Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/07/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, if sharpness in a huge print is everything then we should all be shooting with medium format backs on tripod. I go to a lot of photo exhibitions and very often the most compelling images would fail on that score. I, for one, chose the Olympus as my "light-travel" camera because it is the smallest and lightest DSLR on the market and I had satisfied myself that its quality was up to snuff. Even at the high ISOs I still get better images than I did with film. And as for making a huge print--when you shoot something at f1.4 and 1/30 sec. handheld, then I think you have to limit your ambitions a bit anyway. I also liked the automatic dust removal system and, frankly, I liked the idea that by buying Olympus I was making a small contribution to the DSLR market not being completely dominated by two companies. Call it rooting for the underdog. As an added bonus, I can buy Leica lenses (or at least Leica-designed Panasonic lenses) for the 4/3 system, and I can put my 100mm Apo Macro on the Olympus if I wish, something that is impossible with the Nikon. Nathan Mark Rabiner wrote: > > On 7/20/07 9:40 PM, "G Hopkinson" <hoppyman@bigpond.net.au> typed: > > >> Mark the resolution is virtually the same despite the difference in sensor >> size. How the camera software and/or the user deals with >> noise and sharpening and ISO levels might be more significant than the >> physical sensor size. >> I absolutely agree with you that compact DSLR bodies are a welcome >> development. Even better with a compact prime on the front. >> Cheers >> Hoppy >> >> > > The big new dumb thing now is smallish cameras with huge glass on the front > to double the size. Leica a leading offender. People never get to > experience > how handy their body was designed. We need pancakes as usual. > > I disagree though on your saying the resolution is the same so what's the > difference. > > Both a Minox and a Rolleiflex are capable of making 16x20s. > Put the prints side by side and acreage counts big. > And its the same with digital capture. > Cameras are sold by their megapixels and the sensor size is often > impossible to unearth and we get sucked into it. > > This cutting of the APS-C format in half just to come up with a new thing > seems very arbitrary to me; the 4/3 format. But at least it stops wrong > minded people from trying to do serious work on point and shoots which > sensor sizes the size of regular 8 movie film. No offence Jim Shulman! > > Unfortunately is does not stop other not in the know buyers from trying to > do serious worth with a 4/3 which should be done with at least a APS-C. > > > With the APS-C format you have overkill in much uploading to galleries or > what not or much magazine or newspaper work but you DO have the option to > make really clear large inkjets. That option is open to you. That digital > to > analog conversion is encouraged. > I still say the proof is in the printing. > > Make a handier camera and the lack of blow-up-ability is worth it. > But are 4/3s handier than a D40 or smallest rebels? Hardly. > > And you cant even use the other guys "Leicas" glass without major caveats. > Which are hard to polish out. > > > > > Mark William Rabiner > Harlem, NY > > rabinergroup.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > -- Nathan Wajsman Almere, The Netherlands *Opportunistic Image Acquisition* General photography: http://www.frozenlight.eu http://www.nathanfoto.com http://www.greatpix.eu Picture-A-Week: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com Stock photography: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=507 Prints for sale: http://www.photodeluge.com Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUY DANISH PRODUCTS!