Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/07/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Mark, whilst it is clear that bigger is better it seems to be inappropriate to compare a digital sensor to a piece of film of the same size. Even though the technology had not reached the streets yet Olympus believed that a 4/3 size digital sensor would at least match a frame of 35mm (Barnack size) film for quality. Whilst there are still loads of film shooters who love doing it, fair enough, there are only a tiny minority of people who stick to the idea that film equals or exceeds digital capture, and the data does not support them. Minox results are much worse than my P&S with the tiny sensor. So, if the level of quality you were satisfied with in film was 35mm then 4/3 probably matches that. OTOH I quite agree that the cameras were a bit big, but I presume that this was because of the reasoning which Olympus used from the outset with digital capture with telecentric lenses, which are (much) bigger and heavier than a conventional lens of the same focal length. They provided a relatively huge lens mount diameter to allow these lenses. This extreme position seems either to have been technically unnecessary, or unacceptable for marketing even if technically true, hence micro and all the recent small non-telecentric lenses. If normal style lenses are acceptable the 4/3 system should have the benefit of smaller lenses which are cheaper because of the smaller image circle. 4/3 may still become a smaller less expensive alternative, even though it certainly is not at the moment. Frank On 22 Jul, 2009, at 07:21, Mark Rabiner wrote: > Its all an output orientated equation. > If your prints and uploads are looking the way you want them to then > how off > could your gear decisions be? > But I'd try some larger formats though and make sure its ok to put > them down > and not be able to get those very high ISO's and more narrowly > selective > focus when you go back to the smaller formats. > > > I gotta say though I'm supposed to be the one with the narrow weird > opinion > but to me its like a bunch of guys wanting to shoot smaller than > half frame > cameras on the Leica list. Cause it is! What would Barnack say? What > would > HCB say? Something in German and French I guess neither would do me > any > good. > > Thing is in film the only thing smaller than half frame is Minox > 8x11mm. > So its pushing it me thinking of you as a bunch of Minox guys. > > > 4/3's is 13 x 17.3mm format > A 21.6mm LENS IS A NORMAL LENS FOR 4/3's!! > Why so small? > Are we saving silver? > Are we taping the camera to the visor of our baseball hat? > > Have the next crop of CCD trees not come to full size yet? > > > They can't make a pocket 1.5 crop camera? > > Sure they can they want you to buy the 2 times crops ones first. > Then upgrade to that new thing they just thought of. > Like that Sigma was supposed to be. > > I'm gonna wait. > > > > > > Mark William Rabiner > > > >> From: James Laird <digiratidoc at gmail.com> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:45:18 -0500 >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] 4/3's lens firmware updates >> >> I would humbly submit that format size and pixel count are not as >> important as that. I've got a five year old 5 megapixel P&S that >> takes >> better shots that the new 10 and 12 megapixel face-detecting >> high-definition, blah, blah P&S cameras do now. To me the big selling >> point of the micro system is I can use my Leica glass on a small, >> well-built camera WITH image stabilization without spending 6 grand. >> Sounds like fun to me. >> >> Jim > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information