Olympus Evolt-500 vs. these

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Mar 23, 2006.

  1. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Tony Polson Guest


    Only in your dreams, sadly.

    ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Mar 31, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Skip M Guest

    Depends on what you define as medium format. 6x4.5, yes, 6x7 or 6x9, no.
    And it depends on what medium format film, too. Velvia, no, but others,
    probably, at least in the aforementioned 6x4.5. Don't forget, there's a
    full frame camera besides the 5D with more res, the 1Ds mkII.
     
    Skip M, Apr 1, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Skip M Guest

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    You may argue that, if you are a devotee of an equally outmoded, and much
    more discredited, film format, APS. Sound familiar? That's the size chosen
    by many other DSLR mfrs. for their sensor. To say that a 35mm sensor is
    outmoded because it is old is like saying that four wheels on an auto is
    outmoded because that is old. After all, Daimler, among others, put four
    wheels on the ground in the 1880's, so that idea must be useless. Something
    is outmoded only if it doesn't work. Equally, to argue that a 28mm lens is
    irrelevant is like arguing that an 80mm is equally irrelevant, since that's
    the "normal" focal length on a 6x7cm camera, which, as we all know, is a
    format used by very few. (I hope the MF guys here note the sarcasm.)
     
    Skip M, Apr 1, 2006
    #23
  4. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Rich Guest

    Why not stick with the same kind of system? Beating MF digital, no!
     
    Rich, Apr 1, 2006
    #24
  5. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Stacey Guest


    The problem is only a couple of lenses that have to be adapted can come
    close. It's like the old days when people used SUPER high end lenses, super
    fine grain film with the best technique to try to approach what could be
    done with average medium format stuff.
     
    Stacey, Apr 1, 2006
    #25
  6. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Stacey Guest

    The problem with your argument is the ratio for portraits and most
    enlargements is a ratio that far predates 35mm and film altogether. How
    many painting do you see done in 3:2?

    The ONLY reason they chose 3:2 is most 35mm SLR users would freak if they
    changed this. I suppose since I came from shooting 6X4.5 and 4X5 it seemed
    more natural to me?
     
    Stacey, Apr 1, 2006
    #26
  7. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    burnsdavidj Guest

    Having never shot with medium format, I should not throw out
    unqualified statements like I did above... you're right Skip that
    there's alot of film formats that qualify as 'medium format', and that
    my comment (implied about the 1Ds mkII) comes with numerous
    qualifications.

    When I made the comment, I was thinking about this particular
    (infamous) article:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

    My point was: larger sensor = less noise and greater potential
    resolution.

    In this way, a 35mm sensor < 6x4.5 sensor < 6x7 sensor, etc, all things
    being equal.
     
    burnsdavidj, Apr 3, 2006
    #27
  8. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Skip M Guest

    Stacey, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. APS uses the
    same ratio as 35mm. And I've not measured any of the paintings I've seen
    lately to check the ratio, have you? Besides, 4:3 is closer, but still
    misses 4:5...
    Frankly, I don't care what ratio they use, but the 3:2 probably fit the
    image circle the lenses for 35mm were designed for. Oly, since they were
    designing lenses from the bottom up, had the option of using whatever ratio
    they wanted. I think they should have gone square, in my opinion.
     
    Skip M, Apr 4, 2006
    #28
  9. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Paul Furman Guest

    Or the lens shades.
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 4, 2006
    #29
  10. And I've not measured any of the paintings I've seen lately to check
    FWIW, the standard sizes in the US are 5x7, 8x10, 9x12, 11x14, 12x16,
    16x20, and 18x24. Which is to say, those are the sizes in which you can
    buy pre-stretched canvases, pre-cut boards, and ready-made frames.
    Larger sizes too, but I'm not as familiar with them, and I think people
    working in those sizes are less likely to simply use standard sizes than
    people working smaller. Anyhow, there are a variety of aspect ratios
    here, but none are any more elongated than 3:4, and several are more
    square. Note that while some of those are exactly 3:4, these are
    probably not as common as the others, perhaps in part because 3:4 is
    seen as being too elongated.

    ---------------
    Marc Sabatella


    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    http://www.outsideshore.com/
     
    Marc Sabatella, Apr 4, 2006
    #30
  11. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Rich Guest

    But the same lenses (er, because they produce a circular FOV)
    could accommodate a 3:2.66 image field very nicely.
    A pity to lose that 0.66 advantage, just to satisfy a now defunct
    35mm FILM standard.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Apr 4, 2006
    #31
  12. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Skip M Guest

    Off the top, Rich, it isn't defunct. You can still buy, process and show
    35mm film. Tried that lately with APS. Rich?
     
    Skip M, Apr 5, 2006
    #32
  13. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Rich Guest

    There was no reason to make it some kind of standard for digital,
    none. Except that some disgruntled Canon owners still had old lenses
    and ancient photogs couldn't get their heads around change.
    Otherwise, we could have seen something else. What I would have liked
    to see is a square field with crop gratings indicating a choice for
    the user of the old format lines, just like some cameras have grid
    reticles for horizontal or verical alignment. That way, you could
    still have your 3:2, whatever, but the ability would be there to
    maximize the illumination circle of the lens. Sensors should be
    square.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Apr 5, 2006
    #33
  14. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Skip M Guest

    Sheesh Rich, get out and take some pictures, will ya? Then you'll have to
    give this silliness a rest. That still doesn't change the fact that 35mm is
    not defunct. And you drop into insults, now, to try to disguise the fact
    that your point is lame. Those lenses would work as well, no matter the
    format, as long as the image circle would cover the sensor. Canon went to
    FF, or maintained it, because they had lenses that worked with it, and the
    capability to make sensors that size, a capability that, apparently, Nikon,
    Pentax, et al, lack.
     
    Skip M, Apr 6, 2006
    #34
  15. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Rich Guest

    My two main points stand; Legacy lens owners and a resistence to
    change kept the 35mm standard a standard, unlike with film, there is
    NO reason for it in digital, other than the two I mentioned. This is
    like the fact we've had NTSC television for 20 years longer than we
    should have. People HATE change, either because it scares them,
    or it COSTS them.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Apr 7, 2006
    #35
  16. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Existing lenses are a good reason to make sensors no bigger than 35mm,
    but they're not a reason to make them actually that size; in fact, they
    seem to be a pretty good reason to make them a bit smaller.

    As for 3:2, why not? It's what people have been using in 35mm all along,
    and weren't complaining about. 4:3 sucks, and I'd have to crop every
    single picture I took if they went that way, which I firmly hope they
    never do. (Olympus already has, of course, but whatever.) Choosing
    some other ratio might cause problems we aren't even aware of -- I mean,
    if you make the frame *taller* than 35mm, you're using part of the image
    circle that was never used with those lenses before; would it universally
    work, or have designers from time to time allowed designs to chop off
    bits of it? And the lens hoods would be a problem, too.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Apr 8, 2006
    #36
  17. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Skip M Guest

    Since the topic involved sensors that are SMALLER than 35mm, that "point" of
    yours is non existent. The so called "legacy" lenses work as well with the
    small sensors, and in most cases, better, than the lenses designed for those
    sensor. And the expense in R&D to design an entirely new line of lenses for
    a hypothetical sensor that is larger than 35mm would be monumental for a
    company like Canon, or Nikon, who have no history with larger formats. This
    myth that a bunch of whiny Canon lens owners forced Canon into making a full
    format 35mm sensor is just that, a myth.
    Face it, bub, you are just bumping your virtual gums, talking to hear the
    sound of your own voice.
     
    Skip M, Apr 8, 2006
    #37
  18. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Rich Guest

    No chopping the sides of each picture that doesn't fit the
    questionable 3:2 frame? Still, it makes it easy, not having to worry
    about composing for 2 of the 3 planes of an image I guess. :)
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Apr 8, 2006
    #38
  19. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Questionable how? From an artistic standpoint, it's a matter of preference,
    so that doesn't really matter. I personally find 4:3 unappealing for
    horizontal composition, and like other shapes better for vertical.

    If you take the angle of the "usual print sizes", well, 3:2 matches 4x6
    exactly, is close enough to 5x7 to fit nicely, and only becomes an issue
    with 8x10. 4:3 doesn't match any of them, but is also close to 5x7 from
    the other direction. So, 3:2 is "better" in that manner.

    But here's the thing. Who thought of those print sizes? Why in the heck
    are they what's commonly available? It doesn't even make any sense. They're
    all different shapes! I guess someone, somewhere, long ago, who made picture
    frames decided on those sizes for no good reason whatsoever. Then the people
    who made photo prints sized their prints to match the available frames. And
    now, here we are, complaining about the camera manufacturers not bowing to
    some arbitrary decision with no basis in anything, made by someone in a
    completely different industry? Why are we supposed to *care* about that?
    Why should we just live with the fact that as soon as you want a bigger
    print, the picture has to be a different shape?

    We shouldn't, of course. Nowadays you can get a lot of different sizes
    of prints, like 8x12, that make more sense. Why should we *still* think
    in terms of "4x6", "5x7", "8x10"? Who cares about them? They're strictly
    American anyway; what about the rest of the world? What about the ISO
    standard, 1.414:1? That's a nice shape. Maybe the sensors should be
    that shape, since it's at least used worldwide and is a standard, and is
    based on sound mathematical principles?

    Anyway, both 3:2 and 4:3 have been in wide use since at least the Middle
    Ages. I wouldn't define either one of them as "questionable".
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Apr 8, 2006
    #39
  20. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Thomas Guest

    Jeremy Nixon:
    I don't know. It is certainly extremely useful, especially as a system
    for paper sizes. But nice? No, I don't think so. For portrait I
    certainly prefer 4:3 or 5:4, which is closer to letter size than to A4.
    But for landscape there is only one thing that beats 3:2, and it is
    16:9 :)

    Concerning the print sizes: my prefered size is what they call 20x30cm,
    which is probably more like 8x12 inches (yep, the printing paper still
    comes in inches). We even have picture frames for this formal, although
    at bigger formats it gets more difficult to get anything but about 4:3.


    Thomas
     
    Thomas, Apr 8, 2006
    #40
    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.