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

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

  2. Bruce

    DanP Guest

    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. Advertisements

  3. 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


    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

    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. 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

    Sheesh. You need to follow your own advice about buying some
    tuition.....
     
    Charles, Sep 20, 2010
    #27
  8. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    I'll add one to this:

    - Good quality pictures
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 20, 2010
    #28
  9. 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.
    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. In real life the final result is interesting, not only in theory.In
    real life the final result is interesting, not only in theory.
    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).
    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.
    If that's the final result, that matters.
    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.
    That, however, is another problem.
    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.
    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.
    Maybe pixelation wasn't the best word. You nailed what I
    meant.
    If pigs had wings ...
    .... they'd fly.

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

    John Turco Guest

    Kennedy McEwen wrote:

    <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.
     
    John Turco, Sep 25, 2010
    #31
  12. Bruce

    John Turco Guest


    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).
     
    John Turco, Sep 25, 2010
    #32
    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.