semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^---- One might as well ask why almost no (not none; few) pros use Pentax or Sony or Samsung gear.
It's not sensor size. Or, at least, not most importantly. It is true that C and N make cameras with good IQ, but that's probably not the definitive factor.
It is: (1) the completeness of the C and N systems, and third party accessories designed to work with them; (2) the C and N pro services; (3) the availability of rental bodies and lenses in every big city and a lot of smaller ones; (4) familiarity with the brands, and long experience with their quality, reliability, and feature set; (5) quality and value.
It's similar to the system buy-in that people have with Macs or Windows machines. Unless you have a special application, there's little reason to switch to, say, a Linux box -- even if it has comparable performance on common tasks, and perhaps even better pricing.
On the other hand, a LOT of Mac and Windows users got Blackberries because, at the time, they offered mobile computing in a form factor that Apple and Microsoft could not match.
This is not dissimilar to the situation with micro 4/3 now.
It's not sensor size. Or, at least, not most importantly. It is true that C and N make cameras with good IQ, but that's probably not the definitive factor.
It is: (1) the completeness of the C and N systems, and third party accessories designed to work with them; (2) the C and N pro services; (3) the availability of rental bodies and lenses in every big city and a lot of smaller ones; (4) familiarity with the brands, and long experience with their quality, reliability, and feature set; (5) quality and value.
It's similar to the system buy-in that people have with Macs or Windows machines. Unless you have a special application, there's little reason to switch to, say, a Linux box -- even if it has comparable performance on common tasks, and perhaps even better pricing.
On the other hand, a LOT of Mac and Windows users got Blackberries because, at the time, they offered mobile computing in a form factor that Apple and Microsoft could not match.
This is not dissimilar to the situation with micro 4/3 now.
Last edited:
igi
Well-known
I don't think so
Rather than sensor size, it's sensor technology that has more influence on the outcome. Ever wondered how Canon 400D produces relatively inferior images than the Canon 550D even when they are both have APS-C sensors?
In the near future, even a 2/3" sensor can give an IQ similar to the D700 and the only thing missing will be DOF control
Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
I found this comparison:
http://www.pbase.com/mhood66/d700ep2g10
How ever the shots are taken with auto everything and directly from camera JPG:s (and in this particular lightning condition the E-P2 seems to over expose a bit). How ever I think it shows the characteristics of cameras rather well, even if you can get better output from E-P2 when properly exposed and PP.
For me the IQ difference is there but it doesn't matter at all in my usage. For print sizes up to 50x70 the E-P2 is enough, anything larger and go with larger format. How ever your milage might vary and if you tend to crop heavily..
http://www.pbase.com/mhood66/d700ep2g10
How ever the shots are taken with auto everything and directly from camera JPG:s (and in this particular lightning condition the E-P2 seems to over expose a bit). How ever I think it shows the characteristics of cameras rather well, even if you can get better output from E-P2 when properly exposed and PP.
For me the IQ difference is there but it doesn't matter at all in my usage. For print sizes up to 50x70 the E-P2 is enough, anything larger and go with larger format. How ever your milage might vary and if you tend to crop heavily..
gavinlg
Veteran
Edit: Just saw that Santuu above me beat me to the d700vs e-p2 link.
I rekon the e-p2 does really well too.
I rekon the e-p2 does really well too.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Juan,
Using the same logic, if it is really *all* about image quality, why didn't all pro photographers use 8x10 film, or 100Mpixel medium format digital back?
That's correct, because even though those cameras will yield better quality images, they are not practical to use for most situations.
A lot of us choose the 4/3rd system because they allow us to shoot with almost rangefinder-like feeling or style. The form factor does not intimidate or raise suspicion unlike DLSR's with their big lenses.
Now let's talk about quality.
If I were to show you a 11x14 inches *daylight* landscape print from my Olympus E-P2, side by side with the same scene from my wife's Canon 5D. I don't think you'd be able to tell which one is which.
But if I show you similarly sized prints of ISO 3200 images from the two cameras, you will be able to tell instantly.
So the question is, how often do you print that big from 3200 ISO files? If the answer is: very often, then stay away from m4/3rd. If the answer is: practically never, then you owe it to yourself to check it out.
Fair enough?
Hi Will,
I know their size.
And price and abilities as a system...
I find it hard to believe a print (11x14) from M9 or D3X of a sunny scene is just the same as a u4/3 print of the same scene.
I have to see that...
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I don't think so
Rather than sensor size, it's sensor technology that has more influence on the outcome. Ever wondered how Canon 400D produces relatively inferior images than the Canon 550D even when they are both have APS-C sensors?
In the near future, even a 2/3" sensor can give an IQ similar to the D700 and the only thing missing will be DOF control
What if instead of future and words, we consider present and images?
Even on film a bigger format offers better tonal range: with the same film.
Maybe I'm wrong, and soon all pros will discover the best tonal range comes from smaller sensors, and not from bigger ones...
I agree u4/3 cameras can be used for lots of things, and I agree their IQ is better than a decade old bigger sensors. I don't agree same year technology for a given sensor and for a four times bigger sensor, produces similar results.
Let's see it!
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Santtu,
Thanks for the link!
I can't see very well those images, though... Without real good resolution and crops, I see even less than I'd see on two 4x5 prints! I can't "see" both sensors clearly from that comparison... Maybe here I will find out who has a D700 or D3 and a u4/3, and comparing results on two 11x14 prints of the same scene will be interesting...
Cheers,
Juan
gavinlg
Veteran
Juan,
Open 2 windows with the link in each, and put them side by side. Click on a picture you'd like to compare in each window and it will zoom to pixel level detail. Can't get much better for judging files on a computer screen.
Open 2 windows with the link in each, and put them side by side. Click on a picture you'd like to compare in each window and it will zoom to pixel level detail. Can't get much better for judging files on a computer screen.
david.elliott
Well-known
Juan,
click the "original" size link on that page
click the "original" size link on that page
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi David,
I don't even see "original" on my screen, or any other way to make the images bigger... By the way, apart from being a really limited test, during the EP-2 shots, weather (and tonal range) changed drastically... These things should be done on an open blue sky day... A few shots under direct sun, and a few more in the shadows. Two or three ISO values, two or three focusing distances, and two or three apertures...
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Please don't get me wrong: even though B&W wet printing is my world, one day I'll get a very small digital camera with a very fast prime, to have fun and use it for color in family situations for selective focus and low light... I'm not that picky about IQ: I use my XA (and print from its negatives) with the same passion I use RFs, SLRs, Hasselblad or LF... I was just surprised after the "only words" comparison to the D700... But well, I know it can look close for sunny scenes and small prints... I'm glad small good cameras are available!
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
kuzano
Veteran
Aha... a linux user.....
Aha... a linux user.....
Aha, a Linux user... that explains everything.
Aha... a linux user.....
Aha, a Linux user... that explains everything
.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Aha, a Linux user... that explains everything
After 10 years of "having in mind" virus and antivirus, I use my Linux laptop for internet three years ago, and my Windows laptop for Photoshop. No issues since...
Cheers,
Juan
Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
I understand what you are saying. I don't claim that small format cameras or any digital cameras produce prints with same feel as wet printed B/W pictures do (note that I talk about feel, not necessary the quality or resolution). But for my purposes digital is both cheaper, less time consuming and easier. I do shoot film as well, be it 135 or 120.
How ever when I shoot digital (as all work stuff these days), I shoot mainly with Nikons or with E-P2 these days. E-P2 is sufficant to all my applications IQ wise, as long as I don't need to print big (in which case I have to rent equipment since I lack MF/LF digital) or shoot high iso stuff (800 seems to be the limit for a magazine spread, bit over that and up to 1600 for black and white 10x15).
E-P2 is a amazing little thing that simply can. Of course it ain't as robust as Nikons (at least ones I've handled), or have the resolution of the big dogs. But in reasonable conditions the IQ it delivers is enough for all but the larger print sizes. I'm not saying that it matches D700 / D3 / M9 / what ever but I'm saying that if the quality of images on E-P2 is not enough in good conditions then you most likely need much larger system then 35mm digital can offer, in bad conditions FF digital is really the way to go (and FF provides DOF which smaller formats can't touch, but of course it's all about application and the need for that control). And of course applications vary a lot and E-P2 is really not a tool for sports photography, wedding photography (even if I did one with it as my third body), or some other applications. For general carry around camera, street shooter, journalist tool, even in limited degrees a professional tool, it's up to the task.
Oh when I talk about print sizes in my posts, I'm talking in cm
Last edited:
kuzano
Veteran
Don't take me too serious
Don't take me too serious
Just jabbin' atcha!
I've been working on PC's full time since 1992. I attribute the bulk of my income distributed as follows.....
1) Mostly from Microsoft and software that runs on Microsoft OS. Thank you MICROSOFT for generating SOOOO MUCH income for me these last two decades.
2) Apple... not so much. Pretty much the Maytag Repairman in that market. Were it not for Microsoft, I'd be twiddling my fingers most of the time.
3) Linux, Unix and variants thereof.... NADA, nothing, Zip.
and yes, of course... I do take into consideration market share of each of those Operating Systems.
I do send Bill Gates a birthday card each year.
Don't take me too serious
Just jabbin' atcha!
I've been working on PC's full time since 1992. I attribute the bulk of my income distributed as follows.....
1) Mostly from Microsoft and software that runs on Microsoft OS. Thank you MICROSOFT for generating SOOOO MUCH income for me these last two decades.
2) Apple... not so much. Pretty much the Maytag Repairman in that market. Were it not for Microsoft, I'd be twiddling my fingers most of the time.
3) Linux, Unix and variants thereof.... NADA, nothing, Zip.
and yes, of course... I do take into consideration market share of each of those Operating Systems.
I do send Bill Gates a birthday card each year.
S
sfaust
Guest
Well summed up semilog. I posted earlier here (could be in another thread) that I could use u4/3 for shooting editorial since the image quality from the camera exceeds that which the paper and medium can render, yet I stated I wouldn't do so. You very eloquently summed up the exact reasons why.
I would also add that the DSLR hardware and software feature set is more suitable for professional use in demanding or complex situations. The u4/3 could handle a large portion of the assignments, but when a pro faces a more complex shoot, they don't want to be standing there holding a u4/3 and wishing they had a DSLR instead. The right tool to handle the widest range of situations is a DSLR, no question IMO.
I would also add that the DSLR hardware and software feature set is more suitable for professional use in demanding or complex situations. The u4/3 could handle a large portion of the assignments, but when a pro faces a more complex shoot, they don't want to be standing there holding a u4/3 and wishing they had a DSLR instead. The right tool to handle the widest range of situations is a DSLR, no question IMO.
cz23
-
I suppose if you mostly display online, these comparisons posts are valid. But I've lost faith in them since comparing prints from my GF1 and 5DII. The 5DII files look better on my monitor, but I can't seen any different in prints up to 12 x 16". In fact, everyone I've shown them to prefers the GF1 prints, but I think that's because of the larger DOF and more of the picture in focus.
Obviously, larger sensors perform better in more demanding situations and in low light. But for average use, I agree with Mike Johnston at TOP, who recently posted that IQ is no long much of a distinguishing factor in system selection.
John
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Juan,
Notice I said 5D.
I do not have access to an M9 or D3X.
Thank you for being a cool-as-lettuce-head in this discussions, some others won't be.
PS: I think darkroom wet prints are number one in terms of creating unique artworks. The instant reproducibility of digital prevents it to even becoming a contender. Just so you're clear that I'm not saying that digital is the only thing to look for.
cz23
-
I felt the same way. But I read a few threads on LUF by some photographers I respect stating just that. So I did my own testing and now agree with them. I'm not selling my 5DII, but it really boosted my confidence in m4/3, at least for the printing I do.
Admittedly, I'm not a master printer. But both look equally fantastic.
John