Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/07/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]i am with you mr. rabiner. from compact slr's like the OM-1, to the folding medium format cameras to the rolleiflex, engineers have done an amazing job of physically putting maximal light-sensitive area into a minimal volume of equipment. even in the film days in the 80's, this quest for compactness began to recidivate, as autofocus and motor winding became de rigeur, and the apogee of film dumbness (small negatives from great black puffy bloated bodies) was probably APS. with 4/3 cameras, i would think a normal lens should be about the size of a spool of thread. -rei On Jul20 22:46, 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 -- Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com Ridgewood, New Jersey