4/3 system.
    Here is my take on the whole thing.
    If Olympus was not able to create a 7-14mm lens, that had very little distortion I would be worried. There would not be anything wider than a 11-22mm. But they did.
    Also Olympus has created a system from the ground up that is all digital. It is not based on the 35mm system. It is based on the new digital system.
    I never liked trying to think of how to frame a picture for 8x10. Now I only have to worry about thing how to crop for 4x6, If I care too.
    I really like many features that the 4/3 system give me.
    #1 the New, and soon to come F2 lenses. It is like shooting primes, in quality and speed (f-stop speed) in a zoom lens.
    #2 the problem of dust. I would probably be still shooting film with SLR camera\'s if olympus had not figured that problem out.
    #3 size. on the 35mm system to get a 3.5 400mm would be a HUGE peice of glass. No thanks.

    There are many things I want to see improved, but just as Micheal thinks that as technology improves so will Canon, so will it for the 4/3 system.
    I doubt that 1000\'s of photographers will one day sell all of there stuff for the 4/3 system. I know some will. But most of the guys I shoot with never will.
    However, they are also getting older, and a new generation is coming into its own.
    I would really like a camera that has a faster focus, More MP, and IS. But guess what at some point the 4/3 system will have this too.

    So if I were to look into my crystal ball, I would guess that the 4/3 system, will continue to grow.
    One last thing:
    A couple of people mentioned in the last quarter stock reports that Olympus was loosing money. Well if I remember right, so was Canon, and Kodak. Only Nikon came out a head.
    So lets not be to down cast. These guys have there opinion. I have mine, and you have yours.
    The most important thing is does the camera take great pictures?
    I know mine does.
    T
    P.S. Please don\'t use this forum to bash anyone, or any camera manufacturer. But I would be intrested in your thoughts.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    278
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re:luminous-landscape\'s comments

    When you post your opinion in an article for the world to read, you have to expect criticism and people disagreeing with you, and take it...you don\'t do name calling if someone disagrees with an opinion you posted. I don\'t know if LL has a forum or allow comments to be added to the articles, but people need a public outlet. Writing to authors usually end up with being ignored, or them telling you that you totally missed the point of the article.

    If you can\'t take other people\'s opinions criticizing yours, don\'t dish out your own. LL\'s tutorials are excellent, but I avoid his opinions becuase they are anti-Olympus. I\'ve met the man (might have some pictures somewhere) and he\'s very nice, and for the most part knowledgeable, but I could never agree with his equipment opinions, and didn\'t put myself in a position for that topic to come up when I was talking with him.

    This type of debate is nothing new, Ford vs. Chevy, PC vs. Mac, Palm vs. PPC, Beta vs. VHS, etc.

    I\'ve been trying to think what I would be using if it wasn\'t for the existance of the Olympus E-system...to me the dust free sensor was the most important issue...so I wouldn\'t have bought a Canon or a Nikon, or any other dSLR due to the dust issue...I would have probably bought the Panasonic FZ-30 because I had an Ultra-Zoom Olympus, and I liked the IS and the layout of the new Panasonic.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic
    Posts
    4,062
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re:luminous-landscape\'s comments

    Personally, I think many went quite overboard over MR’s comments. He’s said before that he has doubts over the format and simply re-iterated those thoughts. I don’t agree with him, and as I said in one comment, much depends on what one considers an evolutionary dead end.

    If one takes all the positives and negatives about 4/3s, I think the positives far outweigh the negatives and that’s based only on what’s available right now. Sure, as technology improves, it’s more than likely that we can gain more from the format, as will larger formats, but at what point can we say that the results begin to become a moot point? And at what stage do other factors start to influence what can be reasonably achieved?

    We know that the high end Olympus lenses are capable of handling far higher MPs than currently available; we also know that existing 35mm lenses from the other brands are already struggling to handle the current high MPs available on the 35mm format sensors. So who has the upper hand?

    At what level of print size does one say that enough is enough for all reasonable purposes? And one has to judge development against prints size; else we would have stopped at no more than 2MP on a P&S camera, for screen viewing. If one cannot distinguish say a 16”x20” print from a 4/3s vs 35mm sized sensor, do we begin to acknowledge that more is not really going to achieve all that much?

    MR often says that it’s not just the sensor or MPs that are important; it’s the ergonomics as well. A camera that you simply have to fight all the way is not going to be of any value. Without doubt the ergonomics of a 1Ds MKII are likely to be very good, but the trade off is significant size and weight. I doubt that MR would have tramped around the Grampians with the Canon equivalent of what I had with me last week, without significant assistance. Maybe not even with a 5D and the equivalent lenses (certainly not without his sensor brush).

    But I think the bashing going on (including those targeting Phil) is way off the mark and quite un-called for, and by me saying that, it’s not the ‘Pot calling the Kettle Black’. I can certainly be direct when someone mouths off at Olympus (products or marketing), but that’s when it’s an uninformed and self-obsessed nob that complains that Olympus hasn’t catered for ‘their’ personal needs out of the 6.5 billion people on this planet. When someone like MR makes a comment, I think that it needs to be debated in a somewhat more mature and balanced manner.

    Cheers

    Ray

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    2,340
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)

    Default Re:luminous-landscape\'s comments

    He is NOT better, he just has more experience. He also has quite a following of Canon \"sheep\" who, if he said anything was bad or he didn\'t like it, would agree.
    E-1
    E-5
    EP-3
    EPL-1
    EM-5
    Pen F
    M8.2
    M9-P
    M 240
    Dlux 109
    M-6
    Enuff lenses to supply the world.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    490
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)

    Default Re:luminous-landscape\'s comments

    My tuppence (\'two cents\'). We all have 4/3 outfits - for better or worse, we\'re committed to them in the short to medium term: enjoy them for as long as you don\'t want anything else...

    Den

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,181
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re:luminous-landscape\'s comments

    OzRay wrote:
    ...We know that the high end Olympus lenses are capable of handling far higher MPs than currently available; we also know that existing 35mm lenses from the other brands are already struggling to handle the current high MPs available on the 35mm format sensors. So who has the upper hand?...
    This is a salient point. However, the problem with legacy lenses and full-size sensors goes deeper. Digital image sensors need to receive the light straight on. If it strikes the sensor at an angle, it will cause color aberrations (CA) and vignetting. This is a problem even among the most expensive high-end lenses and it is worse the closer you get to the edge of the lens image circle. Wide angle lenses are said to have the greatest trouble in this regard. Smaller image sensors reduce this problem because they use only the center of the image circle but the problem still exists somewhat. In response, Adobe and other software companies have added special filters to try and reverse both the CA and vignetting problems.

    The ideal solution is to make lenses that direct the light to strike the image sensor head-on over its entire surface. That\'s a requirement of the 4/3rds standard and Olympus provided a large mount diameter to image circle diameter ratio to better facilitate this. But as far as I\'m aware Canon has not adopted a similar standard for its lenses with a full-size image circle and there are some very expensive lenses that have problems when used with a digital body like the 1Ds MkII or 5D.

    Further, the 4/3rds standard also corrects the image circle mismatch of dSLRs with APS image sensors and legacy lenses. All 4/3rds lenses have image circles that are matched to the size of the image sensor. In other words, the image is not cropped. Canon and Nikon have introduced a few \"digital\" lenses that are better matched to their APS sensors but the majority of their high-end glass is still in the legacy format.

    Therefore the bottom line is a mixed bag for a dSLR with a full-size sensor. On the plus side, they utilize the full image circle of a legacy lens and therefore better utilize the resolution of the lens. They can have larger pixels and theoretically lower noise (although this may not be true when the resolution is pushed really high). They also exhibit the same angle of view (AOV) and DOF characteristics per focal length as a 35mm film camera. On the minus side, they suffer from greater CA and increased vignetting.

    I chose the 4/3rds standard for my own use, not because of the E-1, although I bought one, but because of the lens system. They are outstanding. In the meantime I\'m waiting for the E-1 replacement.

    As MR acknowledged, image sensors and image processors will continue to improve. The big ones (like the full-size sensors) will always cost more. I believe that Olympus and the other members of the 4/3rds Consortium were looking to the future at what was possible and I believe that future 4/3-type sensors and processors will provide excellent resolution, increased dynamic range, and lower noise at high ISO. I know that I am counting on this or else I wouldn\'t have bought into the 4/3rds system no matter how good the lenses are.

    But there is one difference that will never be bridged. Cameras with smaller sensors will always have both a narrower AOV and a greater DOF than a 35mm film camera or a comparable dSLR with a full-size sensor. For some photographers (including me) this is a huge advantage. I shoot more with telephoto lenses than wide lenses and I want more DOF when I\'m using a large aperture in low light. Plus it is great to be able to carry a smaller lens for the same AOV and max aperture as I otherwise would with a similar legacy lens. For other photographers this will be a disadvantage. But I think they will be the smaller group and they will be able to choose a dSLR with a full-size sensor from Canon if they desire.

    Note: I avoided the use of the phrase \"full-frame\" sensor because it has two completely different meanings. Olympus calls its 4/3-type sensor a \"full-frame\" sensor because it is not interleaved (a big advantage) unlike the image sensors of most other digital cameras. This usage was popularized by the video industry many years ago. Most other camera manufacturers use \"full-frame\" to mean an image sensor that is the same size as a 35mm film frame. To avoid confusion I refer to the latter as a \"full-size\" sensor.

    Post edited by: First Light, at: 2005/10/05 22:33
    Best regards, FL

    Pursuing excellence...

Similar Threads

  1. Chit Chat luminous-landscape's 2nd opinion on the E-3
    By tspore in forum Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 12:56 PM
  2. Luminous Landscape Review E-3
    By Latemarch in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 08:56 AM
  3. E-3 field report on Luminous Landscape
    By bg2b in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-19-2008, 12:15 AM
  4. Vale Luminous Landscape
    By OzRay in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-05-2007, 10:48 AM
  5. The Luminous Landscape
    By OzRay in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-05-2006, 05:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •