Oly E-510
- Thread starter dnaxe
- Start date
- Status
microcosm
Senior Member
Hey, I think you are stuck at the creative level and not with the equipment. We should get out for coffee sometime. I am buying the first round.
I'm just wondering if you practice what you appear to be preaching...
I don't see how selling your equipment will help you take better photos.
Anyhow, and almost the whole reason I asked, is to say - do consider all of the entries in the market when you next buy - if you don't have a need for fast telephoto lenses and you value portability, there's something to be said for the pentax system
:angel:
Sigh again...
No they are not of the same aperture, that's for sure. But you can't tell from a photo taken using them because the DOF and FOV are the same due to the sensor size difference. If that's all the same, what's so important about the number difference?
You can stick to your ideas, I can't convince you no further.
Well. Olympus still has the best dust sensor (apparently) but the live view in the 1Ds MKIII should be similar (no idea).
I'm certainly not saying that olympus is the camera you should get
(try them all!)I think that you will do better with -any- camera than no camera, it's not as if any of today's DSLRs are particularly bad.
Sigh again...
No they are not of the same aperture, that's for sure. But you can't tell from a photo taken using them because the DOF and FOV are the same due to the sensor size difference. If that's all the same, what's so important about the number difference?
You can stick to your ideas, I can't convince you no further.
Uh. So you're saying that you can take a picture with your 5D combination when on a four thirds sensor you need ISO 3200 and F/2?
That's the importance of the number difference.
I'm just wondering if you practice what you appear to be preaching...
I don't see how selling your equipment will help you take better photos.
Anyhow, and almost the whole reason I asked, is to say - do consider all of the entries in the market when you next buy - if you don't have a need for fast telephoto lenses and you value portability, there's something to be said for the pentax system
:angel:
I respected your request to state my equipments, fulfilling your curiosity, but that's not for you to comment on my personal decisions on buying or selling stuffs.
Since when Pentax is involved in the comparison? We can always discuss this at a new thread. :nono:
Please rephrase yourself.
bokeh ?
Well, that can be a point, but since the DOF is the same, I don't know how different the bokeh effect would be...
There's a possibility that bokeh is better for F/2 on 4/3 system compare to F/4 on full frame.
it's not jsut bokeh. they're all sorts of things different about the combination - e.g. ergonomics, colour curves.
hahah. no free speech?
This is the pentax forum...
So when we had all the way been discussing about 5D and 4/3, you can suddenly get pentax involed which doesn't make sense at all? :dunno:
Colour curves and ergonomics are all based on personal preferences. One can say 4/3 is better, others might prefer 5D.
We are now comparing technical datas.
=========================
I had already made my points very clear through the last 5 pages. It's up to the readers to decide.
This conversation is over.
To explain it in a different (hopefully more understandable) way:
An f/2 lens can take in more light than an f/4 lens, which means that the difference has to be made up by boosting the sensitivity (ISO) of the camera equipped with the f/4 lens.
So - using a 5D + 70-200/4 vs. the E-410 + 35-100/2:
If a specific shot needed ISO 1600 + 1/200 + f/2 on the E-410, you would need ISO 6400 + 1/200 + f/4 on the 5D.
I don't think ISO 6400 is available on the 5D.
Given your comment on bokeh, I was under the impression you were taking personal preferences into account.
bye? :devil:
Clockunder
New Member
When I first read this thread, I thought grantyale had it wrong by categorically saying that "It's not a 300/2.8 but a 300/4... and the 35-100/2 is a 70-200/4".
However in grantyale's subsequent clarifying posts, I began to understand what he was trying to say initially. He was not refering to the technical specifications of the lens but the Olympus system (lens + sensor) as a whole practically. Without his subsequent explanations, his initial posts were definitely very misleading as they were naturally taken at face value by readers who would assume that Grantyale was talking about mere technical specifications.
I agree with most of the points said by grantyale.
Think about this :
300/2.8 used on a Canon 5D vs 300/2.8 used on an Olympus DSLR.
To achieve the same composition, the Olympus DSLR user has to stand double the distance away for the same focal length. What is the effect of this double in distance on details resolution and light gathering on the sensor, keeping in mind that lens resolution decreases with subject distance and light falls proportionally with distance. Are we going to get the same shutter speed with the same ISO and aperture now between a 5D and an Olympus DSLR at 300/2.8 if the 5D is 10m away while the Olympus DSLR user is 20m away to get the same composition? What is the effect on FOV and DOF? If there is no major impact, might as well just get a compact point and shoot camera with a tiny sensor (1/2.5") where a 50mm lens would give you 300mm equivalent and 84mm lens would get you 500mm equivalent.
Of course, one may argue that the Olympus user should use 150mm instead of 300mm and then shoot at the same distance. Also, think about the effects on shutter speed and DOF. The light gathering ability of the 150/2.8 is not going to be the same as a 300/2.8 at the same shooting distance. The F number is afterall the aperture size relative to the focal length.
I now understand what he meant by saying ".. Think about it.." Apparently, at least to me, grantyale is speaking on a technical level higher than many forumers here are able to comprehend fully. If we don't think about it, we are missing many things and are blind following the blinds.
However in grantyale's subsequent clarifying posts, I began to understand what he was trying to say initially. He was not refering to the technical specifications of the lens but the Olympus system (lens + sensor) as a whole practically. Without his subsequent explanations, his initial posts were definitely very misleading as they were naturally taken at face value by readers who would assume that Grantyale was talking about mere technical specifications.
I agree with most of the points said by grantyale.
Think about this :
300/2.8 used on a Canon 5D vs 300/2.8 used on an Olympus DSLR.
To achieve the same composition, the Olympus DSLR user has to stand double the distance away for the same focal length. What is the effect of this double in distance on details resolution and light gathering on the sensor, keeping in mind that lens resolution decreases with subject distance and light falls proportionally with distance. Are we going to get the same shutter speed with the same ISO and aperture now between a 5D and an Olympus DSLR at 300/2.8 if the 5D is 10m away while the Olympus DSLR user is 20m away to get the same composition? What is the effect on FOV and DOF? If there is no major impact, might as well just get a compact point and shoot camera with a tiny sensor (1/2.5") where a 50mm lens would give you 300mm equivalent and 84mm lens would get you 500mm equivalent.
Of course, one may argue that the Olympus user should use 150mm instead of 300mm and then shoot at the same distance. Also, think about the effects on shutter speed and DOF. The light gathering ability of the 150/2.8 is not going to be the same as a 300/2.8 at the same shooting distance. The F number is afterall the aperture size relative to the focal length.
I now understand what he meant by saying ".. Think about it.." Apparently, at least to me, grantyale is speaking on a technical level higher than many forumers here are able to comprehend fully. If we don't think about it, we are missing many things and are blind following the blinds.
Clockunder: You're right - grantyale is speaking at a higher technical level, and he's not wrong. I don't actually disagree with the explanations, I just think most of the explanations are irrelevant. The same probably goes for others. Accordingly, I don't think you need to write off the rest of us, as the difference we have with grantyale/grigri revolves around whether it is more misleading to:
1. Increase the f-stop because of the idea of photon intensity per unit sensor area; or
2. state that a lens has a specific aperture based on it's actual aperture for it's intended sensor size, regardless of actual comparative photon intensity per unit sensor area.
My view is that 1 is far more misleading, because when you take a picture with a specific shutter/aperture/iso combination any camera, irrespective of the size of the camera, will be able to take the same shot at the same exposure using those settings. (Assuming that the relevant camera can hit those shutter/aperture/iso settings).
By that measure, the aperture value quoted for the 35-100/2 is accurate.
The fact is that if the grantyale/grigri standard of "not-misleading" was adopted, shutter/aperture/iso information becomes inconsistent and almost useless (as sensor size must also be known and calculated in order to figure out the correct shutter/aperture/iso combination for your camera).
That's what's most useful about knowing shutter/apperture/iso of a photograph, after all - to give a better understanding to the viewer of how the artist produced the image.
1. Increase the f-stop because of the idea of photon intensity per unit sensor area; or
2. state that a lens has a specific aperture based on it's actual aperture for it's intended sensor size, regardless of actual comparative photon intensity per unit sensor area.
My view is that 1 is far more misleading, because when you take a picture with a specific shutter/aperture/iso combination any camera, irrespective of the size of the camera, will be able to take the same shot at the same exposure using those settings. (Assuming that the relevant camera can hit those shutter/aperture/iso settings).
By that measure, the aperture value quoted for the 35-100/2 is accurate.
The fact is that if the grantyale/grigri standard of "not-misleading" was adopted, shutter/aperture/iso information becomes inconsistent and almost useless (as sensor size must also be known and calculated in order to figure out the correct shutter/aperture/iso combination for your camera).
That's what's most useful about knowing shutter/apperture/iso of a photograph, after all - to give a better understanding to the viewer of how the artist produced the image.
In the 300/2.8 example, you might well have the same shutter/aperture/iso combination yes. To be more specific about this (and to exclude the olympus with the 300/2.8 as that just confuses matters):
If you are using a 5D + 300/2.8, standing in a particular position, with the camera oriented in a particular fashion, with a shutter of 1/200, aperture of f/8 and ISO of 100 to take a specific shot -
you can take an _fundamentally_ identical shot with
- a Sony H9, zoomed to 300mm equivalent, standing in the same position and with the same camera orientation, with a shutter of 1/200, aperture of f/8 and ISO of 100.
When I say fundamentally identical, I mean that of the technical items we have been speaking of (the FOV, DOF, aperture, shutter, iso) the only things which will be different between the 5D and the H9 will be the DOF (H9 will have more in focus).
- Status
