Dpreview's review of Olympus E-300

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill Tuthill, Jan 14, 2005.

  1. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Nor is it difficult to find 8x12" frames, or 10x15", or 20x30" frames.
    Some labs optionally print 6x9" but I've never seen frames in that size.

    Most magazine formats require vertical mode for full-page pictures,
    but I don't know of many cameras that produce this layout by default.
    The only one I can think of is the Fuji GA-645 Zi (medium format).
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jan 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bill Tuthill

    rafe bustin Guest


    Two more comments:

    Images with a 3:2 ratio print nicely
    on metric paper sizes, eg A4, which
    is just a bit narrower and a bit longer
    than US letter size.

    Apropos frames, it's trivially easy
    to order custom frames on the 'net
    eg, from framesbymail.com.



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe bustin, Jan 20, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. My guess is that the people who tell you that lack of live preview is a deal
    killer are people who are too cheap to buy a dSLR and are looking for an
    excuse not to.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 20, 2005
  4. Bill Tuthill

    Stacey Guest

    Why print 4X6 and if you do, why buy a 8MP camera?

    How did you get a 3:2 to 5:4 without cropping 20% off the fame? THAT is an
    interesting trick!
     
    Stacey, Jan 20, 2005
  5. Bill Tuthill

    Stacey Guest

    Turns a 6MP camera into a 4.8MP one, makes an 8MP into a 6.4MP. Guess
    tossing 20% of the pixels isn't a big deal? I'd rather use the pixels I'm
    paying for since they seem to charge quite a bit for them? Why buy an 8MP
    camera if you can only use 6.4 of them in "normal" size prints?
     
    Stacey, Jan 20, 2005
  6. Bill Tuthill

    rafe bustin Guest


    Why crop? Just print a bit smaller, or
    use a paper size better suited to the image.

    From the sound of it, you'd rather throw
    away pixels than suffer white space on the
    print.

    Aren't you the one who used to sing the
    praises of contact-printed 8x10 film?



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe bustin, Jan 20, 2005
  7. I dunno, I suspect within 3 years, there will be a camera that has most of the
    attributes of a DSLR (multiple lenses, bigger sensor, higher ISO, etc.) but
    that uses an electronic viewfinder and has live preview/histogram, etc.
    Technically it won't be a DSLR, since there will be no 'reflex' part, but it
    will have all of the aspects of a DSLR other than that. There is some
    speculation that Panasonic may be the one that does it in the 4/3 form factor.

    There is certainly a large pent-up demand for such a camera. It will be
    interesting to watch the SLR/DSLR old guard encounter with such a beast. I
    believe each has advantages and disadvantages, and that they can co-exist.
     
    Michael Meissner, Jan 20, 2005
  8. Bill Tuthill

    Larry Guest

    I made this prediction myself, just a day or so ago (might have been in the
    DSLR group).

    I think it would be an interesting animal.
     
    Larry, Jan 20, 2005
  9. Bill Tuthill

    Paul Wylie Guest

    Let's see. First off, I didn't buy an 8 MP camera (well, I did, but I
    returned it and bought a 6 MP camera because the 8 MP camera was lousy).

    Second, 8x10s (and larger) are a little ungainly for things like snapshots
    that go in photo albums. And as much as I love the 8x10s we've printed,
    most of the frames we have are 4x6, and there isn't enough room in the
    house for as many 8x10 frames as there is for 4x6 frames.

    Third, sometimes, I find that in spite of my best efforts to compose the
    frame properly, the interesting part of the picture is a subset of the
    picture, and that subset gets more interesting when the photo is cropped.
    A higher resolution master image means I can crop more of the photo and
    still have a usable image (for printing, putting on the web, etc.).
    Unless your universe uses different arithmetic than mine, the percentage
    is roughly 16.67%, not 20%. Let's do the math, shall we?

    We'll restate the 3:2 ratio as 6:4 for comparison against the 5:4 ratio of
    the 8x10. With an object with a 6:4 aspect ratio, you clearly have
    one more unit of measurement than an object 5:4 ratio. You're not adding
    one to the 5 to get 6:4, though. You're subtracting it from the 6 to get
    5:4, and 1 divided by 6 is about 16.67%

    If you were going to print an 8x12, as opposed to an 8x10, it would be
    correct to say the 8x12 had 20% more photo area than the 8x10. But the
    8x10 has about 16.67% less area than the 8x12, not 20%

    So, is 16.67% an undue amount of area? Not in most cases. Even 20% isn't
    necessarily going to ruin a photo. Most of us aren't artists and don't
    frame our photos so that every possible pixel in every possible photo is
    carrying useful information that makes each photo better.

    For landscape and still life photography, I can understand the desire to
    get all of the image onto paper. As others have pointed out, many labs
    will print 8x12, and 8x12 frames are available, so a 3:2 ratio isn't a
    showstopper for landscape and still life photographers.

    My snapshots of my family aren't quite so well composed. Cropping is
    frequently necessary to turn a boring photo into something worth printing.
    In those cases, I'm not afraid to throw away 60% of the pixels in a photo,
    especially if I end up with a better photo by doing so.

    --Paul
    ** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
     
    Paul Wylie, Jan 20, 2005
  10. Bill Tuthill

    Stacey Guest

    They look funny framed with white space on the top and bottom, and no I'm
    thowing away very few with a 4:3 ratio sensor.
    Yep, but shooting 8X10 is a PITA. :)
     
    Stacey, Jan 21, 2005
  11. Bill Tuthill

    Stacey Guest

    Paul Wylie wrote:

    Whatever, 16.67% =is= an "undue amount of cropping" in my book. It's a lot
    closer to 20% than very little is! ;-)
     
    Stacey, Jan 21, 2005
  12. Bill Tuthill

    rafe bustin Guest


    With a 3:2 format I typically end up with
    an image area of 7" x 10.5" on a US Letter
    sized page.

    Put that in an 11x14" frame -- a very standard
    size -- and you end up with roughly 2" all
    around the image area. A good print deserves
    a mat. A mat cutter costs very little.

    You can get an 11x14" Neilsen (designer metal)
    frame kit for around $12 if you shop around.

    Or check out the MCS "Format" series, available
    at many department stores and crafts stores.
    11x14" size is typically around $4.00. They
    seem to be always "on sale" at AC Moore.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe bustin, Jan 21, 2005
  13. Bill Tuthill

    Ton Maas Guest

    So obviously the problem at hand is a matter of industrial paper
    formats. "Classical" print formats used to be based on the 3:4 ratio,
    whereas modern color print formats seem to follow the proportion of the
    35mm frame as a de facto "industry standard".

    Ton
     
    Ton Maas, Jan 21, 2005
  14. Bill Tuthill

    Ton Maas Guest

    Yes, the 3:4 ratio seems more "pleasing" to the eye in terms of
    composing a frame. Maybe there was some wisdom behind the "classic"
    print formats :)

    Ton
     
    Ton Maas, Jan 21, 2005
  15. Bill Tuthill

    Ton Maas Guest

    Not just a Greek problem. (Probably) everywhere there is a difference
    between the formats produced for darkroom printing (= the classical
    formats, like 13x18 cm) and the color prints coming from a lab (10x15
    cm). One follows the 3:4 ratio, the other 2:3.

    Ton
     
    Ton Maas, Jan 21, 2005
  16. Bill Tuthill

    Ton Maas Guest

    Just to add to the confusion: 8x10 paper is commonly referred to in
    Europe as 18x24. Somebody's juggling proportions here :)

    Ton
     
    Ton Maas, Jan 21, 2005
  17. Bill Tuthill

    Alfred Molon Guest

    But shouldn't 8x10" correspond to 20x25 cm ? If not, what is the real
    size of 8x10 paper ?
     
    Alfred Molon, Jan 21, 2005
  18. Hmmmm ... and you are allknowing?


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 21, 2005
  19. Then don't. Carry just a few. Personally I use almost
    always 28, 50 and 100 for my 35 mm SLR.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 21, 2005
  20. Correct 18x24 is not 8x10, they are different.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.