From: Val Hallah on 11 Mar 2010 14:09
On Mar 10, 12:30 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <hn7ckt$g4...(a)news.albasani.net>, steph...(a)yahoo.com says...
> > But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
> > huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
> > $$$ MF glass etc.
> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
> But what turns me off is the weight - 1480g body only, with a lens it
> will be > 2Kg. Not to mention that huge&heavy mirror slapping around.
> Why can't a make such a large sensor camera *without* the mirror? The
> body would be much more compact and lightweight. At 2Kg it's not really
> suited as a camera to carry around with you.
> Alfred Molon
> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo sharing site
at that price you can afford to pay someone else to carry it ;-)
From: Me on 11 Mar 2010 15:51
> While I did not upgrade from the 5D to
> the 5D II simply for more resolution, the added resolution is clearly
> visible in prints as small as 8 x 10.
Did you upgrade from about 3mp?
I've actually used and compared 5d 1 &II, and my conclusion is very much
the same as this:
Added resolution "clearly visible at 8x10" is plain and utter nonsense.
I think I actually can tell the difference between 6 and 24mp at 10x8,
but to say it's "clearly visible" is totally delusional.
Printer used is R1800, which also exceeded wet-process print resolution
(150lpi) by about double (horizontal) to about 50% (radial) (printer
uses the same print engine as the R2400 used by David L).
From: Me on 11 Mar 2010 15:56
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> I can't speak for Alan's wisdom, but I can speak from my experience. Canon
> has done exactly the right thing in the 5D2. (I'd guess Alan's experience
> with prints from his 20+MP dSLR is similar to mine.)
No - from my experience they did the wrong thing. They should have
upgraded the AF module.
From: David J. Littleboy on 11 Mar 2010 18:58
"Me" <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote in message
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> I can't speak for Alan's wisdom, but I can speak from my experience.
>> Canon has done exactly the right thing in the 5D2. (I'd guess Alan's
>> experience with prints from his 20+MP dSLR is similar to mine.)
> No - from my experience they did the wrong thing. They should have
> upgraded the AF module.
But they did: they gave us live view which allows incredibly precise
focusing from anywhere in the image.
But AF? What's AF? Must be one of those newfangled bells and whistles I
don't use/need. (I'm not completely joking here: 3 of my 5 main lenses are
MF. My walk-around kit is Zeiss 21/2.8, Voigtlander 40/2.0, and Sigma 70/2.8
macro, the Sigma being the only AF lens).
David J. Littleboy
From: David J. Littleboy on 11 Mar 2010 19:35
"Me" <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote:
> Bowser wrote:
>> While I did not upgrade from the 5D to
>> the 5D II simply for more resolution, the added resolution is clearly
>> visible in prints as small as 8 x 10.
> Did you upgrade from about 3mp?
> I've actually used and compared 5d 1 &II, and my conclusion is very much
> the same as this:
That's not my conclusion: I find the improved detail/texture rendition
significant at 12x18. This is because, at least for sizes up to 12x18,
people walk up to prints and take a closer look. If you show your prints,
they'll get looked at from 10" away. (Even larger prints get looked at up
close in every gallery I've been in.)
Also, I strongly disagree with his final comment "If the picture lacks
content, not even a 24 Mp camera could make it a masterpiece!"
This is inane and stupid. A good workman knows his tools, their abilities,
and limitation. S/he uses them to capture images appropriate to the
capabilities of the tool at hand.
> Added resolution "clearly visible at 8x10" is plain and utter nonsense.
Well, I'd call it a bit of an overstatement<g>. For some test patterns, I
can see a difference in prints between 360 and 720 ppi source files. But in
general, 300 ppi from a good digtal original looks good, whereas 240ppi
looks noticeably short on detail.
It's interesting that the canonical 300 ppi really is a good target
resolution. I suppose I might have preferred a somewhat higher resolution
when my eyes were 40 years younger, though...
> I think I actually can tell the difference between 6 and 24mp at 10x8, but
> to say it's "clearly visible" is totally delusional.
Hmm. I find 6MP to be completely unacceptable for 8x10 (A4 borderless*,
actually). It just doesn't render detail and textures as well as I like.
Compared to the large numbers of A4 prints from scanned MF lying around
here, 6MP (like 35mm) simply doesn't hack it at this size. But 12MP is fine.
This isn't just me, anyone who looks at a mix of my 6MP shots (I used a 300D
for family stuff for years) and MF shots at A4 is knocked out by the quality
of the MF stuff. That difference goes away at 12MP.
*: I've been printing at 7x10.5 on A4 paper lately, though. 6MP might not be
such a disaster at that size.
> Printer used is R1800, which also exceeded wet-process print resolution
> (150lpi) by about double (horizontal) to about 50% (radial) (printer uses
> the same print engine as the R2400 used by David L).
The print engine is actually quite different (I have both an R800 and the
R2400) but detail rendition is similar. But wet-process projection printing
_at its best_ (e.g. printing medium or large format film at enlargements
under 6x) is better than these printers, although that improvement is
largely academic, especially if you can print at 360 ppi.
David J. Littleboy