Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Charles Schuler, Jul 14, 2004.

  1. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    Indeed, well at the centre of the image circle at least. So, are you
    saying that the Canon 300 f2.8 doesn’t?
    MarkH, Jul 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    Well, either me or you is confused about the definition of pixel pitch.

    My understanding is that the Canon sensor is the one with less noise and
    also has the larger pixel pitch. If it is not pixel pitch that makes the
    difference then the Canon sensor is just better. Either way I’ll stick
    with Canon, for now at least.
    MarkH, Jul 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles Schuler

    MarkH Guest

    I am happy for you to read the reviews of the Canon cameras and the Olympus
    and compare the noise levels of the Olympus with the Canon

    Had Olympus used the same technology to make a larger sensor then they
    could have produced a camera that had a higher resolution at the same noise
    levels. This isn’t a coincidence, this is a long established property of
    light. My point is similar to the view of large format film users, more
    area to gather light means more detail captured.

    If you are trying to say that the Olympus E-1 uses superior technology that
    provides better images with lower noise, then why doesn’t the results show
    MarkH, Jul 18, 2004
  4. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    The only in camera anti shake I know of is that of the announced but
    presently unreleased Minolta Maxxum 7D. Unless there were a couple of
    digital video cams that used it, Panasonic for some reason tickles my
    But to address why IS is better in lens than in camera, that's one more
    thing that can be considered occasionally redundant built into a camera,
    only lenses that need it, i.e. telephotos, for instance, would have it, wide
    lenses that don't, wouldn't.
    Skip M, Jul 18, 2004
  5. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    But how does it compare to the Canon 10D, the camera that it is priced
    closest to? That, too, is heftier than the 300D, with a metal/composite
    body, rather than plastic/composite.
    Skip M, Jul 18, 2004
  6. But the second or third time you buy a lens with IS in it, you start
    wishing you could have gotten it in the body instead.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 18, 2004
  7. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    The assumption fails because the Kodak 4/3 FFT-CCD sensor packs
    photodiodes more densely than others' sensors. (I haven't dug out the
    actual dimensions for both types, but it should be available.)

    And until I can find the numbers, I'm out of this thread. (Lots of
    transparencies to scan before I put the last of the film away for the
    final time, too.)
    Steve Hix, Jul 18, 2004
  8. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    But since other models (with smaller/lower pixel count sensors) are
    still selling and being used by all sorts of professionals...maybe it's
    not quite the simple slam-dunk you keep implying.

    Unless you want to argue that no pros are buying/using Nikon D1x, D2H,
    and D1H bodies, etc.
    Steve Hix, Jul 18, 2004
  9. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    It certainly introduced "new problems"; it required buying all new kit
    when it was introduced, there were only a handful of lenses available at
    introduction, etc. etc.

    Hmm. A lot of the same issues you bring up to argue that the 4/3 can't
    possibly find a useful niche.

    Let's see how things look three or four years down the line, what say?
    Check the beam in your own eye, first.
    Steve Hix, Jul 18, 2004
  10. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Hard to say, since they publish slightly different MTF charts, the Canon
    might be a bit sharper (perhaps), but it doesn't look like it's anywhere
    near twice as sharp.
    Steve Hix, Jul 18, 2004
  11. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Either we're both referring to active photodiode area per pixel...or
    we're off on different trails.
    Steve Hix, Jul 18, 2004
  12. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    And there you hit the nub of the issue.

    They did not *want* to introduce a product to compete exactly in the
    Nikon/Canon marketspace. That is a suckers game right off the bat.

    They had to find some way to differentiate themselves from the big guys
    (with a 20+ year head start); whether they can pull it off, we'll have
    to wait and see.
    Assuming that the detectors are close to exactly equivalent. (Sort of
    like comparing 6x6 using pushed Tri-X against a good 35mm using some
    extremely sharp, fine grain B&W film. Usually the bigger negative will
    win, but it isn't always by a huge margin, because there are factors at
    play beyond just the raw size of the negative.
    Steve Hix, Jul 18, 2004
  13. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Why? (Seriously. Does it add noticeably more weight, or is the price
    significantly higher?)

    I can see one potential problem with IS in the body; if it fails, you've
    lost it for all your lenses.

    I don't know how reliable Canon's IS lenses are; looking for that data
    somewhere like a might not be as useful as one might like,
    since those with problems are far more likely to sound out than those
    without problems. They're probably out taking pictures, and having a
    much better time.
    Steve Hix, Jul 18, 2004
  14. I'm assuming yes, and definitely yes.
    True. And that's exactly the sort of feature I might not have on the
    backup body.

    On the other hand, if it's broken on the lens I really want, then I'm
    going to be doing without it anyway.

    (I don't know that much about how the various IS/VR/whatever schemes
    work; I know Minolta has announced a camera with it in the body rather
    than the lenses, but I don't know if it works "the same way" or not.
    There could be reasons it's much easier to do in the lens.)
    I've never heard of one failing -- but it seems *very* unlikely none
    have ever failed. As you say, self-selected anecdotal reports don't
    tell us much.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 18, 2004
  15. Take a look at the 8 Mpixel P&S cameras (with the Sony sensor). You may
    find that those cells are even smaller. However, low light performance
    is quite bad compared to the 1Ds.

    If you look at the dpreview noise tests for the E-1, the trade-off is
    obvious: smaller cells at the expense of more noise. If you want a smaller
    camera at the expense of more noise, go ahead.
    Philip Homburg, Jul 18, 2004
  16. Charles Schuler

    Lourens Smak Guest

    A sensor that is 2 stops too small?.... yeah right. I think there is
    something fundamental here that you do not yet grasp, surface area isn't
    the only thing that determines chip-sensitivity, and it may not even be
    the most important thing.
    But an optimal cell size doesn't exist, to my knowledge; all
    manufacturers are working hard to make cell-size smaller (= to get a
    chip with more MP) which is a big hint.

    A faster CPU etc. is also needed because of the larger amount of data,
    so there is a chain of problems to solve.
    I think the 4/3 design has plenty of room to grow. 2/3 sensors are at
    8MP, which already would mean 32MP in 4/3 size. With that kind of MP,
    noise would be a problem to solve, but noise would also be less apparent
    in the image because of the huge numer of pixels. (similar to grain in
    medium-format). At the same time, a FFT-CCD would not suffer from colors
    going bad like with the brown/grey/muddy CMOS noise.
    Why not? it's not THAT good. It has more MP, which makes it the most
    desirable camera for many, but that doesn't really have to do with
    sensor-quality. A lot (like color accuracy etc.) is done in software

    Lourens Smak, Jul 18, 2004
  17. Charles Schuler

    Lourens Smak Guest


    Lourens Smak, Jul 18, 2004
  18. Charles Schuler

    Lourens Smak Guest

    What you mean is it has better in-camera noise reduction, which is
    something very different.

    Lourens Smak, Jul 18, 2004
  19. Charles Schuler

    Lourens Smak Guest

    Here's something I clipped from the web just this morning:
    Lourens Smak, Jul 18, 2004
  20. Charles Schuler

    Alfred Molon Guest

    At ISO 800 the E1 with noise filter enabled has the same noise levels as
    the 300D and D70 (all at 3.0). We can safely assume that the noise
    filter is activated by default on the D70 and 300D (no way to disable

    At lower ISOs the E1 with noise filter is less noisy than the D70 and
    slightly more noisy than the 300D.
    Alfred Molon, Jul 18, 2004
    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.