E620 Dynamic Range

[elgkh]

Aaarrrghhh. OT far far already. :sticktong

Any links to real world comparisons of DR? Maybe we can do it at the next outing?

 

[grantyale]

The irony is Olympus also quote equivalent focal lengths in 35mm format, without giving an overall picture of what the other equivalents are.

 

[george671]

Just a point here, and no offense to anyone, but we all tend to spend way to much time worring about specs on gear we may already own...Just be happy and keep on shooting! Most of the time folks will not even know or care what fancy electronic box (dslr) your pic came out of, they should just be admiring the picture....My gosh many of us still shoot film with fairly old 4 X 5 rigs and get pretty darn good results to boot... Heck I use some old Fuji S3 pro bodys and do not even worry about its specs...I just know how to get what I want with what ever camera I pick up... Its all in the light my friends!

Cheers
www.snakephoto.blogspot.com

 

[grantyale]

Aaarrrghhh. OT far far already. :sticktong

Any links to real world comparisons of DR? Maybe we can do it at the next outing?

The problem is, if one shoots JPEG with automatic tonal mapping turned off, such differences are difficult to see.

Even the new Nikon D7000 requires heavy-handed shadow lifting in raw processing to demonstrate its strength of 14-stop DR.

 

[Oly5050]

The irony is Olympus also quote equivalent focal lengths in 35mm format, without giving an overall picture of what the other equivalents are.

They have to do it because old photographers think in 35 mm FOV format. That is why, when the describe it, they will say it is a equivalent FOV. For eg, the 50 mm f2 is inscribed 50 mm f2 on the metal plate. But in description by reviewers, they will say equivalent FOV of 100mm. For eg. the 50-200 or the 70-300, will have stickers on the lens that say 100-400 mm FOV and 140-600 FOV. But the metal plate or inscribed numbers are 50-200 or 70-300 respectively. It is not an irony. They just acknowledge that people may not be aware and so stick on these stickers as an FYI. But really, a 14-54 mm on 4/3 is a 14-54 mm on the format. Just the FOV is double the number. Its actually quite easy to calculate versus 1.5 or 1.6 or 1.4. Give it enough time and if it lasts, one day, people will get it. But obviously not now. And another often misunderstood thing is that 50mm f2 is equivalent to a 100mm f2 in terms of exposure considerations. It is not 100 mm f4 or wahtever.

 

[grantyale]

Just a point here, and no offense to anyone, but we all tend to spend way to much time worring about specs on gear we may already own...Just be happy and keep on shooting! Most of the time folks will not even know or care what fancy electronic box (dslr) your pic came out of, they should just be admiring the picture....My gosh many of us still shoot film with fairly old 4 X 5 rigs and get pretty darn good results to boot... Heck I use some old Fuji S3 pro bodys and do not even worry about its specs...I just know how to get what I want with what ever camera I pick up... Its all in the light my friends!

Cheers
www.snakephoto.blogspot.com

That's easier said than done. Any hobby with an emphasis on gear is always filled with discussions trying to justify the individual choice of gear, especially when the gear of concern is not so popular. In such cases, tech and marketing sources are quoted to reinforce the sense of superiority, while counter arguments presented by others are dismissed, often without solid evidence to back.

 

[grantyale]

They have to do it because old photographers think in 35 mm FOV format. That is why, when the describe it, they will say it is a equivalent FOV. For eg, the 50 mm f2 is inscribed 50 mm f2 on the metal plate. But in description by reviewers, they will say equivalent FOV of 100mm. For eg. the 50-200 or the 70-300, will have stickers on the lens that say 100-400 mm FOV and 140-600 FOV. But the metal plate or inscribed numbers are 50-200 or 70-300 respectively. It is not an irony. They just acknowledge that people may not be aware and so stick on these stickers as an FYI. But really, a 14-54 mm on 4/3 is a 14-54 mm on the format. Just the FOV is double the number. Its actually quite easy to calculate versus 1.5 or 1.6 or 1.4. Give it enough time and if it lasts, one day, people will get it. But obviously not now. And another often misunderstood thing is that 50mm f2 is equivalent to a 100mm f2 in terms of exposure considerations. It is not 100 mm f4 or wahtever.

That is because ISO speed can be rated as one likes. :sweat:

 

[george671]

Your right...Many of us "old farts", myself included, call DX (3/4 frame), and 4/3 as 1/2 frame...Now just throw in medium format and 4 X 5 and most Digital (younger folks) will really get confused.

cheers

 

[george671]

That's easier said than done. Any hobby with an emphasis on gear is always filled with discussions trying to justify the individual choice of gear, especially when the gear of concern is not so popular. In such cases, tech and marketing sources are quoted to reinforce the sense of superiority, while counter arguments presented by others are dismissed, often without solid evidence to back.

Than maybe the emphasis should be more directed toward the end product (Photo's) than so much as how to get there...And by the way its a profession to may of us...Any way just see who is still using 4/3,,,I think one very famous Photographer comes to mind...John Issac...Nuff said..

 

[elgkh]

The problem is, if one shoots JPEG with automatic tonal mapping turned off, such differences are difficult to see.

Even the new Nikon D7000 requires heavy-handed shadow lifting in raw processing to demonstrate its strength of 14-stop DR.

I see - not something that occured to me before. Thanks!

And another often misunderstood thing is that 50mm f2 is equivalent to a 100mm f2 in terms of exposure considerations. It is not 100 mm f4 or wahtever.

Judging by the questions I have been asked, I think many people do not know or understand DOF.

Than maybe the emphasis should be more directed toward the end product (Photo's) than so much as how to get there...And by the way its a profession to may of us...Any way just see who is still using 4/3,,,I think one very famous Photographer comes to mind...John Issac...Nuff said..

This is a (mainly) tech forum, as is dpreview. I guess we talk more about tech cause its easier to quantify. When it comes to technique and end product though, I'd rather have a hands on session

I also think that most people who post here do get out and shoot. Just that they are posting when they're stuck in school/work/whatever

 

[Anthony Lee]

They have to do it because old photographers think in 35 mm FOV format. That is why, when the describe it, they will say it is a equivalent FOV. For eg, the 50 mm f2 is inscribed 50 mm f2 on the metal plate. But in description by reviewers, they will say equivalent FOV of 100mm. For eg. the 50-200 or the 70-300, will have stickers on the lens that say 100-400 mm FOV and 140-600 FOV. But the metal plate or inscribed numbers are 50-200 or 70-300 respectively. It is not an irony. They just acknowledge that people may not be aware and so stick on these stickers as an FYI. But really, a 14-54 mm on 4/3 is a 14-54 mm on the format. Just the FOV is double the number. Its actually quite easy to calculate versus 1.5 or 1.6 or 1.4. Give it enough time and if it lasts, one day, people will get it. But obviously not now. And another often misunderstood thing is that 50mm f2 is equivalent to a 100mm f2 in terms of exposure considerations. It is not 100 mm f4 or wahtever.

What's your FOV or AOV?

 

[pchmj]

LOL!!!

Well, it is not a cropped sensor because the image thru the lens and lens mount is not cropped at the sensor.

Yup I understand, just joking. Saying 4/3 is a crop is like selecting the whole of 12MP photo and crop it to 12MP. :bsmilie:

What I don't understand is why some insist 4/3 is a crop even when image through lens is not cropped on the sensor.

 

[diCam]

What I don't understand is why some insist 4/3 is a crop even when image through lens is not cropped on the sensor.

That is simply because people do not bother to find out, read and understand the topic. Even if they do and seems to understand it, some quarters still choose to live in a state of self denial. :bsmilie:

 

[NazgulKing]

I must have missed this, where was it?



I think the issue is not sensor size, but pixel density. 4/3rd sensors need to pack more pixels into a smaller area, to get the same resolution.

Well, that's the point. People like to wave the notion that large sensor is better, but the truth is pixel density has always mattered more. The Canon 7D pixel density is pretty damn close to the 4/3 system, and I think Canon uses clever image processing to overcome the DR issues etc.

 

[grantyale]

That is simply because people do not bother to find out, read and understand the topic. Even if they do and seems to understand it, some quarters still choose to live in a state of self denial. :bsmilie:

The image circle is smaller than 35mm. Subject to flange distance, one could mount a 35mm lens onto a 4/3 or m4/3 camera and get a complete picture from the sensor; while doing the reverse way will result in a black circle around the image on a 35mm sensor.

Some take "crop" as a negative word - it is not. It simply refers to the relationship of a photographic system to the 35mm format which has been so popular most of us think in its terms. A different crop ratio means a different compromise point on the surface of many camera design parameters.

 

[grantyale]

Well, that's the point. People like to wave the notion that large sensor is better, but the truth is pixel density has always mattered more. The Canon 7D pixel density is pretty damn close to the 4/3 system, and I think Canon uses clever image processing to overcome the DR issues etc.

That's an outdated myth. High pixel density does have its penalty, but when print SNR is of concern, having more pixels when semiconductor process allows is not a bad thing.

 

[NazgulKing]

That's an outdated myth. High pixel density does have its penalty, but when print SNR is of concern, having more pixels when semiconductor process allows is not a bad thing.

Which one? As it is, there are lots of myths being tossed around about which one is better.

AS it is, I am of the opinion that the image processing plays a fairly bigger role than what most people are willing to admit.

 

[grantyale]

Myths and opinions are only of interest when facts and understanding are missing.

 

[theITguy]

What full frame cropped frame? Anyone here tried 1100mm normal lens or 550mm wide angle lens?

 

[george671]

What full frame cropped frame? Anyone here tried 1100mm normal lens or 550mm wide angle lens?

No, but I use a 65 wide a 90 wide and a 135mm all on my 4X5 cameras...Ha Ha

www.snakephoto.blogspot.com