New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not Four Thirds!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/17/2010 4:41 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > SMS<> wrote:
    >
    >> People can change.

    >
    > People, yes. Slime molds and trolls? I doubt it.
    >
    >> Perhaps he'll eventually tire of his current shtick
    >> and decide to educate himself.

    >
    > It alreads is educated (as far as it can ever be). After all,
    > it uses DSLR pictures and claims they were done by P&S cameras.


    Not surprising.
     
    SMS, Sep 19, 2010
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    DanP Guest

    On Sep 14, 12:46 am, SMS <> wrote:

    > Probably every D-SLR owner has at least a couple of P&S digital cameras
    > as well, so they're well aware of the advantages of the D-SLR.


    Even more, there are DSLR owners who had a P&S first and felt a need
    for something better.
    Me included.

    DanP
     
    DanP, Sep 20, 2010
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 05:41:58 -0700 (PDT), DanP <>
    wrote:

    >On Sep 14, 12:46 am, SMS <> wrote:
    >
    >> Probably every D-SLR owner has at least a couple of P&S digital cameras
    >> as well, so they're well aware of the advantages of the D-SLR.

    >
    >Even more, there are DSLR owners who had a P&S first and felt a need
    >for something better.
    >Me included.
    >
    >DanP


    And yet it never did improve your photography. Admit it. It probably got
    even worse. The ONLY reason people buy DSLRs today is because they have
    been convinced it will make them into better photographers. When nothing
    could be further from the truth.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 20, 2010
    #23
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Superzooms Still Win <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 05:41:58 -0700 (PDT), DanP <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Sep 14, 12:46 am, SMS <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Probably every D-SLR owner has at least a couple of P&S digital cameras
    >>> as well, so they're well aware of the advantages of the D-SLR.

    >>
    >>Even more, there are DSLR owners who had a P&S first and felt a need
    >>for something better.
    >>Me included.

    >
    >And yet it never did improve your photography. Admit it. It probably got
    >even worse. The ONLY reason people buy DSLRs today is because they have
    >been convinced it will make them into better photographers. When nothing
    >could be further from the truth.



    For a camera user who wants to improve their photography, one of the
    best investments they could make is to buy some tuition.

    Instead, they end up spending much more money on a camera they cannot
    use which also gives them a lot of problems, due to the DSLR's
    comparatively very restricted shallow depth of field.
     
    Bruce, Sep 20, 2010
    #24
  5. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/20/2010 5:41 AM, DanP wrote:
    > On Sep 14, 12:46 am, SMS<> wrote:
    >
    >> Probably every D-SLR owner has at least a couple of P&S digital cameras
    >> as well, so they're well aware of the advantages of the D-SLR.

    >
    > Even more, there are DSLR owners who had a P&S first and felt a need
    > for something better.
    > Me included.


    Very true. There are very specific areas where a D-SLR is indispensable:

    -Low light, where a larger sensor with larger pixels are required.

    -High ISO, where a larger sensor with larger pixels are required for
    lower noise.

    -Action shots where fast AF is required

    -Shots where long telephotos or extreme wide angle is required (those
    adapter lenses for point and shoot cameras range from abysmal to mediocre).

    The perfect combination for me is a CHDK equipped P&S and an APS-C D-SLR.

    If our favorite troll saves up his money, he can buy a D-SLR too.
     
    SMS, Sep 20, 2010
    #25
  6. On 9/20/2010 9:23 AM, Bruce wrote:

    >
    > Instead, they end up spending much more money on a camera they cannot
    > use which also gives them a lot of problems, due to the DSLR's
    > comparatively very restricted shallow depth of field.
    >


    HUH??? dSLRs have adjustable diaphragms. Just increase the f-number to suit your taste.

    If you have the same angular field of view and the same same number
    of megapixels you will get the exact same image as a P&S with the same
    depth of field ... including the same diffraction problems and the
    same noise problems.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Sep 20, 2010
    #26
  7. Bruce

    Charles Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > For a camera user who wants to improve their photography, one of the
    > best investments they could make is to buy some tuition.
    >
    > Instead, they end up spending much more money on a camera they cannot
    > use which also gives them a lot of problems, due to the DSLR's
    > comparatively very restricted shallow depth of field.


    Sheesh. You need to follow your own advice about buying some
    tuition.....

    --
    Charles
     
    Charles, Sep 20, 2010
    #27
  8. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 20/09/2010 17:03, SMS wrote:
    > On 9/20/2010 5:41 AM, DanP wrote:
    >> On Sep 14, 12:46 am, SMS<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Probably every D-SLR owner has at least a couple of P&S digital cameras
    >>> as well, so they're well aware of the advantages of the D-SLR.

    >>
    >> Even more, there are DSLR owners who had a P&S first and felt a need
    >> for something better.
    >> Me included.

    >
    > Very true. There are very specific areas where a D-SLR is indispensable:
    >
    > -Low light, where a larger sensor with larger pixels are required.
    >
    > -High ISO, where a larger sensor with larger pixels are required for
    > lower noise.
    >
    > -Action shots where fast AF is required
    >
    > -Shots where long telephotos or extreme wide angle is required (those
    > adapter lenses for point and shoot cameras range from abysmal to mediocre).
    >


    I'll add one to this:

    - Good quality pictures


    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 20, 2010
    #28
  9. Re: New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not FourThirds!

    David J. Littleboy <> wrote:

    > But that assumes the same pixel count. Normally, you split the difference
    > and go for a higher pixel count. At which point (if you want the sharpness
    > implicit in the higher pixel count) you do lose DoF.


    Pixel count is quite irrelevant, interesting is only the final
    result. Unless the final result is always a 100% view of the
    image, regardless of the megapixel size and regardless that one
    will see only a tiny bit of the whole image. Hence the final
    result is usually:
    - a print of a given size (be it 4x6 inch or "fills the whole
    wall")
    - an image on the web of a given size (usually small, not more
    than 2 MPix)
    - an image on the monitor (usually small, usually not more than
    2 or 3 MPix)

    It's easy to show that
    a) a 20MPix sensor of a given type and state of the art has
    more per pixel noise than a 5MPix sensor of the same type
    and state of the art
    b) a print from said 20MPix sensor and 5MPix sensor is
    quite indistinguishable[1], as long as the print size
    doesn't cause pixelation in the 5MPix sensor's case.
    That assumes no overly drastic 'noise removal' in the
    20MPix sensor's case.

    Hence the inherent higher possible sharpness only matters when
    we come to prints where less MPixels pixelize already.

    > In general, larger format cameras are more awkward, harder to use, and a
    > pain in the butt, but the IQ is worth it.


    Try using a P&S for fast sports, then complain about the DSLR
    being harder to use. (OK, for even larger formats than 35mm you
    are probably right about the harder to use.)

    -Wolfgang

    [1] There's a bit more read noise in the 20MPix version, but
    except for extreme circumstances that won't matter
    visibly, as read noise rarely becomes visible.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 20, 2010
    #29
  10. Re: New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not FourThirds!

    David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
    >> David J. Littleboy <> wrote:


    >>> But that assumes the same pixel count. Normally, you split the difference
    >>> and go for a higher pixel count. At which point (if you want the
    >>> sharpness
    >>> implicit in the higher pixel count) you do lose DoF.


    >> Pixel count is quite irrelevant, interesting is only the final
    >> result. Unless the final result is always a 100% view of the
    >> image, regardless of the megapixel size and regardless that one
    >> will see only a tiny bit of the whole image.


    > In ivory-tower theory, yes.


    In real life the final result is interesting, not only in theory.In
    real life the final result is interesting, not only in theory.

    > But in real life, when you have a 21MP sensor,
    > you require 1.3 times the resolution than you do when you have a 12MP
    > sensor.


    Not if you print with essentially 12 MPix.

    Additionally, the resolution is determined by the sensor and the
    lens, with better sensors improving resolution in all cases (OK,
    not usefully with coke glass bottle bottoms).

    > If you didn't want larger/better prints, you wouldn't have upgraded.


    I've got a 20D and I would like to upgrade to a 5DII --- not
    for the added pixels, but for the increased ISO capabilities.
    Thus your statement is incomplete.

    > You forget that some of us actually make prints.


    If that's the final result, that matters.

    > And the DoF goes down due to the smaller CoC you now require.


    Nope. CoC is defined by the enlargement and the viewing distance.
    If you insist to print larger but keep the viewing distance
    the same, you get smaller CoCs, but they are not inherent to
    more pixels.

    >> Hence the final
    >> result is usually:
    >> - a print of a given size (be it 4x6 inch or "fills the whole
    >> wall")
    >> - an image on the web of a given size (usually small, not more
    >> than 2 MPix)
    >> - an image on the monitor (usually small, usually not more than
    >> 2 or 3 MPix)


    >> It's easy to show that
    >> a) a 20MPix sensor of a given type and state of the art has
    >> more per pixel noise than a 5MPix sensor of the same type
    >> and state of the art


    > But the "same type and state of the art is rarely true". The 12 and 21MP
    > cameras here are three years apart in technology, and have very similar
    > pixel noise.


    That, however, is another problem.

    > Also, at base ISO, for most dSLRs, it's not the shot noise but the analog
    > circuit noise that's the limiting factor, so dSLR noise at ISO 100 is pretty
    > much the same (10 or 11 stops of DR in RAW) for nearly every dSLR currently
    > made. And some P&S cameras get surprisingly close at ISO 50.


    Pixel noise or whole image noise? And yes, under ideal
    circumstances a P&S can do impressive things, but we don't buy
    DSLRs because we have ideal P&S circumstances in which we shoot.

    >> b) a print from said 20MPix sensor and 5MPix sensor is
    >> quite indistinguishable[1], as long as the print size
    >> doesn't cause pixelation in the 5MPix sensor's case.
    >> That assumes no overly drastic 'noise removal' in the
    >> 20MPix sensor's case.


    > At the standard print size here, 12x18, 21MP is significantly better than
    > 12MP. For landscape/cityscape work, the difference is appreciated.


    That's fine, then use 21MPix. Or switch to 60MPix :)

    12x18x300²=19.4M
    You'd probably gain something up to 27.5MPix (thank bayer)
    but nothing above at 300ppi.

    >> Hence the inherent higher possible sharpness only matters when
    >> we come to prints where less MPixels pixelize already.


    > It's not pixelization, it's improvement in detail and texture rendition.
    > "Pixelation" is only a problem with insanely stupid upsampling. Bicubic
    > smoother in Photoshop, or any of the even better methods in Qimage, to say
    > nothing of Genuine Fractals, all produce pixelation-free images at any size.


    Maybe pixelation wasn't the best word. You nailed what I
    meant.

    >>> In general, larger format cameras are more awkward, harder to use, and a
    >>> pain in the butt, but the IQ is worth it.


    >> Try using a P&S for fast sports, then complain about the DSLR
    >> being harder to use. (OK, for even larger formats than 35mm you
    >> are probably right about the harder to use.)


    > That's because P&S cameras are slower than molasses; if someone bothered to
    > make a P&S superzoom that had decent AF,


    If pigs had wings ...

    > it'd get used for sports and news
    > reporting, where the final image is 200x300 pixels or smaller.


    .... they'd fly.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 21, 2010
    #30
  11. Bruce

    John Turco Guest

    Kennedy McEwen wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > We like to think that electronics enables miniaturisation but, though
    > the Four-turds format is about the same size as a 110 frame,


    <edited>

    A digital camera must "flush" its frame buffer, also. That would be
    an exceedingly excremental feat, regarding your above description of
    a certain line of Olympus equipment.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Sep 25, 2010
    #31
  12. Bruce

    John Turco Guest

    Neil Harrington wrote:
    >
    > "Kennedy McEwen" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > [ . . . ]
    > >
    > > We like to think that electronics enables miniaturisation but, though the
    > > Four-turds format is about the same size as a 110 frame, Olympus has
    > > struggled to make their dSLR range as small as any of the OM full frame
    > > cameras. Meanwhile Minolta and Pentax managed to do this with a
    > > mechanical system back in the 70s, despite the extremely inefficient 110
    > > film cartridge packaging. Progress! :-(

    >
    > Yes. :-/
    >
    > Not only inefficient, the crummy (but universally marketed) 110 cartridge
    > effectively killed off all the other, mostly superior, ultraminiature
    > formats. There's nothing really wrong with having a cassette-to-cassette
    > system in one cartridge, but putting a cheesy plastic piece in there to
    > serve as a pressure plate was not very smart. (Of course they'd done the
    > same thing with their 126, which seriously limited otherwise serious
    > Instamatic cameras like the Retina Reflex in that film size.)
    >
    > Minolta did it the right way. I had one of the early Minolta 16s. The
    > Minolta cartridge was similar to (and previous to) the Kodak one except that
    > the pressure plate was in the camera where it belonged. The cartridges were
    > easy to handload from bulk 16mm movie stock, and I even had a cute (but
    > HOT!) little Minolta enlarger for it.



    You're slightly off base, Neil. The 126 frame was basically a squared-off
    35mm one; hence, it was pretty large and >would've< benefited from a true
    pressure plate (instead of a "cheesy plastic piece").

    On the other hand, 110 was significantly smaller. Its overwhelming woe,
    concerned grainy prints (for obvious reasons). Film-plane issues didn't
    even enter the picture (pun intended).

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Sep 25, 2010
    #32
    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. Paul D. Sullivan

    Is the Four-Thirds project the answer for DSLR's?

    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    675
    Mike Engles
    Aug 21, 2003
  2. Todd Walker

    Re: 300D as a 'Four Thirds' killer?

    Todd Walker, Aug 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,015
    Todd Walker
    Sep 16, 2003
  3. Alan Browne

    Re: 300D as a 'Four Thirds' killer?

    Alan Browne, Aug 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    334
    Lionel
    Aug 21, 2003
  4. Bernhard Mayer

    Re: 300D as a 'Four Thirds' killer?

    Bernhard Mayer, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    327
    Jim Townsend
    Aug 29, 2003
  5. Charles Schuler

    Four-thirds?

    Charles Schuler, Jul 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    254
    Views:
    5,174
    Brian C. Baird
    Jul 19, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page