Ericinho wrote:.

I am just curious what your personal take is on the four-thirdssystem used by Kodak and Olympus?.

In general:.

Advantages.

* The smaller sensor size makes possible smaller and lighter camerabodies and lenses. In particular, the potential exists for very fastlenses and very high quality lenses at lower costs. Currently this isevident to some extent in the Olympus E-400 and E-410 bodies andtheir kit lenses, and in longer telephoto lenses..

* Telecentric optical path means that light hitting the sensor istraveling perpendicular to the sensor, resulting in brighter corners,and most importantly improved off center resolution, particularly onwide angle lenses..

This is a misconception. Olympus lenses are by strict definition not telecentric. Olympus marketing have unfortunately used the term "near telecentric" to described the ZD lens system design..

* Because the flange focal distance is significantly shorter thanmost competing mounts (such as Canon FD, Canon EF, Nikon F and PentaxK), lenses for many other SLR types can be fitted to Four Thirdscameras with simple mechanical adapter rings. (Such mechanicaladapter rings typically require manual setting of focus and aperture.).

I'm not sure I would call the ~4 mm to ~8 mm difference significant. It also means the flange back is vary long relative to the sensor diagonal..

Unfortunately Canon FD can not be adapted to Four Thirds and retain infinity focus..

Disadvantages.

* Smaller sensors are generally more prone to noise. This typicallybecomes most pronounced at high ISO exposures, meaning that picturequality may suffer in low light situations where the ISO has to beincreased to 400 or above..

The achilles heel of Four Thirds..

* There are not as many lenses available as for some of the competingDSLR systems. (As mentioned above, lenses for competing systems canusually be mounted, but with the loss of auto-focus and the need formanual setting of aperture. Note also that this is not an intrinsicdisadvantage of the Four Thirds System, and the situation couldchange at some time in the future.).

How many lenses do you need?.

Http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/lenses.html.

Regards,Scott.

As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to seeHow much you'll pay for what you used to get for free- Tom Petty..

Which Kodak camera uses a 4/3 sensor?.

I thought it was Olympus, Panasonic, and Leica only. So far....MartyPanasonic FZ20,Panasonic FZ7,Olympus C7000,Leica M3..

JScott wrote:.

Disadvantages.

* Smaller sensors are generally more prone to noise. This typicallybecomes most pronounced at high ISO exposures, meaning that picturequality may suffer in low light situations where the ISO has to beincreased to 400 or above..

The achilles heel of Four Thirds..

It appears that Olympus solved this with the 410 and 510, no?..

Correct, but Kodak is part of the Four Thirds consortium...

Ericinho wrote:.

JScott wrote:.

Disadvantages.

* Smaller sensors are generally more prone to noise. This typicallybecomes most pronounced at high ISO exposures, meaning that picturequality may suffer in low light situations where the ISO has to beincreased to 400 or above..

The achilles heel of Four Thirds..

It appears that Olympus solved this with the 410 and 510, no?.

It's still a smaller sensor. If you look at the images in the review of the E-410 you will see that Olympus has achieved lower noise levels at the expense of detail. See:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/page15.asphttp://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page16.asp.

"There is no replacement for displacement"..

Regards,Scott.

As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to seeHow much you'll pay for what you used to get for free- Tom Petty..

JScott wrote:.

Ericinho wrote:.

JScott wrote:.

Disadvantages.

* Smaller sensors are generally more prone to noise. This typicallybecomes most pronounced at high ISO exposures, meaning that picturequality may suffer in low light situations where the ISO has to beincreased to 400 or above..

The achilles heel of Four Thirds..

It appears that Olympus solved this with the 410 and 510, no?.

It's still a smaller sensor. If you look at the images in the reviewof the E-410 you will see that Olympus has achieved lower noiselevels at the expense of detail. See:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/page15.asphttp://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page16.asp.

These pages display images that use default NR ONto quote Askey.

"Here you can see the clear effect of the noise reduction system (noise filter) on the E-410, it keeps measurable noise virtually flat from ISO 100 (125) to 800, rising only slightly at ISO 1600 (1250)."NR forgives the detailthing about the newer 4/3rds cameras, you can turn NR OFFmaybe Askey should have too, but he didnt.

You cant do that with XTi/400D (inherent in DIGIC Chip) or D40 therefore you cannot recover detail lost to NR.

"There is no replacement for displacement"..

There is not such a large difference between APS C and 4/3rds4/3rds 1.92, Sigma 1.7, Canon 1.62, Nikon 1.52it would be roughly similar to the difference between FF 5D and 1DMkIII.

Are you suggesting 1D MkIII is inferior, because that is a stretch.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Ericinho wrote:.

Advantages.

* The smaller sensor size makes possible smaller and lighter camerabodies and lenses. In particular, the potential exists for very fastlenses and very high quality lenses at lower costs. Currently this isevident to some extent in the Olympus E-400 and E-410 bodies andtheir kit lenses, and in longer telephoto lenses..

Your walkaround kit might be just 2 lenses, 12-60 and 50-200 for 24mm to 400mm coverage at F2.8 (these lenses are due September).

* Telecentric optical path means that light hitting the sensor istraveling perpendicular to the sensor, resulting in brighter corners,and most importantly improved off center resolution, particularly onwide angle lenses..

Zactly right. Wides are more affected than tele lenses, you can shoot any aperture on 4/3rds lenses without fall-off. Moreover optical quality is very good, and CA, PF, vignetting are rarer. Full use of low apertures provides more available speed low down.

* Because the flange focal distance is significantly shorter thanmost competing mounts (such as Canon FD, Canon EF, Nikon F and PentaxK), lenses for many other SLR types can be fitted to Four Thirdscameras with simple mechanical adapter rings. (Such mechanicaladapter rings typically require manual setting of focus and aperture.).

Also true, except there is no EOS adapter, ...... it wont be missed.

Disadvantages.

* Smaller sensors are generally more prone to noise. This typicallybecomes most pronounced at high ISO exposures, meaning that picturequality may suffer in low light situations where the ISO has to beincreased to 400 or above..

Take the case of 5DFF v/s 1D MkIII, the 1D is clearly less noisy yet it has smaller sensor. Newer sensor iterations have at their advantage later technology. Technically speaking the noise floor is lower in same technologies, problem is the technologies are not the same. Presently both APSC and new 4/3rds can shoot daylight iso800 without issue. I say 4/3rds because the new Panasonic dSLR is about to arrive..

* There are not as many lenses available as for some of the competingDSLR systems. (As mentioned above, lenses for competing systems canusually be mounted, but with the loss of auto-focus and the need formanual setting of aperture. Note also that this is not an intrinsicdisadvantage of the Four Thirds System, and the situation couldchange at some time in the future.).

How many lenses can you carry at once ? .

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

JScott wrote:.

Ericinho wrote:.

JScott wrote:.

Disadvantages.

* Smaller sensors are generally more prone to noise. This typicallybecomes most pronounced at high ISO exposures, meaning that picturequality may suffer in low light situations where the ISO has to beincreased to 400 or above..

The achilles heel of Four Thirds..

It appears that Olympus solved this with the 410 and 510, no?.

It's still a smaller sensor. If you look at the images in the reviewof the E-410 you will see that Olympus has achieved lower noiselevels at the expense of detail. See:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/page15.asphttp://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page16.asp.

These pages display images that use default NR ONto quote Askey"Here you can see the clear effect of the noise reduction system(noise filter) on the E-410, it keeps measurable noise virtually flatfrom ISO 100 (125) to 800, rising only slightly at ISO 1600 (1250)."NR forgives the detailthing about the newer 4/3rds cameras, you can turn NR OFFmaybe Askey should have too, but he didntyou cant do that with XTi/400D (inherent in DIGIC Chip) or D40therefore you cannot recover detail lost to NR.

My point was Olympus has masked the noise with NR that blurs detail, which is my book is not solving the noise problem..

"There is no replacement for displacement"..

There is not such a large difference between APS C and 4/3rds4/3rds 1.92, Sigma 1.7, Canon 1.62, Nikon 1.52it would be roughly similar to the difference between FF 5D and 1DMkIII.

Are you suggesting 1D MkIII is inferior, because that is a stretch.

Due to the slightly smaller vertical dimension of the FourThirds sensor compared to APS-C sized sensors, and the 25% shorter horizontal dimension due to the different aspect ratio and shorter vertical dimension, pixels on FourThirds sensors have ~2/3 the area of pixels on APS-C sized sensors of the same pixel count. I would call that significant..

With the 5D and 1D Mk III, you are comparing a camera introduced in Aug 2005 with one introduced Feb 2007. I would hope Canon would make advances in sensor technology is 18 months. Additionally comparing the 5D to the 1D Mk III you are not comparing cameras with the same number of pixels..

Regards,Scott.

As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to seeHow much you'll pay for what you used to get for free- Tom Petty..

JScott wrote:.

It's still a smaller sensor. If you look at the images in the reviewof the E-410 you will see that Olympus has achieved lower noiselevels at the expense of detail. See:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/page15.asphttp://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page16.asp.

These pages display images that use default NR ONto quote Askey"Here you can see the clear effect of the noise reduction system(noise filter) on the E-410, it keeps measurable noise virtually flatfrom ISO 100 (125) to 800, rising only slightly at ISO 1600 (1250)."NR forgives the detailthing about the newer 4/3rds cameras, you can turn NR OFFmaybe Askey should have too, but he didntyou cant do that with XTi/400D (inherent in DIGIC Chip) or D40therefore you cannot recover detail lost to NR.

My point was Olympus has masked the noise with NR that blurs detail,which is my book is not solving the noise problem..

You dont have a pointNR can be turned OFFNR that is OFF doesnt blur detailunlike XTi/400D.

"There is no replacement for displacement"..

There is not such a large difference between APS C and 4/3rds4/3rds 1.92, Sigma 1.7, Canon 1.62, Nikon 1.52it would be roughly similar to the difference between FF 5D and 1DMkIII.

Are you suggesting 1D MkIII is inferior, because that is a stretch.

Due to the slightly smaller vertical dimension of the FourThirdssensor compared to APS-C sized sensors, and the 25% shorterhorizontal dimension due to the different aspect ratio and shortervertical dimension, pixels on FourThirds sensors have ~2/3 the areaof pixels on APS-C sized sensors of the same pixel count. I wouldcall that significant..

Well if you stopped and thought about it, the way to measure the two is by the diagonal since they are different aspect ratios..

1D MkIII APS H 28.1 x 18.7, 10Mp, diagonal 33.75mm5D FF 36 x 24 12.8, 14.8Mp, diagonal 43.3mma difference of 87.1%.

XTi APS C 22.2 x 14.8 10Mp, diagonal 26.68mm4/3rds 18 x 13.5 10Mp, diagonal 22.5mma difference of 84.3%.

So for a comparison of the size relationship between the groups of 1DMkIII-5D and APS C-4/3rds we get 87.1% v/s 84.3%.

You are suggesting that there is a significant difference between 87.1% and 84.3%. which is ... well bunk isnt it, they are pretty close.

With the 5D and 1D Mk III, you are comparing a camera introduced inAug 2005 with one introduced Feb 2007. I would hope Canon would makeadvances in sensor technology is 18 months..

Which is exactly what I am saying, newer sensor iterations hold technology that outshakes older versions. nMOS is newer technology to CMOS.

Additionally comparingthe 5D to the 1D Mk III you are not comparing cameras with the samenumber of pixels..

Regards,Scott.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Ericinho wrote:.

* The smaller sensor size makes possible smaller and lighter camerabodies and lenses. In particular, the potential exists for very fastlenses and very high quality lenses at lower costs. Currently this isevident to some extent in the Olympus E-400 and E-410 bodies andtheir kit lenses, and in longer telephoto lenses..

The E4xx is smaller, but where are the low cost very fast lenses?.

* Telecentric optical path means that light hitting the sensor istraveling perpendicular to the sensor, resulting in brighter corners,and most importantly improved off center resolution, particularly onwide angle lenses..

Marketing fudge. What Oly is talking about is longer exit pupil distance, and they fudge that to "near telecentric". The cute diagrams showing light going straight in defy reality, as light for each pixel comes from the entire aperture..

On legacy 35mm DSLR systems this only shows up as a problem on some wide-angle lenses with particularly short exit pupil and wide apertures, and then only on 35mm sensors. For APS-C sensors, it's a non-issue..

* Because the flange focal distance is significantly shorter thanmost competing mounts (such as Canon FD, Canon EF, Nikon F and PentaxK), lenses for many other SLR types can be fitted to Four Thirdscameras with simple mechanical adapter rings. (Such mechanicaladapter rings typically require manual setting of focus and aperture.).

FD apparently can't be done..

EF could probably be done, if some smart EE scoped out the protocols and put logic in the adapter that converted between 4/3rds and EF protocols. If you don't convert protocols, it would be useless to mount EF lenses because the aperture is electronically controlled..

Canon EOS has almost as much advantage in this regard as 4/3rds. However I don't think the vast majority of buyers of either system care. Most people want AF and AE..

Http://www.cameraquest.com/frames/4saleReos.htmhttp://www.cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm.

* Smaller sensors are generally more prone to noise..

Depends on the cameras you are comparing, but all else being equal, yes..

* There are not as many lenses available as for some of the competingDSLR systems..

What matters is if the system you are buying has what you need, and at a price you are willing/able to pay..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

* Telecentric optical path means that light hitting the sensor istraveling perpendicular to the sensor, resulting in brighter corners,and most importantly improved off center resolution, particularly onwide angle lenses..

Marketing fudge. What Oly is talking about is longer exit pupildistance, and they fudge that to "near telecentric". The cutediagrams showing light going straight in defy reality, as light foreach pixel comes from the entire aperture..

What the 'cute little diagram' is attempting but apparently failing to get across to you is the aspect ratio between the lens register and the image circle. Then there is the inescapable fact that it works..

On legacy 35mm DSLR systems this only shows up as a problem on somewide-angle lenses with particularly short exit pupil and wideapertures, and then only on 35mm sensors. For APS-C sensors, it's anon-issue..

Im thinking what you mean is wide angle lenses in general. Clearly as the the focal lengths fall this becomes more of an issue, for which the cure to hold back fall-off blooming with soft edges is to stop down. A fix that will almost always work (excepting totally junk UWA) , but it does mean that fast apertures come at a cost of less usefulness, making them a rather pointless aquisition..

It might be better if Canon particularly, had some ultra wide angle lenses that performed at all well for their own sensor iterations. This lack of Canon UWA performance in either optical strength or lens geometry doesnt look like being overcome soon..

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Your walkaround kit might be just 2 lenses, 12-60 and 50-200 for 24mmto 400mm coverage at F2.8 (these lenses are due September).

Look like nice lenses, but they aren't f/2.8, they are f/2.8-4 and f/2.8-3.5, respectively..

Zactly right. Wides are more affected than tele lenses, you can shootany aperture on 4/3rds lenses without fall-off..

If you mean vignetting, of course it's there. There is no perfect lens. Hopefully the new 50-200mm will exhibit less vignetting than the old one:.

Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_50200_2835/index.htm.

"Vignetting is clearly the weak spot of the lens.".

Also true, except there is no EOS adapter, ...... it wont be missed.

An EF adapter would need logic in it to convert between EF and 4/3rds protocol. You might not miss it, but I think it would be useful for a lot of people..

How many lenses can you carry at once ? .

One, maybe two. I prefer to travel light..

But that's not the point. I select the lens(es) I take with me based on what I expect to shoot..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Your walkaround kit might be just 2 lenses, 12-60 and 50-200 for 24mmto 400mm coverage at F2.8 (these lenses are due September).

Look like nice lenses, but they aren't f/2.8, they are f/2.8-4 andf/2.8-3.5, respectively..

Yes thats right.

Zactly right. Wides are more affected than tele lenses, you can shootany aperture on 4/3rds lenses without fall-off..

If you mean vignetting, of course it's there. There is no perfectlens. Hopefully the new 50-200mm will exhibit less vignetting thanthe old one:.

Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_50200_2835/index.htm.

Nice except that, as you point out, it's not the same lens.

"Vignetting is clearly the weak spot of the lens.".

So name your 2 lens 400D 24mm to 400mm kit and lets compare chalk marks .

Also true, except there is no EOS adapter, ...... it wont be missed.

An EF adapter would need logic in it to convert between EF and 4/3rdsprotocol. You might not miss it, but I think it would be useful fora lot of people..

Im trying to think of an EOS lens I might like, and coming up emptynot a realistic option anyway, for the reasons given.

How many lenses can you carry at once ? .

One, maybe two. I prefer to travel light..

But that's not the point. I select the lens(es) I take with me basedon what I expect to shoot..

24 to 400 covers a lot of capability.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

What the 'cute little diagram' is attempting but apparently failingto get across to you is the aspect ratio between the lens registerand the image circle. Then there is the inescapable fact that itworks..

The lens register isn't an optical property. It, along with the mirror box behind it, sets a limit on how close the exit pupil can be, and in extreme cases (like 50mm f/1.0) can be a physical barrier to wider apertures. But the point of 4/3rds is long exit pupil, not short..

And it doesn't have anything to do with those parallel lines in the diagram. Reality has nothing to do with those parallel lines, either. Light doesn't work that way..

But if the lens register, lens mount diameter and sensor diagonal intrigue you, you may want to compare Canon EF with an APS-C sensor to 4/3rds. Viewed this way, 4/3rds is a scaled-down EF..

On legacy 35mm DSLR systems this only shows up as a problem on somewide-angle lenses with particularly short exit pupil and wideapertures, and then only on 35mm sensors. For APS-C sensors, it's anon-issue..

Im thinking what you mean is wide angle lenses in general..

No, I mean wide aperture wide angle lenses with 35mm sensors..

Clearly asthe the focal lengths fall this becomes more of an issue.

Except as the focal lengths fall you get into retrofocus designs, so the exit pupil generally increases again and the problem lessens. 4/3rds is no different..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Rriley wrote:.

An EF adapter would need logic in it to convert between EF and 4/3rdsprotocol. You might not miss it, but I think it would be useful fora lot of people..

Im trying to think of an EOS lens I might like, and coming up emptynot a realistic option anyway, for the reasons given.

Sigma could make an adapter, they know both protocols. But it appears they won't..

I think you need more imagination. Fast primes (50 & 80mm f/1.2, 24, 35 & 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 35, 100, 135mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8), the super long IS telephotos (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4), 400mm f/4 DO IS, f/4 zooms (many with IS), 17-55/2.8 IS, the tilt/shift lenses, the f/4 zooms, etc, etc. And that's only Canon's lenses. There are also a whole bunch of interesting Sigma lenses (some now available in 4/3rds), and a few Tamron and Tokina too..

24 to 400 covers a lot of capability.

Not if I need f/1.4!.

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

An EF adapter would need logic in it to convert between EF and 4/3rdsprotocol. You might not miss it, but I think it would be useful fora lot of people..

Im trying to think of an EOS lens I might like, and coming up emptynot a realistic option anyway, for the reasons given.

Sigma could make an adapter, they know both protocols. But itappears they won't..

I have been told that they gained access to the protocol via an agreement with Canon. No doubt that precludes such an arrangement.

I think you need more imagination. Fast primes (50 & 80mm f/1.2, 24,35 & 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 35, 100, 135mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8), thesuper long IS telephotos (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4), 400mm f/4DO IS, f/4 zooms (many with IS), 17-55/2.8 IS, the tilt/shift lenses,the f/4 zooms, etc, etc. And that's only Canon's lenses. There arealso a whole bunch of interesting Sigma lenses (some now available in4/3rds), and a few Tamron and Tokina too..

Seems a tad deficient in WA/UWAIS lenses come out a more expensive option than IS in body @ +$100better tilt/shift are probably OM anywaydont forget that like you I can access other systems too via adapters.

24 to 400 covers a lot of capability.

Not if I need f/1.4!.

What about a hernia instead.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Sigma could make an adapter, they know both protocols. But itappears they won't..

I have been told that they gained access to the protocol via anagreement with Canon. No doubt that precludes such an arrangement.

There does not appear to be any agreement with Canon. Sigma reverse-engineered the mount, which is why they got stuck with some incompatibility issues a few times, as newer camera bodies started using parts of the EF protocol that Sigma didn't know about..

What is more likely is that Sigma has an agreement with Oly..

I think you need more imagination. Fast primes (50 & 80mm f/1.2, 24,35 & 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 35, 100, 135mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8), thesuper long IS telephotos (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4), 400mm f/4DO IS, f/4 zooms (many with IS), 17-55/2.8 IS, the tilt/shift lenses,the f/4 zooms, etc, etc. And that's only Canon's lenses. There arealso a whole bunch of interesting Sigma lenses (some now available in4/3rds), and a few Tamron and Tokina too..

Seems a tad deficient in WA/UWA.

I agree..

IS lenses come out a more expensive option than IS in body @ +$100.

Not when you are looking at super-long teles. The Canon 300/2.8 IS is significantly less expensive than the Oly 300/2.8. There is no Oly 400/500/600mm..

Better tilt/shift are probably OM anyway.

Maybe, you can choose that on Canon too, if you like..

24 to 400 covers a lot of capability.

Not if I need f/1.4!.

What about a hernia instead.

My 50/1.4 weighs less than either of the Oly zooms you mentioned..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Rriley wrote:.

JScott wrote:.

It's still a smaller sensor. If you look at the images in the reviewof the E-410 you will see that Olympus has achieved lower noiselevels at the expense of detail. See:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/page15.asphttp://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page16.asp.

These pages display images that use default NR ONto quote Askey"Here you can see the clear effect of the noise reduction system(noise filter) on the E-410, it keeps measurable noise virtually flatfrom ISO 100 (125) to 800, rising only slightly at ISO 1600 (1250)."NR forgives the detailthing about the newer 4/3rds cameras, you can turn NR OFFmaybe Askey should have too, but he didntyou cant do that with XTi/400D (inherent in DIGIC Chip) or D40therefore you cannot recover detail lost to NR.

My point was Olympus has masked the noise with NR that blurs detail,which is my book is not solving the noise problem..

You dont have a pointNR can be turned OFFNR that is OFF doesnt blur detailunlike XTi/400D.

Uh, yeah but when you turn it off, it does not have low noise! If it did, they would have to have noise reduction..

"There is no replacement for displacement"..

There is not such a large difference between APS C and 4/3rds4/3rds 1.92, Sigma 1.7, Canon 1.62, Nikon 1.52it would be roughly similar to the difference between FF 5D and 1DMkIII.

Are you suggesting 1D MkIII is inferior, because that is a stretch.

Due to the slightly smaller vertical dimension of the FourThirdssensor compared to APS-C sized sensors, and the 25% shorterhorizontal dimension due to the different aspect ratio and shortervertical dimension, pixels on FourThirds sensors have ~2/3 the areaof pixels on APS-C sized sensors of the same pixel count. I wouldcall that significant..

Well if you stopped and thought about it, the way to measure the twois by the diagonal since they are different aspect ratios..

1D MkIII APS H 28.1 x 18.7, 10Mp, diagonal 33.75mm5D FF 36 x 24 12.8, 14.8Mp, diagonal 43.3mma difference of 87.1%.

XTi APS C 22.2 x 14.8 10Mp, diagonal 26.68mm4/3rds 18 x 13.5 10Mp, diagonal 22.5mma difference of 84.3%.

So for a comparison of the size relationship between the groups of1DMkIII-5D and APS C-4/3rds we get 87.1% v/s 84.3%.

You are suggesting that there is a significant difference between87.1% and 84.3%. which is ... well bunk isnt it, they are pretty close.

Which part of my response above referred to the 1D Mk III and 4D?.

It's simple FourThirds is at a distinct disadvantage to APS-C sized sensors with respect to pixel area if you have the same number of pixels..

With the 5D and 1D Mk III, you are comparing a camera introduced inAug 2005 with one introduced Feb 2007. I would hope Canon would makeadvances in sensor technology is 18 months..

Which is exactly what I am saying, newer sensor iterations holdtechnology that outshakes older versions. nMOS is newer technology toCMOS.

I have yet to be convinced nMOS is that much better than CMOS. Different yes. Better ? And what is to stop Nikon or Canon from applying better technology? The FourThirds sensor will still have a size disadvantage..

Additionally comparingthe 5D to the 1D Mk III you are not comparing cameras with the samenumber of pixels..

Don't get me wrong. FourThirds has some real advantages. I have two E-1s that I think are great cameras. But low noise will never be a FourThirds strength..

Regards,Scott.

As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to seeHow much you'll pay for what you used to get for free- Tom Petty..

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Sigma could make an adapter, they know both protocols. But itappears they won't..

I have been told that they gained access to the protocol via anagreement with Canon. No doubt that precludes such an arrangement.

There does not appear to be any agreement with Canon. Sigmareverse-engineered the mount, which is why they got stuck with someincompatibility issues a few times, as newer camera bodies startedusing parts of the EF protocol that Sigma didn't know about..

What is more likely is that Sigma has an agreement with Oly..

At the very least the standard 4/3rds agreement.

I think you need more imagination. Fast primes (50 & 80mm f/1.2, 24,35 & 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 35, 100, 135mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8), thesuper long IS telephotos (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4), 400mm f/4DO IS, f/4 zooms (many with IS), 17-55/2.8 IS, the tilt/shift lenses,the f/4 zooms, etc, etc. And that's only Canon's lenses. There arealso a whole bunch of interesting Sigma lenses (some now available in4/3rds), and a few Tamron and Tokina too..

Seems a tad deficient in WA/UWA.

I agree..

IS lenses come out a more expensive option than IS in body @ +$100.

Not when you are looking at super-long teles. The Canon 300/2.8 ISis significantly less expensive than the Oly 300/2.8. There is noOly 400/500/600mm..

Ah yes, we think the Canon is cheaper ?factor that into reach at 460mm v/s 600mm EFL per dollar.

Can share those Sigmas tooSigma EX DG HSM APO 50-500/ 4-6.3Sigma DC 55-200/ 4-5.6Sigma DG APO 135-400/4.5-5.6Sigma EX DG HSM APO 300-800/5.6.

Better tilt/shift are probably OM anyway.

Maybe, you can choose that on Canon too, if you like..

24 to 400 covers a lot of capability.

Not if I need f/1.4!.

What about a hernia instead.

My 50/1.4 weighs less than either of the Oly zooms you mentioned..

I guess I meant the weight of your equivalent 24mm-400mm kit but ok.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Not when you are looking at super-long teles. The Canon 300/2.8 ISis significantly less expensive than the Oly 300/2.8. There is noOly 400/500/600mm..

Ah yes, we think the Canon is cheaper ?factor that into reach at 460mm v/s 600mm EFL per dollar.

I thought we were dreaming of mounting Canon lenses on Oly? That would have the same EFL, no? Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS on Oly would have the same field of view as Oly 300mm f/2.8 on Oly..

Can share those Sigmas tooSigma EX DG HSM APO 50-500/ 4-6.3Sigma DC 55-200/ 4-5.6Sigma DG APO 135-400/4.5-5.6Sigma EX DG HSM APO 300-800/5.6.

Curiously, not the 120-300mm f/2.8. Nice lens..

My 50/1.4 weighs less than either of the Oly zooms you mentioned..

I guess I meant the weight of your equivalent 24mm-400mm kit but ok.

I don't need 400mm if I am shooting portraits, unless I want to shoot nose hairs. I don't need 24mm if I am shooting wildlife, unless they are stuff and mounted on a wall. While wide-range zooms have their place, they are not the be-all and end-all..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

JScott wrote:.

You dont have a pointNR can be turned OFFNR that is OFF doesnt blur detailunlike XTi/400D.

Uh, yeah but when you turn it off, it does not have low noise! If itdid, they would have to have noise reduction..

Well of course, but PP renders superior cleaning to in camerathats how/why it's done in RAW.

Well if you stopped and thought about it, the way to measure the twois by the diagonal since they are different aspect ratios..

1D MkIII APS H 28.1 x 18.7, 10Mp, diagonal 33.75mm5D FF 36 x 24 12.8, 14.8Mp, diagonal 43.3mma difference of 87.1%.

XTi APS C 22.2 x 14.8 10Mp, diagonal 26.68mm4/3rds 18 x 13.5 10Mp, diagonal 22.5mma difference of 84.3%.

So for a comparison of the size relationship between the groups of1DMkIII-5D and APS C-4/3rds we get 87.1% v/s 84.3%.

You are suggesting that there is a significant difference between87.1% and 84.3%. which is ... well bunk isnt it, they are pretty close.

Which part of my response above referred to the 1D Mk III and 4D?.

Huh ?read below sport I highlighted itand while you are here.

The case highlights the fact that smaller sensors (not that there is much difference between them) are not necessarily at a so high disadvantage, perhaps none at all. Newer technology makes better pace, as proven.

It's simple FourThirds is at a distinct disadvantage to APS-C sizedsensors with respect to pixel area if you have the same number ofpixels..

**************************************.

With the 5D and 1D Mk III, you are comparing a camera introduced inAug 2005 with one introduced Feb 2007. I would hope Canon would makeadvances in sensor technology is 18 months..

***************************************.

Which is exactly what I am saying, newer sensor iterations holdtechnology that outshakes older versions. nMOS is newer technology toCMOS.

I have yet to be convinced nMOS is that much better than CMOS.Different yes. Better ? And what is to stop Nikon or Canon fromapplying better technology? The FourThirds sensor will still have asize disadvantage..

Well why didnt they copy the clearly superior Fuji F30 sensor for compacts?why dont they have in body IS on 400D?.

NMOS and CMOS are quite different, and it is quite an innovation for Panasonic to spot this and exploit it and patent it. However Im sure they would sell it to Canon, but as a 4/3rds sensor .

Don't get me wrong. FourThirds has some real advantages. I have twoE-1s that I think are great cameras. But low noise will never be aFourThirds strength..

Who could get you wrong, you agree that 1DMkIII is less noisy than the larger 5D but you cant make that connection with anything else other than repeat Askey's review objective about NR. If you cant see that both 400D and 510 are noisy at iso1600 and neither is at a 'distinct disadvantage', but quite useful at 800, no-one can help you here.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Not when you are looking at super-long teles. The Canon 300/2.8 ISis significantly less expensive than the Oly 300/2.8. There is noOly 400/500/600mm..

Ah yes, we think the Canon is cheaper ?factor that into reach at 460mm v/s 600mm EFL per dollar.

I thought we were dreaming of mounting Canon lenses on Oly? Thatwould have the same EFL, no? Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS on Oly would havethe same field of view as Oly 300mm f/2.8 on Oly..

You isnt 'we', they have a lot of lenses, and a lot of fluff and legacy junk.

Its no surprise you duck the question having gotten used to quoting the same tripe about the most expensive lens Oly make. What you cannot reconcile is, it's EFL per $ is common value in comparison..

Can share those Sigmas tooSigma EX DG HSM APO 50-500/ 4-6.3Sigma DC 55-200/ 4-5.6Sigma DG APO 135-400/4.5-5.6Sigma EX DG HSM APO 300-800/5.6.

Curiously, not the 120-300mm f/2.8. Nice lens..

My 50/1.4 weighs less than either of the Oly zooms you mentioned..

I guess I meant the weight of your equivalent 24mm-400mm kit but ok.

I don't need 400mm if I am shooting portraits, unless I want to shootnose hairs. I don't need 24mm if I am shooting wildlife, unless theyare stuff and mounted on a wall. While wide-range zooms have theirplace, they are not the be-all and end-all..

While ist 400mm EFL, it's really not as big as all that at 200mm zoom that some people would use as a walkaround lens on other formats. I'm not claiming it's the be-all and end-all. what I suggested was that"24 to 400 covers a lot of capability ".

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Not when you are looking at super-long teles. The Canon 300/2.8 ISis significantly less expensive than the Oly 300/2.8. There is noOly 400/500/600mm..

Ah yes, we think the Canon is cheaper ?factor that into reach at 460mm v/s 600mm EFL per dollar.

I thought we were dreaming of mounting Canon lenses on Oly? Thatwould have the same EFL, no? Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS on Oly would havethe same field of view as Oly 300mm f/2.8 on Oly..

You isnt 'we', they have a lot of lenses, and a lot of fluff andlegacy junkits no surprise you duck the question having gotten used to quotingthe same tripe about the most expensive lens Oly make. What youcannot reconcile is, it's EFL per $ is common value in comparison..

This all started with me saying a 4/3rds->EF adapter is likely possible, but won't be done. You said "im trying to think of an EOS lens I might like, and coming up empty ". I gave you a list of suggestions. You picked on IS. The majority of IS lenses I suggested were super-tele, 300mm+..

I gave you a list, you don't seem to have any valid objections to the vast majority of suggestions, so you are going off on tangents like EFL. It's absolutely meaningless in this context..

What I suggested was that"24 to 400 covers a lot of capability ".

Sure does, but there is a lot of capability it doesn't cover, too. And the alternatives are not necessarily invitations to hernias. If it fits your needs, then by all means buy it. I've never said any different..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Not when you are looking at super-long teles. The Canon 300/2.8 ISis significantly less expensive than the Oly 300/2.8. There is noOly 400/500/600mm..

Ah yes, we think the Canon is cheaper ?factor that into reach at 460mm v/s 600mm EFL per dollar.

I thought we were dreaming of mounting Canon lenses on Oly? Thatwould have the same EFL, no? Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS on Oly would havethe same field of view as Oly 300mm f/2.8 on Oly..

You isnt 'we', they have a lot of lenses, and a lot of fluff andlegacy junkits no surprise you duck the question having gotten used to quotingthe same tripe about the most expensive lens Oly make. What youcannot reconcile is, it's EFL per $ is common value in comparison..

This all started with me saying a 4/3rds->EF adapter is likelypossible, but won't be done. You said "im trying to think of an EOSlens I might like, and coming up empty ". I gave you a list ofsuggestions. You picked on IS. The majority of IS lenses Isuggested were super-tele, 300mm+..

We did agree it wont happen too.

I gave you a list, you don't seem to have any valid objections to thevast majority of suggestions, so you are going off on tangents likeEFL. It's absolutely meaningless in this context..

Principally my needs are UWAas we concluded, there was nothing there for me at all.

What I suggested was that"24 to 400 covers a lot of capability ".

Sure does, but there is a lot of capability it doesn't cover, too.And the alternatives are not necessarily invitations to hernias. Ifit fits your needs, then by all means buy it. I've never said anydifferent..

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Well why didnt they copy the clearly superior Fuji F30 sensor forcompacts?.

Beats me, why didn't Oly?.

Why dont they have in body IS on 400D?.

Why doesn't Nikon have it on the D40x? Manufacturers pick and choose features based on what they think the customer wants. If they make the right choices they'll sell a bunch and make a ton of money..

NMOS and CMOS are quite different.

Funny, they have a lot in common..

And it is quite an innovation for Panasonic to spot thisand exploit it and patent it..

NMOS is not exactly new. Been around for a long time..

However Im surethey would sell it to Canon, but as a 4/3rds sensor .

The sensor in the Canon 1D is a Panasonic CCD, it is significantly larger than 4/3", and it has a 3:2 aspect ratio..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Rriley wrote:.

Principally my needs are UWA.

So get the 11-22mm or, if you are dripping in cash, the 7-14mm. Or wait for the 8-16mm (or whatever it will be)..

As we concluded, there was nothing there for me at all.

Great! Other folks can have other needs, but I guess this is all about you. But if your needs are at UWA, why harp about:.

"24 to 400 covers a lot of capability ".

Seems a bit contradictory..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Well why didnt they copy the clearly superior Fuji F30 sensor forcompacts?.

Beats me, why didn't Oly?.

Actually I was making the case that it isnt easy to change your sensor types.

Oly got into trouble with component supply when they changed from kodak to nMOS, it's ever more difficult when your manufacturing your own sensors.

Why dont they have in body IS on 400D?.

Why doesn't Nikon have it on the D40x? Manufacturers pick and choosefeatures based on what they think the customer wants. If they makethe right choices they'll sell a bunch and make a ton of money..

NMOS and CMOS are quite different.

Funny, they have a lot in common..

And it is quite an innovation for Panasonic to spot thisand exploit it and patent it..

NMOS is not exactly new. Been around for a long time..

Yes but what is interesting is that Pany spotted these features and have gone out to exploit them. A CMOS 'complimentary metal oxide semiconductor' is so named because it involves utilizing both transistor types both N and P wired together, taking up twice the space. An nMOS sensor will only use one N-type silicon to operate. A negative charge puts the transistor into the off position and a positive charge puts into the on position. Thus the advantages on smaller sensors ought not be lost on you..

However Im surethey would sell it to Canon, but as a 4/3rds sensor .

The sensor in the Canon 1D is a Panasonic CCD, it is significantlylarger than 4/3", and it has a 3:2 aspect ratio..

I didnt know that.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Why not just go out and take some pictures? Far more healthy..

And think about all those newcomers who are now convinced that bigger is better and that ISO 3200 and f/1 are essential, everyday tools. The two lenses mentioned and a macro would cover 110% of what most beginners need..

Regards, David..

Rriley wrote:.

It might be better if Canon particularly, had some ultra wide anglelenses that performed at all well for their own sensor iterations.This lack of Canon UWA performance in either optical strength or lensgeometry doesnt look like being overcome soon..

.....You need to aquaint yourself with the recently introduced 16-35/2.8L mkII. On a full frame 5D or 1Ds mkII, it's as wide as 8 mm in 4/3's format...

Tim in upstate NY wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

It might be better if Canon particularly, had some ultra wide anglelenses that performed at all well for their own sensor iterations.This lack of Canon UWA performance in either optical strength or lensgeometry doesnt look like being overcome soon..

.....You need to aquaint yourself with the recently introduced16-35/2.8L mkII. On a full frame 5D or 1Ds mkII, it's as wide as 8 mmin 4/3's format..

Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm.

Well to be kind it just isnt goodCA/ PF/ Distortion/ vignetting on FF/soft edgeswhich part of it supposed to be better.

Add to that, it's a full 2 degrees less angle and not weathersealedlenses like this are why I stay away from CanonRiley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm.

Well to be kind it just isnt goodCA/ PF/ Distortion/ vignetting on FF/soft edgeswhich part of it supposed to be better.

Add to that, it's a full 2 degrees less angle and not weathersealedlenses like this are why I stay away from Canon.

......That's an old review of the mkI version..

Maybe you are better off avoiding equipment like that though if you can't be bothered to do your homework before offering up these silly critiques...

The single biggest advantage to me, and my main reason for switching from Nikon, is the 4:3 aspect ratio. I prefer composing mages in this format, and it better suits my output needs (viewing on a computer monitor or standard television screen)..

Though not particular to 4/3, I like Olympus's implementation of a sensor-dust removal system..

Smart lens technology whereby the optical characteristics with respect to distortion and vignetting is embedded in the image file for automatic correction using Olympus software (shading compensation also available in-camera for some models)..

I also like being able to adapt my Contax lenses for use on the Olympus, which is something I could not do with the Nikon without resorting to an adapter with optical correction to attain infinity focus..

Biggest disadvantage for me is the lack of a reasonably fast (F/2 or better), lightweight (300 grams or less) normal focal length lens with comprehensive distance and depth of field scales (calibrated to at least 25 ft. and with depth of field markings for most, in not all, apertures). Such a lens has always been the mainstay of my photography (whether Zeiss Ikoflex TLR, Pentax Spotmatic, or Contax SLR), and it is incomprehensible to me why so basic a tool is not available for the 4/3 system..

I also dislike the focus-by-wire arrangement, and would prefer a mechanical focus coupling (available with Sigma lenses, I know, but apparently you then give up the "smart lens" feature)...

Jrtrent wrote:.

I also dislike the focus-by-wire arrangement, and would prefer amechanical focus coupling (available with Sigma lenses, I know, butapparently you then give up the "smart lens" feature)..

Manual focus lenses can be built to have multiple turns of the focus ring to get from shortest focus distance to infinity, and you can dial in just the right amount of drag to give you feedback. For various reasons AF lenses are limited to about 1/2 a turn and essentially no drag. Focus-by-wire has the potential to fix this by disconnecting the focus ring from the focusing mechanism. This allows the motor to be used as a reduction gear of sorts, and drag to be added back to the ring. So although you (and I) might not like current implementations, focus by wire has the potential to provide for much better MF feel on AF lenses..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

David Hughes wrote:.

Why not just go out and take some pictures? Far more healthy..

I agree..

And think about all those newcomers who are now convinced that biggeris better and that ISO 3200 and f/1 are essential, everyday tools..

So f/4 and ISO 400 are better? FWIW, I never mentioned ISO 3200, and my only mention of f/1 was as an example of extreme case where one touted advantage of 4/3rds, size and placement of the lens mount, matters..

The two lenses mentioned and a macro would cover 110% of what mostbeginners need..

I think that's presuming a lot. Lots of people, even beginners, have different needs..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Tim in upstate NY wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm.

Well to be kind it just isnt goodCA/ PF/ Distortion/ vignetting on FF/soft edgeswhich part of it supposed to be better.

Add to that, it's a full 2 degrees less angle and not weathersealedlenses like this are why I stay away from Canon.

......That's an old review of the mkI version..

Maybe you are better off avoiding equipment like that though if youcan't be bothered to do your homework before offering up these sillycritiques..

Photozone have the highest reputation.

As opposed to taking the word of someone who doesnt appreciate the difference between a rectilinear corrected 14mm EFL and a 16mm claiming "it's as wide as 8 mm in 4/3's format.".

The current canon UWA lens suite hardly makes the best of FF capabilities, 3rd party glass makes a better go of it. but issues like fall-off soft edges and blooming are not irregular with FF, repairable to an extent by stopping down, but it's an area where FF tends to high side it's stops as opposed to better wide open values for 4/3rds..

My objective here, is to point out the occasions where FF has the need to stop down and transit to higher iso, the question then transforms to, is 4/3rds engaging less noise at base iso than FF at high iso..

Moreover, while FF is undeniably more high iso capable, it needs to frequent that zone more often for limitations 4/3rds has no need to engage.Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Tim in upstate NY wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm.

......That's an old review of the mkI version..

Photozone have the highest reputation.

I agree. But Tim is correct, that's the old version of the lens. As you said with the Oly 50-200mm, they haven't tested the new version, so we don't yet know how well it performs. The new 16-35 mkII has been on sale for a few months now..

Moreover, while FF is undeniably more high iso capable.

Interesting. Before you were arguing 5D vs 1D mkIII to show 35mm isn't more high ISO capable..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Tim in upstate NY wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm.

......That's an old review of the mkI version..

Photozone have the highest reputation.

I agree. But Tim is correct, that's the old version of the lens. Asyou said with the Oly 50-200mm, they haven't tested the new version,so we don't yet know how well it performs. The new 16-35 mkII hasbeen on sale for a few months now..

Moreover, while FF is undeniably more high iso capable.

Interesting. Before you were arguing 5D vs 1D mkIII to show 35mmisn't more high ISO capable..

Yesh I saw released at photokina, and no real reviews from sites I trust.

As to 5D v/s 1DMkIII, ....yes that was my argumentthat the noise performance of 1DMkIII exceeds that of the larger FF sensor.

Countering the widely held impression that smaller sensor versions are always more noisy, because it just isnt always soRiley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Tim in upstate NY wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm.

......That's an old review of the mkI version..

Photozone have the highest reputation.

I agree. But Tim is correct, that's the old version of the lens. Asyou said with the Oly 50-200mm, they haven't tested the new version,so we don't yet know how well it performs. The new 16-35 mkII hasbeen on sale for a few months now..

Yesh I saw released at photokina, and no real reviews from sites I trust.

So instead you bring up a review of a different lens and pretend it is the same. Nice..

Moreover, while FF is undeniably more high iso capable.

Interesting. Before you were arguing 5D vs 1D mkIII to show 35mmisn't more high ISO capable..

As to 5D v/s 1DMkIII, ....yes that was my argument.

So now you have done a 180?.

Countering the widely held impression that smaller sensor versionsare always more noisy, because it just isnt always so.

Wait, another 180. First you say "FF is undeniably more high iso capable", and now you say "it just isn't always so"..

The truth is, for similar technology, generation of technology and number of pixels, pixel-for-pixel larger sensors are less noisy..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Tim in upstate NY wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm.

......That's an old review of the mkI version..

Photozone have the highest reputation.

I agree. But Tim is correct, that's the old version of the lens. Asyou said with the Oly 50-200mm, they haven't tested the new version,so we don't yet know how well it performs. The new 16-35 mkII hasbeen on sale for a few months now..

Yesh I saw released at photokina, and no real reviews from sites I trust.

So instead you bring up a review of a different lens and pretend itis the same. Nice..

The context of THIS SNIP, I went and looked back at photozone and saw he was right, that the review was for the old version. Rather than take anyones word for it, I went to find a reliable review and came up empty, on that journey I read about the lenses release at photokina.

Moreover, while FF is undeniably more high iso capable.

The context of THIS SNIP was that 5D had superior noise performance to current 4/3rds sensors. THAT CASE STILL HOLDS ORIGINAL CONTEXT AS FOLLOWS.

Tim in upstate NY wrote:.

.....You need to aquaint yourself with the recently introduced16-35/2.8L mkII. On a full frame 5D or 1Ds mkII, it's as wide as 8 mmin 4/3's format..

Rriley wrote:http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm.

Well to be kind it just isnt goodCA/ PF/ Distortion/ vignetting on FF/soft edgeswhich part of it supposed to be better.

Add to that, it's a full 2 degrees less angle and not weathersealedlenses like this are why I stay away from Canon.

Tim in upstate NY wrote:.

......That's an old review of the mkI version..

Maybe you are better off avoiding equipment like that though if you can't be >bothered to do your homework before offering up these silly critiques..

Photozone have the highest reputation.

As opposed to taking the word of someone who doesnt appreciate the difference between a rectilinear corrected 14mm EFL and a 16mm claiming "it's as wide as 8 mm in 4/3's format.".

The current canon UWA lens suite hardly makes the best of FF capabilities, 3rd party glass makes a better go of it. but issues like fall-off soft edges and blooming are not irregular with FF, repairable to an extent by stopping down, but it's an area where FF tends to high side it's stops as opposed to better wide open values for 4/3rds..

My objective here, is to point out the occasions where FF has the need to stop down and transit to higher iso, the question then transforms to, is 4/3rds engaging less noise at base iso than FF at high iso..

Moreover, while FF is undeniably more high iso capable, it needs to frequent that zone more often for limitations 4/3rds has no need to engage..

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888.

Interesting. Before you were arguing 5D vs 1D mkIII to show 35mmisn't more high ISO capable..

As to 5D v/s 1DMkIII, ....yes that was my argument.

So now you have done a 180?.

Countering the widely held impression that smaller sensor versionsare always more noisy, because it just isnt always so.

Wait, another 180. First you say "FF is undeniably more high isocapable", and now you say "it just isn't always so"..

The context of THIS SNIP was a contention to the view that smaller sensors are always more noisy, which my argument of 5D v/s 1D MkIII refutes. THAT CASE STILL HOLDS / ORIGINAL CONTEXT AS FOLLOWS.

JScott wrote:.

* Smaller sensors are generally more prone to noise. This typicallybecomes most pronounced at high ISO exposures, meaning that picturequality may suffer in low light situations where the ISO has to beincreased to 400 or above..

Rriley wrote:.

Take the case of 5DFF v/s 1D MkIII, the 1D is clearly less noisy yet it has smaller sensor. Newer sensor iterations have at their advantage later technology. Technically speaking the noise floor is lower in same technologies, problem is the technologies are not the same. Presently both APSC and new 4/3rds can shoot daylight iso800 without issue. I say 4/3rds because the new Panasonic dSLR is about to arrive..

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888.

The truth is, for similar technology, generation of technology andnumber of pixels, pixel-for-pixel larger sensors are less noisy..

Of course usually even a complete tosser would spot this irrelevance when the items in question are because it's a ZERO SUM gameNeither of the sensors in discussion are the same technologyNeither of the sensors in discussion are the same generation.

Youve been trolling through here looking for holes in arguments for days and have come up bone dry. So you have resorted to the completely gutless method of pulling snips out of threads without any of the context and suggesting I have changed things to suit my discussion.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Jrtrent wrote:.

Biggest disadvantage for me is the lack of a reasonably fast (F/2 orbetter), lightweight (300 grams or less) normal focal length lenswith comprehensive distance and depth of field scales (calibrated toat least 25 ft. and with depth of field markings for most, in notall, apertures). Such a lens has always been the mainstay of myphotography (whether Zeiss Ikoflex TLR, Pentax Spotmatic, or ContaxSLR), and it is incomprehensible to me why so basic a tool is notavailable for the 4/3 system..

Unfortunately the old lens designs that allowed for small, fast, high quality 'normal' lenses for the 35mm format cannot be used on 4/3 (or APS-C for that matter) due to the registration distance being substantially larger than the desired focal length. This forces the use of a retrofocal design which is more complex, heavier and harder to engineer than the equivalent symmetrical lens design...

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

So instead you bring up a review of a different lens and pretend itis the same. Nice..

The context of THIS SNIP, I went and looked back at photozone and sawhe was right.

You never retracted..

Moreover, while FF is undeniably more high iso capable.

The context of THIS SNIP was that 5D had superior noise performanceto current 4/3rds sensors..

And you never said current sensors..

Wait, another 180. First you say "FF is undeniably more high isocapable", and now you say "it just isn't always so"..

The context of THIS SNIP was a contention to the view that smallersensors are always more noisy, which my argument of 5D v/s 1D MkIIIrefutes. THAT CASE STILL HOLDS / ORIGINAL CONTEXT AS FOLLOWS.

And now you are switching the argument around..

The truth is, for similar technology, generation of technology andnumber of pixels, pixel-for-pixel larger sensors are less noisy..

Of course usually even a complete tosser would spot this irrelevancewhen the items in question are because it's a ZERO SUM gameNeither of the sensors in discussion are the same technologyNeither of the sensors in discussion are the same generation.

Just because all grass is green, does not mean that everything green is grass..

Just because, all things being equal, bigger sensors have less noise, doesn't mean that if bigger sensors have less noise all things must be equal..

Youve been trolling through here looking for holes in arguments fordays and have come up bone dry..

I believe you have this reversed as well. You've been putting up phony arguments, nit picking about ISO performance, lens performance, heck even lens registration..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Andrew dB wrote:.

Unfortunately the old lens designs that allowed for small, fast, highquality 'normal' lenses for the 35mm format cannot be used on 4/3 (orAPS-C for that matter) due to the registration distance beingsubstantially larger than the desired focal length..

Registration distance is not an optical property or even a constraint. Clearing the mirror is a constraint, however mirrors for APS-C are smaller than mirrors for 35mm. Fast lenses for 35mm film SLRs generally work fine on APS-C digital and 4/3rds..

This forces theuse of a retrofocal design which is more complex, heavier and harderto engineer than the equivalent symmetrical lens design..

SLR normals are not retrofocus, they are symmetrical (or nearly so). They work fine on digital and 35mm. SLR wides are retrofocus, both on 35mm and APS-C..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

So instead you bring up a review of a different lens and pretend itis the same. Nice..

The context of THIS SNIP, I went and looked back at photozone and sawhe was right.

You never retracted..

No one needs to retract when the truth in his answer is obviousand I did later recognise thatbut I note you are wrong and you never retractedso now would be a good time for your retraction******************************************************.

Moreover, while FF is undeniably more high iso capable.

The context of THIS SNIP was that 5D had superior noise performanceto current 4/3rds sensors..

And you never said current sensors..

So what******************************************************.

Wait, another 180. First you say "FF is undeniably more high isocapable", and now you say "it just isn't always so"..

The context of THIS SNIP was a contention to the view that smallersensors are always more noisy, which my argument of 5D v/s 1D MkIIIrefutes. THAT CASE STILL HOLDS / ORIGINAL CONTEXT AS FOLLOWS.

And now you are switching the argument around..

It appears that way because of how you SNIPPEDyou left these two lines out statement which precedes your snip.

Countering the widely held impression that smaller sensor versionsare always more noisy, because it just isnt always so.

Wait, another 180. First you say "FF is undeniably more high isocapable", and now you say "it just isn't always so"..

So once again you are wrong, and I await your retraction*******************************************************.

The truth is, for similar technology, generation of technology andnumber of pixels, pixel-for-pixel larger sensors are less noisy..

Of course usually even a complete tosser would spot this irrelevancewhen the items in question are because it's a ZERO SUM gameNeither of the sensors in discussion are the same technologyNeither of the sensors in discussion are the same generation.

Just because all grass is green, does not mean that everything greenis grass..

Just because, all things being equal, bigger sensors have less noise,doesn't mean that if bigger sensors have less noise all things mustbe equal..

Which is neither clever or relevant becauseNeither of the sensors in discussion are the same technologyNeither of the sensors in discussion are the same generation.

Youve been trolling through here looking for holes in arguments fordays and have come up bone dry..

I believe you have this reversed as well. You've been putting upphony arguments, nit picking about ISO performance, lens performance,heck even lens registration..

Rriley wrote:.

What the 'cute little diagram' is attempting but apparently failingto get across to you is the aspect ratio between the lens registerand the image circle. Then there is the inescapable fact that itworks..

Nickleback wrote:.

The lens register isn't an optical property..

Which afforded by the relevance of my claim is also wrong******************************************************Riley..

Nickleback wrote:.

Registration distance is not an optical property or even aconstraint..

This is quite misleading and wrong.

The aspect ratio between the image circle and the lens register can be so arranged to minimise the affects of fall off..

Fall-off and the lack of it is an optical quality, ignorance of this is inexcusable.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Registration distance is not an optical property or even aconstraint..

This is quite misleading and wrong.

Sorry, you're wrong. Nothing stopping you from making a lens that goes through the mount. Except for the mirror, of course. The mirror is the constraint..

The aspect ratio between the image circle and the lens register canbe so arranged to minimise the affects of fall off..

You can arrange the sensor diameter and lens mount diameter (not register) so that the mount blocks light that should get to the sensor, but for all modern SLR mounts this isn't an issue except in extreme cases..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Rriley wrote:.

Yes but what is interesting is that Pany spotted these features andhave gone out to exploit them. A CMOS 'complimentary metal oxidesemiconductor' is so named because it involves utilizing bothtransistor types both N and P wired together, taking up twice thespace. An nMOS sensor will only use one N-type silicon to operate. Anegative charge puts the transistor into the off position and apositive charge puts into the on position. Thus the advantages onsmaller sensors ought not be lost on you..

Do you have schematics of how the sensors are setup, so I can compare them? I assume nMOS and CMOS are in reference to the transistor setup in their amplifier. I was wondering how the architecture is composed. I would like to see how it is really put together...

Nickleback wrote:.

Andrew dB wrote:.

Unfortunately the old lens designs that allowed for small, fast, highquality 'normal' lenses for the 35mm format cannot be used on 4/3 (orAPS-C for that matter) due to the registration distance beingsubstantially larger than the desired focal length..

Registration distance is not an optical property or even aconstraint. Clearing the mirror is a constraint, however mirrors forAPS-C are smaller than mirrors for 35mm. Fast lenses for 35mm filmSLRs generally work fine on APS-C digital and 4/3rds..

True, and the original statement was somewhat misleading. I was thinking of the minimum backfocus for each format rather than the registration distance..

This forces theuse of a retrofocal design which is more complex, heavier and harderto engineer than the equivalent symmetrical lens design..

SLR normals are not retrofocus, they are symmetrical (or nearly so).They work fine on digital and 35mm. SLR wides are retrofocus, bothon 35mm and APS-C..

But an equivalent normal for 4/3 or an APS-C camera is not going to be symmetrical (25mm or 33mm respectively). I doubt you could use a simple double Gaussian design as a normal on either 4/3 or APS-C...

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Registration distance is not an optical property or even aconstraint..

This is quite misleading and wrong.

Sorry, you're wrong. Nothing stopping you from making a lens thatgoes through the mount. Except for the mirror, of course. Themirror is the constraint..

The aspect ratio between the image circle and the lens register canbe so arranged to minimise the affects of fall off..

You can arrange the sensor diameter and lens mount diameter (notregister) so that the mount blocks light that should get to thesensor, but for all modern SLR mounts this isn't an issue except inextreme cases..

Nickleback wrote:.

Registration distance.

Is somehow now not included ? .

The mount diameter is a lot less relevant, since the exit of the lens, possibly even a baffle are narrower. Mount throats have been extended to suit fitment of electrical transmission and AF motors on lenses..

The aspect ratio of the image circle and the length of the register control the angle that light is allowed to strike the sensor. Sensors unlike film do not cope well with more angular light. Legacy systems utilising film based structural dimensions for register/sensor & mirrorbox are most susceptible with WA lenses..

An adequately designed digital system would seek to control these aspects.

Other controls are offset microlenses, but there are limits as to how far offset microlenses can tackle fall-off and that doesnt yet meet FF use.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Andrew dB wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Registration distance is not an optical property or even aconstraint. Clearing the mirror is a constraint, however mirrors forAPS-C are smaller than mirrors for 35mm. Fast lenses for 35mm filmSLRs generally work fine on APS-C digital and 4/3rds..

True, and the original statement was somewhat misleading. I wasthinking of the minimum backfocus for each format rather than theregistration distance..

OK..

But an equivalent normal for 4/3 or an APS-C camera is not going tobe symmetrical (25mm or 33mm respectively). I doubt you could use asimple double Gaussian design as a normal on either 4/3 or APS-C..

Quite true. Just look at the Leica 25/1.4 and Sigma 30/1.4....

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Rriley wrote:.

The mount diameter is a lot less relevant, since the exit of thelens, possibly even a baffle are narrower..

As said "you could", but also asked you to name any modern mount where this is an issue..

Mount throats have beenextended to suit fitment of electrical transmission and AF motors onlenses..

Not Nikon or Pentax..

The aspect ratio of the image circle and the length of the registercontrol the angle that light is allowed to strike the sensor..

The ratio you must be thinking of is exit pupil to image circle..

Mirror clearance, not the lens register, sets the minimum exit pupil distance. But on most SLRs mirror clearance and lens register are close to the same, so I can understand the confusion..

But that is a limit to the minimum exit pupil. 4/3rds "near telecentric" is all about long exit pupil..

Sensorsunlike film do not cope well with more angular light..

Hence the need for lenses with longer exit pupil distance. Nothing at all to do with lens register..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

The mount diameter is a lot less relevant, since the exit of thelens, possibly even a baffle are narrower..

As said "you could", but also asked you to name any modern mountwhere this is an issue..

Ask away.

Mount throats have beenextended to suit fitment of electrical transmission and AF motors onlenses..

Not Nikon or Pentax..

Nikon went AF in body, pentax went down the plug hole.

The aspect ratio of the image circle and the length of the registercontrol the angle that light is allowed to strike the sensor..

The ratio you must be thinking of is exit pupil to image circle..

Aspect ratios are made of height and width, not width and width.

Now get a grip, you have to include the register. 4/3rds lenses have exits of about 23mm while the image circle is 22.5mm. IF the exit diameter were large, it wouldnt be a 4/3rds lens..

By my observation, when you fit a non 4/3rds lens that is particularly short and has a wide exit you will get soft edges. So given a non 4/3rds lens the aspect ratio becomes the exit of the lens and the 4/3rds lens register + adapter thickness. That is the dimensional position where APS C is at.

Mirror clearance, not the lens register, sets the minimum exit pupildistance. But on most SLRs mirror clearance and lens register areclose to the same, so I can understand the confusion..

Thats rubbish, it's the register, there are 2 sides to an aspect ratio, NOT 2 ends.

But that is a limit to the minimum exit pupil. 4/3rds "neartelecentric" is all about long exit pupil..

Sensorsunlike film do not cope well with more angular light..

Hence the need for lenses with longer exit pupil distance. Nothingat all to do with lens register..

Completely absurd, you have not the first idea what you are talking about, you appear to get into a discussion, paint yourself into a corner that somehow discludes lens register in a lens register equation.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

The mount diameter is a lot less relevant, since the exit of thelens, possibly even a baffle are narrower..

As said "you could", but also asked you to name any modern mountwhere this is an issue..

Ask away.

I asked, you still haven't answered..

Mount throats have beenextended to suit fitment of electrical transmission and AF motors onlenses..

Not Nikon or Pentax..

Nikon went AF in body, pentax went down the plug hole.

In-body AF takes more space on the mount, not less. Nikon supports both body and lens AF (except in the D40 and D40x, which only supports lens AF). Pentax will support lens AF when their new lenses are out..

The aspect ratio of the image circle and the length of the registercontrol the angle that light is allowed to strike the sensor..

The ratio you must be thinking of is exit pupil to image circle..

Aspect ratios are made of height and width.

I didn't say "aspect ratio", I said "ratio"..

Now get a grip, you have to include the register. 4/3rds lenses haveexits of about 23mm while the image circle is 22.5mm. IF the exitdiameter were large, it wouldnt be a 4/3rds lens..

4/3rds exit pupil distance is considerably longer than 23mm. Has to be, because shutter + mirror clearance on the side-swinging E3xx series has to be over 30mm. Exit pupil on most 4/3rds lenses is considerably longer than that..

But that has nothing to do with the lens register, which on 4/3rds is around 38mm..

By my observation, when you fit a non 4/3rds lens that isparticularly short and has a wide exit you will get soft edges..

I assume by wide you mean short, as in close to the sensor? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Exit pupil distance. Has ziltch to do with lens registration..

Mirror clearance, not the lens register, sets the minimum exit pupildistance. But on most SLRs mirror clearance and lens register areclose to the same, so I can understand the confusion..

Thats rubbish, it's the register, there are 2 sides to an aspectratio, NOT 2 ends.

Would it help to show you a lens with exit pupil shorter than lens register?.

Http://www.mir.com.my/...y/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/21mm.htm.

Of course it require mirror lock-up to use, because as I said, mirror clearance is the issue for short exit pupil lenses, not lens register..

And for a lens with exit pupil longer than the lens register, pick just about any lens made today. And you are looking at long exit pupil lenses. Lens registration doesn't figure into the equation..

Sensorsunlike film do not cope well with more angular light..

Hence the need for lenses with longer exit pupil distance. Nothingat all to do with lens register..

Completely absurd, you have not the first idea what you are talkingabout, you appear to get into a discussion, paint yourself into acorner that somehow discludes lens register in a lens registerequation.

I think you are running out of paint. But just to make sure you finish the bucket, please compare and contrast the optical properties of exit pupil distance vs lens registration..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Andrew dB wrote:.

Jrtrent wrote:.

Biggest disadvantage for me is the lack of a reasonably fast (F/2 orbetter), lightweight (300 grams or less) normal focal length lens.

Unfortunately the old lens designs that allowed for small, fast, highquality 'normal' lenses for the 35mm format cannot be used on 4/3 (orAPS-C for that matter) due to the registration distance beingsubstantially larger than the desired focal length. This forces theuse of a retrofocal design which is more complex, heavier and harderto engineer than the equivalent symmetrical lens design..

Thanks for the explanation. If I'm understanding you correctly, a retrofocus design is required because the backfocus needed is longer than the approximate 25mm "normal" focal length for the 4/3 system, so the shorter the lens, the bigger, heavier, and more complex it needs to be. Even so, I don't think I'm asking too much; Olympus managed to make a retrofocus 28mm F/2.0 for the OM line that was compact and weighed in at 245 grams. Such a lens on an E-series camera would be similar in field of view and speed to the 58 F/2 Biotar and 55 F/2 Takumar lenses I enjoyed so much...

Nickleback wrote:.

David Hughes wrote:.

Why not just go out and take some pictures? Far more healthy..

I agree..

And think about all those newcomers who are now convinced that biggeris better and that ISO 3200 and f/1 are essential, everyday tools..

So f/4 and ISO 400 are better? FWIW, I never mentioned ISO 3200, andmy only mention of f/1 was as an example of extreme case where onetouted advantage of 4/3rds, size and placement of the lens mount,matters..

I was picking up the bigger is better theme and developing it: no more..

FWIW I worry about newcomers reading this forum and ending up with a long list of desirable features which won't quite/ever be needed _by a newcomer_. A lot of them would be (or should be) quite happy with a P&S and a decent book. Then they should move onwards and base their next camera on _their_ experience..

The two lenses mentioned and a macro would cover 110% of what mostbeginners need..

I think that's presuming a lot. Lots of people, even beginners, havedifferent needs..

See above..

Regards, David..

David Hughes wrote:.

FWIW I worry about newcomers reading this forum and ending up with along list of desirable features which won't quite/ever be needed _bya newcomer_. A lot of them would be (or should be) quite happy with aP&S and a decent book. Then they should move onwards and base theirnext camera on _their_ experience..

.....Without taking sides with anyone, I'd like to also say that there really is a big problem in this beginners forum with lurking fanboys wanting every beginner that comes along to buy their favorite DSLR. A $250 Fuji S6500fd would serve the needs of a lot of the newbies who come here (and no, I've never owned any Fuji cameras myself!). For a compact p&s, the Canon A640 is a great camera for the money as well. And there really isn't anything like the Nikon D40 for the typical novice DSLR user. It has ergonomics and handling characteristics that are in a class of it's own and produces wonderful JPEG's straight out of the camera. The Olympus E510 might be the only other entry level DSLR that makes sense for a beginner who isn't too sure just yet what their needs are going to be several months down the road of learning photography. But yet these cameras aren't often recommended here by several of these forum 'experts'...

David Hughes wrote:.

A lot of them would be (or should be) quite happy with aP&S and a decent book..

The most important part of a camera is the nut behind the viewfinder. Upgrade that and you'll take better pictures with any camera..

The two lenses mentioned and a macro would cover 110% of what mostbeginners need..

I think that's presuming a lot. Lots of people, even beginners, havedifferent needs..

See above..

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with the other poster or not. 3 lenses? Including macro? I still think that's presuming a lot. Why recommend 3 lenses? For most, baring any specific request, one lens would suffice. But let's say somebody comes here and asks why they can't get good pictures of their kid playing basketball? None of the 3 lenses would be it (although the macro would come closest)..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with the other poster or not. 3lenses? Including macro? I still think that's presuming a lot. Whyrecommend 3 lenses? For most, baring any specific request, one lenswould suffice. But let's say somebody comes here and asks why theycan't get good pictures of their kid playing basketball? None of the3 lenses would be it (although the macro would come closest)..

Weren't the two lenses covering 28 to 200 mm (in 35 mm terms)?.

I added macro as a lot of lenses won't do macro and, OK, a lot will. Why macro for kids playing ball games, btw?.

Regards, David..

David Hughes wrote:.

Nickleback wrote:.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with the other poster or not. 3lenses? Including macro? I still think that's presuming a lot. Whyrecommend 3 lenses? For most, baring any specific request, one lenswould suffice. But let's say somebody comes here and asks why theycan't get good pictures of their kid playing basketball? None of the3 lenses would be it (although the macro would come closest)..

Weren't the two lenses covering 28 to 200 mm (in 35 mm terms)?.

The two zooms cover 24-400mm, they aren't cheap, and they aren't even available yet. The predecessors, 14-54mm and 50-200mm, cost about $1250. I'll take a wild guess and say the new lenses will be at least the same price, and most likely more expensive. How much more? We'll have to wait and see..

Note that I'm not saying these lenses are overpriced for what they are..

I added macro as a lot of lenses won't do macro and, OK, a lot will..

So every beginner needs macro? I think that's presuming a lot..

Why macro for kids playing ball games, btw?.

Indoor ball games need fast lenses. Especially kids games, as school gyms are notorious for bad lighting. f/2.8-3.5 or f/2.8-4 isn't usually fast enough. And to shoot most indoor sports you really need around 100mm to 150mm (in 35mm equivalent)..

Canon and Nikon shooters often pick a 85mm f/1.8 ($300 to $400) or if they are short on funds, 50mm f/1.8 ($75 - $100). 50mm is a bit short, but it'll work..

The only reasonably priced solution in the right focal length range in the Oly camp is the 50mm f/2 macro, which is about $400..

I take your advice to mean we should not recommend a bunch of high priced lenses to every beginner, and in fact not even recommend a DSLR to many. I agree. But then you agree with the poster that recommends 2 expensive lenses, and you tack on a macro to make the grand total $1650. Throw in a body and you are well over $2k. And this is for a beginner?.

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Tim in upstate NY wrote:.

.....Without taking sides with anyone, I'd like to also say thatthere really is a big problem in this beginners forum with lurkingfanboys wanting every beginner that comes along to buy their favoriteDSLR. A $250 Fuji S6500fd would serve the needs of a lot of thenewbies who come here (and no, I've never owned any Fuji camerasmyself!). For a compact p&s, the Canon A640 is a great camera for themoney as well. And there really isn't anything like the Nikon D40 forthe typical novice DSLR user. It has ergonomics and handlingcharacteristics that are in a class of it's own and produces wonderfulJPEG's straight out of the camera. The Olympus E510 might be the onlyother entry level DSLR that makes sense for a beginner who isn't toosure just yet what their needs are going to be several months downthe road of learning photography.



I think it needs to be noted that this is a very respectable statementand needs uniform considerationRiley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Tim in upstate NY wrote:.

.....Without taking sides with anyone, I'd like to also say thatthere really is a big problem in this beginners forum with lurkingfanboys wanting every beginner that comes along to buy their favoriteDSLR. A $250 Fuji S6500fd would serve the needs of a lot of thenewbies who come here (and no, I've never owned any Fuji camerasmyself!). For a compact p&s, the Canon A640 is a great camera for themoney as well. And there really isn't anything like the Nikon D40 forthe typical novice DSLR user. It has ergonomics and handlingcharacteristics that are in a class of it's own and produces wonderfulJPEG's straight out of the camera. The Olympus E510 might be the onlyother entry level DSLR that makes sense for a beginner who isn't toosure just yet what their needs are going to be several months downthe road of learning photography.



I think it needs to be noted that this is a very respectable statementand needs uniform consideration.

I think Tim was talking about YOU. .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1CATS #25PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htmHomePage: http://www.1derful.info'I brake for pixels...'..

For some reason, some 4/3" guys are insecure and combative. If you buy into the 4/3" system, you'll have to put up with people like rriley, who stole your thread and seems to have insulted everybody who posted anything. I can't believe that it takes 20 posts to state his position!.

I like the Olympus cameras, but can't stand some of the owners... .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1CATS #25PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htmHomePage: http://www.1derful.info'I brake for pixels...'..

Nickleback wrote:.

- - - Snip! Snip! - - -.

I take your advice to mean we should not recommend a bunch of highpriced lenses to every beginner, and in fact not even recommend aDSLR to many. I agree. But then you agree with the poster thatrecommends 2 expensive lenses, and you tack on a macro to make thegrand total $1650. Throw in a body and you are well over $2k. Andthis is for a beginner?.

I read the thread quickly and confused the lenses or something. Thought/Certain it was the two lens kit and beginers expect macro....

Sorry reply is so short but have to run..

Regards, David.

PS might be a good idea to recommend a top tele zoom the small apertures at the far end make a lot worthless imo...