Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: RAW Truth

  1. #51
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisJ View Post
    It's true Terry, the Pentax 110 lenses would not work well on a full frame sensor, but here we're talking about the G1 with a half frame sized sensor which is easier to design lenses for than a full frame.

    Chris
    But, I'm not really talking about the lens working on a full frame sensor. If we just take the 28 summicron as an example.

    It works just fine on the M9 and M8 but it doesn't work well on the smaller 4/3 sensor (where you would think that it should be the best because you are using the sweet center spot of the lens).

    The M9/M8 sensors are specially designed to deal with wide angles and how the light hits the sensor. Not sure what Panny/Oly have done to attack the problem.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,098
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisJ View Post
    ...but here we're talking about the G1 with a half frame sized sensor..
    While the linear measurements for the 4/3rds sensors are about half those of 35mm, the sensor area of 4/3rds is about a quarter of 35mm.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  3. #53
    Senior Member kevinparis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: RAW Truth

    I was oddly surprised to realise that the 4/3 sensor was pretty much the same as the old 110 Kodak format.

    the whole need to get the light hitting the sensor straight on is the biggest bugbear of the smaller sensor formats. That coupled with the marketing promise of the 4/3 format of smaller has meant that the manufacturers have had to make decisions to go small on lenses and correct later rather than make lenses that would give the numbers in terms of focal length and aperture but be large and unwieldy... and not 'on message' marketing wise

    Just look at the panleica 25/1.4 and the zuiko 25/2.8.... which one fulfills the promise of smaller?

    Olympus know their optics... the OM lenses were great quality and very petite. Do you think if they could do the same for 4/3 they wouldn't?

    There are big rules of physics here that most of us dont understand... a digital sensor is very different from film. Getting more light at a wider angle and still having a useable image is a conundrum.

    maybe digital correction is the future... hell it was good enough for the Hubble telescope.... and that focuses closer to infinity in the dark better that we ever will


    :-)

    K

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisJ View Post
    Panasonic/Olympus and even Pentax have put their faith in smaller sensors ultimately performing as well as full frame, ..

    Why Leica is going the full frame route only Leica can answer, as the trial between a G1 and a Canon full frame sensor in Amateur Photographer shows with every generation small sensors are getting better and better, and now that Fuji is joining the m43 bandwagon with their excellent Super CCD SR sensor (which apparently increases dynamic range) we may not need a full frame sensor at all.

    Sensors are developing at a much faster rate than film ever did, there are some technologies that have'nt even been tried yet, it won't take 30 years this time for major improvements - you heard it here first .

    Chris
    I have little faith in the smaller 4/3rds sensors even catching up with the slightly larger APS-C sized sensors in terms of performance (Noise and DR, in particular).

    IIRC, there has been only one major upgrade in the m4/3rds NMOS sensors (I will leave the GH-1's sensor out). There has been tremendous progress in the AA/UV/IR cut filters that are in front of the sensor, both in size and in performance. Astounding piece of engineering there.

    The very reason that Oly and Pana are sticking with the m4/3rds NMOS sensors (after Kodak terminated sensors to Oly) is the cost. NMOS sensors are cheap. The ones in the camera are on a flex board unlike ceramic cased CCD or CMOS sensors (of any size), for example. I still can't believe that this is the piece that does the image recording.

    When a Sony EXMOR-R sensor (~ APS-C size) camera (I hope they will not waste it on any of their mirror reflex cameras) hits the market, things will be shaken up quite a bit. I am keenly looking forward to that. Even with the current technology, if Sony were to offer a mirrorless camera instead of the A500, it would be simply so much better than any of the m4/3rds cameras for still photography.

    On the Pentax-110 lenses, yes it is true that the 18mm has much less distortion or CA than the Oly-D 17mm lens, I reported on this a while back.

    OTOH, the Pentax 18/2.8 lens has no changeable iris, is a pain when it comes to handling and shows much larger light fall off. The corner sharpness of the Pentax-110 18mm is much less desirable compared to the Oly-D 17mm.

    Cost wise, a simple m4/3rds to Pentax-110 adapter would set one back by ~ $110. This can not be taken for granted while comparing the lenses.

    TTL flash- sucks with manual focus lenses. Unreliable.

    With the 17/2.8, this works seamlessly and reliably.

  5. #55
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Truth

    Hi

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I have little faith in the smaller 4/3rds sensors even catching up with the slightly larger APS-C sized sensors in terms of performance (Noise and DR, in particular).
    based on what I see with my G1 and comparing with files from my 10D and 20D (both sold now) I would be interested to see what it is you are talking about here.

    On DPReview I see little to distinguish them, save the difference expected in the smaller area (some 15%). It is interesting to compare 'cross camera' reviews and take cameras which are contrasted against the G1 in one review (such as the 450D in both the G1 and 500D tests)

    right up to 800 iso everything is pretty comparable.

    however if you compare to the 5d MkII then it sucks ... but then that's not APS-C as you mentioned



    IIRC, there has been only one major upgrade in the m4/3rds NMOS sensors (I will leave the GH-1's sensor out). There has been tremendous progress in the AA/UV/IR cut filters that are in front of the sensor, both in size and in performance. Astounding piece of engineering there.

    The very reason that Oly and Pana are sticking with the m4/3rds NMOS sensors (after Kodak terminated sensors to Oly) is the cost. NMOS sensors are cheap. The ones in the camera are on a flex board unlike ceramic cased CCD or CMOS sensors (of any size), for example. I still can't believe that this is the piece that does the image recording.
    if the cost is lower and that is passed on to me then I don't have a problem with that ... as to the flexibility 1) there isn't really such a large area as to promote much movement at the focal plane (like bulge) and 2) is it any more flexible than film? Seems like a red-herring point but if you can justify it I'm interested to learn.

    TTL flash- sucks with manual focus lenses. Unreliable.
    that has not been my experience ... it has been flawless. However IF you exceed the ability of the compensation you'll get problems. For instance if you are too close and using a too high ISO you'll get over exposure as it seems that the flash's minimum power setting is not low enough. conversely if you are too far away you may exceed the flashes max output.

    I have no way to measure what the EV range of the flash is for its min or max outputs (be interesting to know) as my flash meter is in another part of the world.

    anyone got one?

  6. #56
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: RAW Truth

    that has not been my experience ... it has been flawless. However IF you exceed the ability of the compensation you'll get problems. For instance if you are too close and using a too high ISO you'll get over exposure as it seems that the flash's minimum power setting is not low enough. conversely if you are too far away you may exceed the flashes max output.
    Are you assuming that I use the pop-up and said that? I do know how a flash works, what a GN is and such tech details.

    Your comparison's from Canon and Dp revs shows everything is comparable up to ISO800, well and good.

    On the film plane- A lot of people paid a premium price (Leica M bodies) for a good reason. Film flatness is taken care of there.

    Those who were very aware of the flatness issue also allowed time for the film to uncurl before the next snap.

    OTOH, there were gazillions who used film without knowing that at all and may continue to use it in the very same fashion.

  7. #57
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Truth

    Hi

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Are you assuming that I use the pop-up and said that?
    no ... but its the only TTL flash I've ever used on my G1 ... my Metz is not TTL

    I do know how a flash works, what a GN is and such tech details.
    I expected you did ... I didn't question that you did ... I only asked about your experience with its unreliablity and raised what I thought could be related parameters which may have effected the results.

    the only assumption I made was that you were honestly reporting a problem and that you hadn't found a solution to it

    On the film plane- A lot of people paid a premium price (Leica M bodies) for a good reason. Film flatness is taken care of there.
    so too for almost all 35mm cameras I can think of ... espeically given how loosely wound the film is in the canister, how straight the film path is on every 35mm camera I've owned and how well the guide rails and pressure plate work. I've only ever seen 'curl' reported in post development. 120 is a different problem.

    But (since you've pulled one apart) how do you see flex being an issue on 4/3 cameras? Since you raised it...

    I use quite a bit of film ... 120 and 4x5 ... flatness is occasionally an issue for me in my 6x12 back but not in sheets. I've never seen anything on my G1 to suggest that sensor flatness is any issue ... have you?

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: RAW Truth

    Pellicle,

    Yes, it is a problem. Especially in very low light (within a given flash's capabilities). One frame is totally blown while the next is very dark.

    The i-TTL flash works taking into account the exit pupil of the lens, the focal length, the distance and such factors. I am yet to make it work reliably for any one of my manual focus lenses.

    On the flex board- No, I do not find that to be an issue affecting the image quality!

    Full credit to Panasonic (the ones who make the NMOS sensors for m4/3rds and 4/3rds) to have achieved that! If they could get the flatness required with cheaper fabrication, when the QC is so high, I can only applaud them!

    Yeah, the film curl issue is different for 120 which is different than 220 and is yet again different when it comes to larger format.

    Since Pentax-110 is mentioned. Despite the tiny frame and use of a cartridge, that lousy camera (and the 110s) could barley hold a frame in the correct position. Just because something is old does not always mean it has be good. It was a crappy camera although, arguably, one of the cutest ever made.

  9. #59
    ChrisJ
    Guest

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    But, I'm not really talking about the lens working on a full frame sensor. If we just take the 28 summicron as an example.

    It works just fine on the M9 and M8 but it doesn't work well on the smaller 4/3 sensor (where you would think that it should be the best because you are using the sweet center spot of the lens).

    The M9/M8 sensors are specially designed to deal with wide angles and how the light hits the sensor. Not sure what Panny/Oly have done to attack the problem.
    Sorry for being late to reply Terry.

    That's the reason for my excitement at what new sensors can offer, the new Fuji sensors have two light sensitive areas for every pixel just to address this problem, it also has the advantage of widening the dynamic range more than a tad. It's just a question of upscaling it to a m4/3 sized sensor.

    Chris

  10. #60
    ChrisJ
    Guest

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post

    Since Pentax-110 is mentioned. Despite the tiny frame and use of a cartridge, that lousy camera (and the 110s) could barley hold a frame in the correct position. Just because something is old does not always mean it has be good. It was a crappy camera although, arguably, one of the cutest ever made.
    True Vivek the cameras were not good, only full program mode available etc. etc., but most of it's problems were with the 110 cartridge, definately not the lenses which were reported at the time to being as good as Leica or Zeiss.

    Not for the first time Pentax backed a looser, they expected the 110 format to improve - it didn't.

    Chris

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •