Bill58
Native Texan
Kent said:Yep, a G10 with a 2/3" sensor and a 2.0-3.5/28-140mm lens - that would be a cam!
My preference would be a 1.7-3.5/ 25-85 for streetshooting.
Kent said:Yep, a G10 with a 2/3" sensor and a 2.0-3.5/28-140mm lens - that would be a cam!
Well, the sensor diagonal of a 1/8" sensor is 8.9 mm and the sensor diagonal of a 1/7" sensor is 9.5 mm. So not much difference there. In order to have a DOF anywhere in the same ballpark as a 35 mm film / FF sensor camera, you would need at least 1" sensor (sensor diagonal 16 mm). That said, even 4/3 system (sensor diagonal 22.5 mm) cameras have noticeably deeper DOF than 35 mm / FF cameras.spiderfrank said:I own a G7, and that is exactly the main fault of a great camera: always too much DOF (except for close up shots, of course), I don't know if sensor of 1/7 instead of 1/8 is enaugh to have more shallow DOF...
Ciao
Franco
rogue_designer said:doesn't the Oly 8080 have a 2/3" sensor? How does that perform in actual use I wonder.
I think some people who dont even plan to use any point-n-shoots are commenting here and comparing specs to some different type of cameras.Dr. Strangelove said:So, at least for classic portrait photography and other shallow DOF applications P&S digital cameras will always be less than optimal choice, since it is highly unlikely that the sensor sizes will start to grow. Smaller sensors are so much cheaper and most people want small and light cameras. In fact sensor sizes have been getting smaller during the last three years.
Dr. Strangelove said:Yes it does. Haven't used one myself, but it got good reviews. However, the C-8080 is old news and it is probably is not being manufactured anymore. In fact the whole Olympus "prosumer" line seems to be dead. The last camera in that line was the C-7070, which is now more than two and half years old. Most likely Olympus wants people to buy their 4/3 DSLRs instead and does not want to offer competition to their own products.
photogdave said:In my experience a lot of "nosiy" camera images look much better printed than on a a monitor, and the print should still be the ultimate way to judge the IQ. I could show you some stunning 13"x19" prints off my Lumix LC1.
However, most digicam shooters and reviewers seldom bother with the nuisance of making tangible prints so how the image looks on the monitor seems to be the benchmark.
On the other hand, viewing images at 100% magnification is NOT the usual way people look at digital photos. Typically they are resized to fill the screen. The best consumer level displays have a maximum resolution of 2048x1536 pixels, although nowadays even that is actually quite rare with the demise of 21" CRT monitors. 2048x1536 resolution allows you to view 3.1 MP 4:3 aspect ratio digital images at 100 %, but 3.1 MP P&S digicams are not exactly state of the art.ywenz said:I think you said it yourself in the last sentence.. how often does one view an image on the computer screen and how often does one view it hanging on the wall? I think the more popular method of viewing should be used as the benchmark.
If an image's defects shows more prominently on the computer screen than it does on paper, it certainly couldn't hurt to strive for images that look great on the computer screen, which then can only mean it will look even better on paper.
szekiat said:i dunno why u guys bother so much with the DOF issue. As far as a street/documentary shooting is concerned, it means i can shoot wide open and still get the DOF i normally would only get at f8.
TimBonzi said:I have the G7 and love it. A great carry anywhere camera and superb photos. I don't plan on fiddling with raw imagae files, so I never missed it. The G9 gets a few other improvements other than the addition of raw, but not enough changes to warrant another $500 this year. If you are looking for an esy to carry digital camera with lots of manual controls, you should seriously consider either the G7 or G9.