Even I'm impressed...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David J. Littleboy, Feb 18, 2005.

  1. Sheesh, I'm going to have to stop badmouthing the lack of fast lenses for
    the E300!

    The ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 14-35mm (35mm equiv: 28-70mm) 1:2.0 and ZUIKO DIGITAL
    ED 35-100mm (35mm equiv: 70-200mm) 1:2.0? are understood to be the world’s
    first? fully interchangeable lenses to feature an aperture of 1:2.0 across
    their entire zooming range. These two lenses give photographers the freedom
    to apply a 1:2.0 aperture from a wide-angle focal length of 14mm (35mm
    equiv: 28mm) to telephoto 100mm (35mm equiv: 200mm).

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021712oly_3new43lenses.asp

    We're finally seeing the advantage of the smaller format!

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David J. Littleboy

    BG250 Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:cv4au6$2ii$...
    >
    > Sheesh, I'm going to have to stop badmouthing the lack of fast lenses for
    > the E300!
    >
    > The ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 14-35mm (35mm equiv: 28-70mm) 1:2.0 and ZUIKO DIGITAL
    > ED 35-100mm (35mm equiv: 70-200mm) 1:2.0? are understood to be the

    world’s
    > first? fully interchangeable lenses to feature an aperture of 1:2.0 across
    > their entire zooming range. These two lenses give photographers the

    freedom
    > to apply a 1:2.0 aperture from a wide-angle focal length of 14mm (35mm
    > equiv: 28mm) to telephoto 100mm (35mm equiv: 200mm).
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021712oly_3new43lenses.asp
    >
    > We're finally seeing the advantage of the smaller format!
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >

    One advantage is allowing the use of lower ISOs since this format is not as
    clean as the other dSLRs. I have to wonder how far this system can go.
    Packing more megapixels on this smaller sensor will lead to noise issues.
    The APS sized sensors should be good to 12 MP. I doubt the Olympus sensor
    will handle this.

    One thing I don't get is the high price of the Olympus camera and lenses. If
    sensor size dictates the price of the SLR as many claim, The E300 should
    cost much less.
    bg
    bg
    BG250, Feb 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David J. Littleboy

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:01:47 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Sheesh, I'm going to have to stop badmouthing the lack of fast lenses for
    >the E300!
    >
    >The ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 14-35mm (35mm equiv: 28-70mm) 1:2.0 and ZUIKO DIGITAL
    >ED 35-100mm (35mm equiv: 70-200mm) 1:2.0? are understood to be the world’s
    >first? fully interchangeable lenses to feature an aperture of 1:2.0 across
    >their entire zooming range. These two lenses give photographers the freedom
    >to apply a 1:2.0 aperture from a wide-angle focal length of 14mm (35mm
    >equiv: 28mm) to telephoto 100mm (35mm equiv: 200mm).
    >
    >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021712oly_3new43lenses.asp
    >
    >We're finally seeing the advantage of the smaller format!



    Lemme get this straight. We miniaturized
    the entire "system" to accomodate the smaller
    sensor.

    But because its photosites are smaller, it's
    noisier at any given ISO. So now we need
    wider faster lenses to use lower ISO values..
    which bulks up the lenses.

    Back to square one, no?

    I think I'm going to sit out the next generation
    or two and see if they ever figure out how to
    cost-reduce the larger sensors.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe bustin, Feb 18, 2005
    #3
  4. "rafe bustin" <> wrote:
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Sheesh, I'm going to have to stop badmouthing the lack of fast lenses for
    > >the E300!
    > >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021712oly_3new43lenses.asp
    > >
    > >We're finally seeing the advantage of the smaller format!

    >
    > Lemme get this straight. We miniaturized
    > the entire "system" to accomodate the smaller
    > sensor.
    >
    > But because its photosites are smaller, it's
    > noisier at any given ISO. So now we need
    > wider faster lenses to use lower ISO values..
    > which bulks up the lenses.
    >
    > Back to square one, no?


    Yes, Rafe, that's my rant. You're going to owe me royalties if you want to
    use it.

    > I think I'm going to sit out the next generation
    > or two and see if they ever figure out how to
    > cost-reduce the larger sensors.


    My calculation is as follows. The geometric mean of US$900 (350D body) and
    US$10,000 (the latest generation of MF backs) is US$3000. The industry ought
    to be able to make a US$3000 full-frame camera. Today. Today's technology.

    So it's just a matter of time. Basically, as soon as the 1Dsmk2 market is
    saturated and demand drops off, we'll see a "3D" with that sensor in it. In
    the US$3000 ballpark.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 18, 2005
    #4
  5. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in
    news:cv525j$95m$:
    >
    > "rafe bustin" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I think I'm going to sit out the next generation or two and see if
    >> they ever figure out how to cost-reduce the larger sensors.

    >
    > My calculation is as follows. The geometric mean of US$900 (350D body)
    > and US$10,000 (the latest generation of MF backs) is US$3000. The
    > industry ought to be able to make a US$3000 full-frame camera. Today.
    > Today's technology.
    >
    > So it's just a matter of time. Basically, as soon as the 1Dsmk2 market
    > is saturated and demand drops off, we'll see a "3D" with that sensor
    > in it. In the US$3000 ballpark.


    I don't see where the geometric mean comes into the situation...

    The semiconductor yield curve is fairly well understood: there's a
    defectivity rate per unit area. The best defect density I know of is
    0.14, so let's use that.

    For the 300D, you get 66 die per wafer on an 8 inch wafer line. 37% of
    them work at this defectivity, so you get 24 working die. Each working
    die costs about $50 out of the fab (assuming the wafer costs $1000).

    For full frame, you get 23 die per wafer on the same 8 inch line. Only
    9.6% of them work (ouch), so you get 2 working die per wafer. Each
    working die costs $600 out of the fab.

    For medium format, odds are you don't get any working die per wafer. For
    48x36mm imager size at the above defectivity, then only 1.3% of them
    work and there are only 10 per wafer. The costs are not readily
    calcuable (presumably they start shipping defective ones and hope no-one
    complains when there's a group of totally dead pixels). So any mean
    between a camera containing one of these and one containing an APS
    imager is kind of meaningless.

    And that was the best defectivity I know of: odds are that imagers
    aren't made on that fab line and they've a worse defectivity. And that
    wafers for the imager process have greater than standard costs (in
    particular, the package they go into is going to hurt somewhat). And
    that there's some huge R&D cost to recover...

    1.3x format cameras are a lot more hopeful. 28x18mm imagers only cost
    $100 on the above assumptions.

    --Sophie with a semiconductor cost model to hand
    Sophie Wilson, Feb 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Sophie Wilson <> wrote in
    news:Xns9601A6D01D01Asophiewilson@130.133.1.4:

    > The semiconductor yield curve is fairly well understood: there's a
    > defectivity rate per unit area. The best defect density I know of is
    > 0.14, so let's use that.
    > ...


    Does your calculations assume that a sensor shall have no
    defects to work?

    There are defects on sensors that are shipped. And those
    sensors are working. They might have some dead pixels.


    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Feb 18, 2005
    #6
  7. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in
    news:cv4au6$2ii$:

    > Sheesh, I'm going to have to stop badmouthing the lack of fast lenses
    > for the E300!
    >
    > The ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 14-35mm (35mm equiv: 28-70mm) 1:2.0 and ZUIKO
    > DIGITAL ED 35-100mm (35mm equiv: 70-200mm) 1:2.0? are understood to be
    > the world’s first? fully interchangeable lenses to feature an
    > aperture of 1:2.0 across their entire zooming range. These two lenses
    > give photographers the freedom to apply a 1:2.0 aperture from a
    > wide-angle focal length of 14mm (35mm equiv: 28mm) to telephoto 100mm
    > (35mm equiv: 200mm).
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021712oly_3new43lenses.asp
    >
    > We're finally seeing the advantage of the smaller format!
    >


    Hmmm --- reading your post some times over and over again
    I tried to understand if this is sarcasm or not :)

    Of course - you need a big lens to gather lots of light.
    The smaller the sensor - the smaller F-stop number is needed
    to get the same system sensitivity.

    It is the diameter of the aperture that defines the amount
    of light that is gathered from the subject.


    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Feb 18, 2005
    #7
  8. David J. Littleboy

    TAFKAB Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:cv4au6$2ii$...
    >
    > Sheesh, I'm going to have to stop badmouthing the lack of fast lenses for
    > the E300!
    >
    > The ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 14-35mm (35mm equiv: 28-70mm) 1:2.0 and ZUIKO DIGITAL
    > ED 35-100mm (35mm equiv: 70-200mm) 1:2.0? are understood to be the
    > world’s
    > first? fully interchangeable lenses to feature an aperture of 1:2.0 across
    > their entire zooming range. These two lenses give photographers the
    > freedom
    > to apply a 1:2.0 aperture from a wide-angle focal length of 14mm (35mm
    > equiv: 28mm) to telephoto 100mm (35mm equiv: 200mm).
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021712oly_3new43lenses.asp
    >
    > We're finally seeing the advantage of the smaller format!


    Too bad we're not seeing the size and weight savings of the smaller format.
    The new Rebel is smaller and lighter, though.

    Seriously, I haven't seen anything from Oly that would convince me to buy
    into that system over a Nikon/Canon system. Where's the beef?

    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    TAFKAB, Feb 18, 2005
    #8
  9. David J. Littleboy

    Paul Wylie Guest

    Sophie Wilson <> wrote:
    [...]
    > For the 300D, you get 66 die per wafer on an 8 inch wafer line. 37% of
    > them work at this defectivity, so you get 24 working die. Each working
    > die costs about $50 out of the fab (assuming the wafer costs $1000).

    [...]

    I thought pretty much everybody had switched to 12" wafers these days.
    IIRC, there are big cost savings to using 12" wafers.

    --Paul
    ** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
    Paul Wylie, Feb 18, 2005
    #9
  10. David J. Littleboy

    Knild Guest

    "TAFKAB" <> wrote in message news:1ErRd.1

    > Seriously, I haven't seen anything from Oly that would convince me to buy
    > into that system over a Nikon/Canon system. Where's the beef?<



    Presumably, all gone - eaten by people who then developed Mad Cow Disease,
    and who are now on the point of spending thousands of dollars/pounds on a
    lens system for a the Four-Thirds format.
    Knild, Feb 18, 2005
    #10
  11. David J. Littleboy

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    > My calculation is as follows. The geometric mean of US$900 (350D body) and
    > US$10,000 (the latest generation of MF backs) is US$3000. The industry

    ought
    > to be able to make a US$3000 full-frame camera. Today. Today's technology.


    Actually, if they really wanted to, I truly believe that they could offer
    a full-frame camera today for $2,000 - perhaps a little less. But you have
    to remember, the goal of any company is not to give away everything it can
    possibly afford to, but to make as much money as it possibly can.

    steve
    Steve Wolfe, Feb 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Paul Wylie <> wrote in news:cv5h4k$i5f$2
    @reader2.panix.com:

    > Sophie Wilson <> wrote:
    > [...]
    >> For the 300D, you get 66 die per wafer on an 8 inch wafer line. 37% of
    >> them work at this defectivity, so you get 24 working die. Each working
    >> die costs about $50 out of the fab (assuming the wafer costs $1000).

    > [...]
    >
    > I thought pretty much everybody had switched to 12" wafers these days.
    > IIRC, there are big cost savings to using 12" wafers.


    Yes. But the problem is that the defectivity of the processes I know about
    on 300mm wafers is higher than the 0.14 on an old 8" line. So its not as
    good at making imagers, which are critically dependent on good defectivity
    - there's no way to (say) put in redundancy like is done with memory
    arrays. There's another problem: if you're using a dedicated line, you may
    not be able to afford the costs of 300mm equipment "just" for imagers. And
    currently the raw cost of a 12" wafer is larger. Certainly its something
    that might change in the future (e.g. when someone is decommissioning a
    300mm line!) and it does have benefits for the larger imagers (less
    wastage). [there's also some technical stuff with large reticles that isn't
    good for imagers on 300mm - the prime users of 300mm are making chips that
    just aren't very large compared to an imager (up to about 20mm on a side)]

    I had a go at introducing a new thing to the cost model - a 300mm process
    with a defectivity of 0.14 - but I simply don't know how much the wafer
    would cost (its clearly more than just area related since its harder to
    refine the silicon "rod"): I copied another process's 300mm wafer cost - it
    was high, so I used 2008's cost. It didn't pay off - you got 61 36x24mm
    imagers on the wafer, 9.6% of them worked (same defectivity) i.e. only 5
    and the final imager cost $830. Currently, defectivity of 300mm is higher
    than that, so I guess no one is doing this for imagers. It really is
    incredibly sensitive to this - the difference between 0.14 and 0.15 shows
    up (5.7% of 36x24mm imagers work at 0.15 defectivity - i.e. only 3 on the
    300mm wafer). If someone has a process skewed towards making imagers and
    can get the defectivity down, then they can clean up!

    --Sophie
    Sophie Wilson, Feb 18, 2005
    #12
  13. David J. Littleboy

    Skip M Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:cv525j$95m$...
    >
    > "rafe bustin" <> wrote:
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Sheesh, I'm going to have to stop badmouthing the lack of fast lenses
    >> >for
    >> >the E300!
    >> >
    >> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021712oly_3new43lenses.asp
    >> >
    >> >We're finally seeing the advantage of the smaller format!

    >>
    >> Lemme get this straight. We miniaturized
    >> the entire "system" to accomodate the smaller
    >> sensor.
    >>
    >> But because its photosites are smaller, it's
    >> noisier at any given ISO. So now we need
    >> wider faster lenses to use lower ISO values..
    >> which bulks up the lenses.
    >>
    >> Back to square one, no?

    >
    > Yes, Rafe, that's my rant. You're going to owe me royalties if you want to
    > use it.
    >
    >> I think I'm going to sit out the next generation
    >> or two and see if they ever figure out how to
    >> cost-reduce the larger sensors.

    >
    > My calculation is as follows. The geometric mean of US$900 (350D body) and
    > US$10,000 (the latest generation of MF backs) is US$3000. The industry
    > ought
    > to be able to make a US$3000 full-frame camera. Today. Today's technology.
    >
    > So it's just a matter of time. Basically, as soon as the 1Dsmk2 market is
    > saturated and demand drops off, we'll see a "3D" with that sensor in it.
    > In
    > the US$3000 ballpark.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    >

    What I can't figure out is why not use the old 1Ds' 11mp sensor in a "3D".
    The R&D has be amortized, put it in a slightly upgraded 20D or non upgraded
    1 series body, keep its frame rate at 3-4, raw burst rate under 20, jpeg at
    around 30, sell it for $3000 or so...or even the same price as a 1D mkII.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Feb 18, 2005
    #13
  14. "Sophie Wilson" <> wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in
    > > "rafe bustin" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I think I'm going to sit out the next generation or two and see if
    > >> they ever figure out how to cost-reduce the larger sensors.

    > >
    > > My calculation is as follows. The geometric mean of US$900 (350D body)
    > > and US$10,000 (the latest generation of MF backs) is US$3000. The
    > > industry ought to be able to make a US$3000 full-frame camera. Today.
    > > Today's technology.
    > >
    > > So it's just a matter of time. Basically, as soon as the 1Dsmk2 market
    > > is saturated and demand drops off, we'll see a "3D" with that sensor
    > > in it. In the US$3000 ballpark.

    >
    > I don't see where the geometric mean comes into the situation...


    It's a way of roughly estimating the cost of an intermediate product, given
    the endpoints. Linear is clearly wrong, since costs per unit area go up
    geometrically<g>.

    > The semiconductor yield curve is fairly well understood: there's a
    > defectivity rate per unit area. The best defect density I know of is
    > 0.14, so let's use that.
    >
    > For the 300D, you get 66 die per wafer on an 8 inch wafer line. 37% of
    > them work at this defectivity, so you get 24 working die. Each working
    > die costs about $50 out of the fab (assuming the wafer costs $1000).
    >
    > For full frame, you get 23 die per wafer on the same 8 inch line. Only
    > 9.6% of them work (ouch), so you get 2 working die per wafer. Each
    > working die costs $600 out of the fab.


    Sounds good to me. That means Canon can make a camera for _way_ under
    US$1500, sell it to suckers like me for US$3,000, and make a killing. Which
    is exactly what my estimate predicted.

    Hey, Canon! I've got US$3,000 sitting in a bank account waiting. Get your
    butts in gear!

    > For medium format, odds are you don't get any working die per wafer. For
    > 48x36mm imager size at the above defectivity, then only 1.3% of them
    > work and there are only 10 per wafer. The costs are not readily
    > calcuable (presumably they start shipping defective ones and hope no-one
    > complains when there's a group of totally dead pixels). So any mean
    > between a camera containing one of these and one containing an APS
    > imager is kind of meaningless.


    Well, the MF backs cost US$10,000. So they're obviously getting _some_
    working chips<g>.

    > And that was the best defectivity I know of: odds are that imagers
    > aren't made on that fab line and they've a worse defectivity.


    I'd think the imagers have much larger feature sizes than CPUs and DRAM, so
    the defectivity will be lower.

    > And that
    > wafers for the imager process have greater than standard costs (in
    > particular, the package they go into is going to hurt somewhat). And
    > that there's some huge R&D cost to recover...


    I'd bet that it's the huge R&D costs that hurt the most. Canon can't
    possibly be recovering those on the 1Ds and 1Dsmk2, so I'd think that at
    some point they'd have to produce a midrange camera with something more like
    a mass market.

    > 1.3x format cameras are a lot more hopeful. 28x18mm imagers only cost
    > $100 on the above assumptions.
    >
    > --Sophie with a semiconductor cost model to hand


    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 18, 2005
    #14
  15. "Skip M" <> wrote:
    > >

    > What I can't figure out is why not use the old 1Ds' 11mp sensor in a "3D".


    It's a dog. It's the noisiest sensor Canon has ever produced.

    > The R&D has be amortized, put it in a slightly upgraded 20D or non

    upgraded
    > 1 series body, keep its frame rate at 3-4, raw burst rate under 20, jpeg

    at
    > around 30, sell it for $3000 or so...or even the same price as a 1D mkII.


    Whatever. As long as they don't include a built-in grip so I can lift the
    damn thing.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 18, 2005
    #15
  16. "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9601C81FACB35klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in
    > news:cv4au6$2ii$:
    >
    > > Sheesh, I'm going to have to stop badmouthing the lack of fast lenses
    > > for the E300!
    > >
    > > The ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 14-35mm (35mm equiv: 28-70mm) 1:2.0 and ZUIKO
    > > DIGITAL ED 35-100mm (35mm equiv: 70-200mm) 1:2.0? are understood to be
    > > the world’s first? fully interchangeable lenses to feature an
    > > aperture of 1:2.0 across their entire zooming range. These two lenses
    > > give photographers the freedom to apply a 1:2.0 aperture from a
    > > wide-angle focal length of 14mm (35mm equiv: 28mm) to telephoto 100mm
    > > (35mm equiv: 200mm).
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021712oly_3new43lenses.asp
    > >
    > > We're finally seeing the advantage of the smaller format!
    > >

    >
    > Hmmm --- reading your post some times over and over again
    > I tried to understand if this is sarcasm or not :)


    It's not. The smaller sensor should allow faster, cheaper, and more extreme
    range zoom lenses. Oly finally coughed up.

    > Of course - you need a big lens to gather lots of light.
    > The smaller the sensor - the smaller F-stop number is needed
    > to get the same system sensitivity.


    Yes. That's what I've been saying about the E-1 and now E300 for a couple of
    years.

    > It is the diameter of the aperture that defines the amount
    > of light that is gathered from the subject.


    Uh, no. It's the diameter divided by the focal length. It's the size of the
    pixels that determines the sensitivity.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 18, 2005
    #16
  17. Brian C. Baird, Feb 18, 2005
    #17
  18. David J. Littleboy

    Lourens Smak Guest

    In article <cv5sdk$h5n$>,
    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

    > > Of course - you need a big lens to gather lots of light.
    > > The smaller the sensor - the smaller F-stop number is needed
    > > to get the same system sensitivity.

    >
    > Yes. That's what I've been saying about the E-1 and now E300 for a couple of
    > years.


    Actually it is a big sensor that NEEDS more light than a small one,
    because the same exposure will be spread out over a larger area, which
    reduces light-intensity quadratically. The aperture therefore NEEDS to
    be bigger to still get the same amount of light on the chip per sq. mm.

    If you move a lightbulb/slide-projector/camera-lens further away so it
    lights a four times larger area, you lose 2 stops. This is all very
    basic.

    Lourens
    Lourens Smak, Feb 19, 2005
    #18
  19. In article <>,
    says...
    > Actually it is a big sensor that NEEDS more light than a small one,
    > because the same exposure will be spread out over a larger area, which
    > reduces light-intensity quadratically. The aperture therefore NEEDS to
    > be bigger to still get the same amount of light on the chip per sq. mm.


    Uh, aperture is expressed as a ratio for a reason. F/2.8 is the same
    amount of light no matter what the format. So why even bother with this
    line of thought?
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian C. Baird, Feb 19, 2005
    #19
  20. "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > Actually it is a big sensor that NEEDS more light than a small one,
    > > because the same exposure will be spread out over a larger area, which
    > > reduces light-intensity quadratically. The aperture therefore NEEDS to
    > > be bigger to still get the same amount of light on the chip per sq. mm.

    >
    > Uh, aperture is expressed as a ratio for a reason. F/2.8 is the same
    > amount of light no matter what the format. So why even bother with this
    > line of thought?


    He has a point: the absolute size of the aperture for a "normal" f/2.0 lens
    on a 4/3 camera is 1/2 the absolute size of the aperture for a "normal"
    f/2.0 lens on a full-frame camera. So there could be as much as a factor of
    _eight_ difference in weight.

    Where the 4/3 partizans are misleading in their claims is that the format
    multiplier from 4/3 to APS-C isn't 2.0, but 1.2. So the difference is pretty
    small. A 25mm f/1.4 lens on the Oly would be only a tad smaller/lighter than
    the Stigma 30/1.4.

    By the way, 4/3 _is_ a good idea. Larger formats always provide better
    performance, and smaller formats always are cheaper, lighter, and more
    convenient. And since there's an enormous gaping hole between 15x23 and
    6.6x8.8, it makes sense that a camera in that space would be cheaper,
    lighter, and more convenient than APS-C and better quality than the consumer
    dcams. (Unfortunately, Oly hasn't coughed up on the cheaper/lighter bit, and
    only now is coughing up on the more convenient bit.)

    By the way, the reason the 4/3 cameras have such lousy noise is not so much
    the format as the fact that Canon makes better sensors than Kodak
    (FillFactory).

    My objections to 4/3 are (1) the claim that it's just as good or better as
    APS-C. That's simply wrong. And (2) that spending that kind of money on
    lenses for a system that has no upgrade path is a waste of money.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 19, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Um9uYXRob3NwaWNl?=

    IMPRESSED!!!

    =?Utf-8?B?Um9uYXRob3NwaWNl?=, Oct 22, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    875
    The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere
    Oct 25, 2004
  2. demi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    755
  3. demi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,029
  4. Newcomer
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    721
    G. Morgan
    Nov 15, 2009
  5. Newcomer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    477
    Newcomer
    Nov 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page