Oh My Goodness (digital OM)

willie_901 said:
Appreciating the advantages of increased sensor area is not necessarily a fetish. The physics of Bayer imaging dictates larger sensor areas collect more information (all other factors being equal). I prefer to record more information. Others will decide different factors are more important to them. I would not say they have a small sensor fetish.
Click to expand...

I am not criticising those who prefer larger sensors for themselves, that's a reasonable opinion - I am referring to those who said four thirds would fail because the sensors were too small. They were wrong!
 
2/3 of the images on my walls where shot with the D700, the rest is a split between the M8 and GXR.

If that's because of the sensor size? More because the D700 fell in my most active phase of travelling 🙂

That OM-D looks tempting for just that: travel. If the GXR does not live up to that job as well as I hope, the OM-D could be it. Weather seals would be nice for hiking Iceland, for example. I loved that about the D700. I took her everywhere, including Austrian Alps and the badest of weather and never lost a thought about the camera (other than its weight...)
 
Trius said:
I also have friends who wouldn't touch them, but manipulate like hell in PS. Yeah, I know there's a difference, but philosophically, not much.
Click to expand...

Yes, and actually that difference is the time wasted in front of the computer attempting to duplicate an effect that the camera can so easily perform. Your friend does not value his time at a very high rate.
 
igi said:
Your prayer seems to have been answered by Voigtlander... on the other thread, there's a strong rumor that they're going to release a 17.5mm F0.95 (albeit its very likely MF only).

[edit]

Oh, just announced!
http://www.43rumors.com/hot-voigtlander-announces-the-new-amazing-17-5mm-f0-95-lens/
Click to expand...

I was just about to post about this 🙂

Nokton-175-f-095.jpg


If this lens has the option to trigger the zoom-focus feature when I turn the focus ring, I'd be very interested.

It's like having an Ultron 35/1.2 for OM-D, that's pretty sweet.

The price makes me ill, though. Not saying it's unreasonable.
 
Paul T. said:
I am not criticising those who prefer larger sensors for themselves, that's a reasonable opinion - I am referring to those who said four thirds would fail because the sensors were too small. They were wrong!
Click to expand...

Agree, Paul.
It's amazing to me the number of people who dismissed 4/3rd system simply because of the sensor size, who never owned one, never even tried one.

Yet interestingly some of them willingly entertained the idea that they may like that Nikon's idea of a jok... I mean mirrorless-system whose sensor is even smaller, and give them all the benefits of the doubt.
 
my personal experience causes me to question whether sensor size or tecnological advancement is at the heart of this IQ debate. i shot a great deal with 12mp full frame 5d coupled with first rate zeiss lenses. i loved the IQ and felt no small sensor cam could touch it, and that was backed up by the results i got (get) from my ep2.

then i got a 12mp aps-c x100. frankly it performed as well as my 5d up to iso800 after which the x100 blew the 5d away, no contest. obviously the 5d represents 'older' technology. from what ive seen, i think the mkii would probably beat out the x100 across the board. but it would also beat out the prior generation mki as well.

thus my conclusion that its not just sensor size, its the progression of technology. end of the day, the 5dmki was the 'pro' cam large sensor of choice for a good while. pro's used it to great effect across the publishing world. now its beat by an apsc sensor, which means that smaller sensor could also be used across the publishing world, at least in terms of IQ.

once you reach this level of pro result with smaller sensors, does then this argument make real life sense? if someone told you 5 years ago you could get the same or better results with a 'pocketable' cam as you got with your 5d that person wouldve been laughed out of the building! now that its come to pass i'm not sure the sensor size 'debate' is not over.
 
kuzano said:
Yes, and actually that difference is the time wasted in front of the computer attempting to duplicate an effect that the camera can so easily perform. Your friend does not value his time at a very high rate.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. How much tweaking can you do in camera? Doing it post processing allows you the greatest flexibility in getting what you want. Even shots made without an art filter and never intended to have a "trendy" look are not always left alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom