Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well one thing I find both amusing and revelatory about it is what it says about Putz's lack of understanding of pretty much anything having to do with photography in the real world. While I do not for a minute contend that the Olympus E-1 comes anywhere near the Canon D20 or EOS1DMK2 in terms of low noise level- would that it did!- to contend that the camera is " not usable at ISO 400 and higher and even excellent programs like Noise Ninja cannot cope with the massive noise the E-1 generates" shows a complete lack of understanding of what one gets when shooting film at high isos, to say nothing of digital. I have been using the E-1 almost exclusively for about two years now - shooting everything from street stuff to weddings, to a book jacket, to operating rooms - and I rarely use it below400 iso, and probably use it at 800 the majority of the time. At 800 I sometimes use Noise Ninja, but certainly not more than half the time - if that, although I always run it if I shoot at 1600 - and I have yet to have a client of any kind say "what's this noise?" or "why is this so 'dirty?' Or "what's with the grain." (Keep in mind that virtually everything I've posted at the gallery over the past year or more has been shot digitally, most with the E-1, some with even smaller sensor cameras that Erwin would rightly describe as really noisy, and yet only very rarely has anyone said anything about noise - and it's not as though there aren't people on this list who wouldn't love to criticize. ;-) ) What Erwin has revealed here is his view that for photography to be acceptable, images must be shot on the finest grain film available, in bright light. And while there is nothing wrong with shooting under those conditions, they hardly define photography. Now, will Olympus be able to reduce the noise generated by the small 4/3 sensor and will they be able to do so while going from a five to an 8-10-or 12 meg sensor? I wish I new. B. D.* *Reminder - I am sponsored by Olympus and get free equipment from them. On 6/25/05 7:08 AM, "Scott McLoughlin" <scott@adrenaline.com> wrote: > I could hardly follow this article. Bigger lenses? That's not what Oly > is claiming about their 4/3 sensor - right? > > Is he talking about sensor/negative format, or something particular to > digital sensors? If so, the evidence provided in the article is somewhat > shy compared to many of his other articles. > > Many folks prefer the performance of certain 135 format lenses on > APS-C sensors. The Nikkor 35/2 AFD comes to mind for example. > > Is Puts talking about some theoretical truth to which material > reality to which material reality has not yet caught up? > > I just couldn't quite follow this particular article, which rambled on > and on, and contradicted alot of "received wisdom" I've read to date. > > What am I missing? > > Scott > > animal wrote: > >> http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information