If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
On 12/20/2018 12:07 AM, RichA wrote:
[...] I like the reach you get with smaller sensors. Often, I've been able to frame-fill wildlife shots with m4/3rds while others couldn't owing to lack of long enough lenses, plus I avoid the bulk of larger-sensor equipment. [...] Comments such as this puzzle me. Are you under the impression that the smaller sensors convert your normal-range lenses into telephoto lenses because of the cropped view? -- best regards, Neil |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
On 12/21/2018 3:21 AM, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 20 December 2018 18:31:07 UTC-5, Neil wrote: On 12/20/2018 12:07 AM, RichA wrote: [...] I like the reach you get with smaller sensors. Often, I've been able to frame-fill wildlife shots with m4/3rds while others couldn't owing to lack of long enough lenses, plus I avoid the bulk of larger-sensor equipment. [...] Comments such as this puzzle me. Are you under the impression that the smaller sensors convert your normal-range lenses into telephoto lenses because of the cropped view? -- best regards, Neil No, but until FF hits 80mp, on average I'll get closer to an animal or bird and get more pixels (and more detail on it) on it than someone with a FF camera. Leaving off wildlife photo experts who hide in blinds all day that is. I've seen this happen on more than once. In your example, I doubt that m-pixel density is the most important factor since someone with a telephoto can walk closer to the subject, too, if the subject is willing to stay put. I'd go with lens quality over m-pixels in this situation, and there are several excellent telephoto lenses available that will easily outperform normal lenses for wildlife photography. -- best regards, Neil |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , Neil
wrote: [...] I like the reach you get with smaller sensors. Often, I've been able to frame-fill wildlife shots with m4/3rds while others couldn't owing to lack of long enough lenses, plus I avoid the bulk of larger-sensor equipment. [...] Comments such as this puzzle me. Are you under the impression that the smaller sensors convert your normal-range lenses into telephoto lenses because of the cropped view? No, but until FF hits 80mp, on average I'll get closer to an animal or bird and get more pixels (and more detail on it) on it than someone with a FF camera. Leaving off wildlife photo experts who hide in blinds all day that is. I've seen this happen on more than once. In your example, I doubt that m-pixel density is the most important factor since someone with a telephoto can walk closer to the subject, too, if the subject is willing to stay put. I'd go with lens quality over m-pixels in this situation, and there are several excellent telephoto lenses available that will easily outperform normal lenses for wildlife photography. moving closer changes the perspective. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
On 12/21/2018 11:13 PM, RichA wrote:
[...] It's possible for a spectacular lens to produce a nicer-looking image while having less resolution than a lesser, longer lens. Also, fewer megapixels means the camera will be less on a lens's quality and will produce a superficially better looking image. Kind of like how a lens used on a 10mp camera looks sharper than one shot at 16mp. Generalizations such as "...nicer looking..." and "...superficially better looking..." aside, a lens' resolution is a matter of optics, not megapixels in the camera. All the camera can do is render that resolution. Of course, I'm not talking about crappy cameras or lenses. -- best regards, Neil |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)
On 12/22/2018 6:26 PM, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 22 December 2018 07:22:24 UTC-5, Neil wrote: On 12/21/2018 11:13 PM, RichA wrote: [...] It's possible for a spectacular lens to produce a nicer-looking image while having less resolution than a lesser, longer lens. Also, fewer megapixels means the camera will be less on a lens's quality and will produce a superficially better looking image. Kind of like how a lens used on a 10mp camera looks sharper than one shot at 16mp. Generalizations such as "...nicer looking..." and "...superficially better looking..." aside, a lens' resolution is a matter of optics, not megapixels in the camera. All the camera can do is render that resolution. Of course, I'm not talking about crappy cameras or lenses. -- best regards, Neil By nicer looking I mean mostly bokeh. They've purposely produced lenses with lower resolution and aberration-control to enhance bokeh. However, you mate that lens to a high megapixel count camera, and the output will have higher resolution than a better lens mated to a camera with fewer pixels. This is why (as an example) Olympus scores lower on a site like DXO even though it probably has a much better corrected lens than what is on some FF camera with 40mp. This is still a quality of the camera, not the lens. A good quality lens will probably have good bokeh, and whether that bokeh is rendered by the camera is not determined by the lens. This is hardly a new phenomenon restricted to digital photography, by the way. -- best regards, Neil |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article ,
RichA wrote: By nicer looking I mean mostly bokeh. They've purposely produced lenses with lower resolution and aberration-control to enhance bokeh. However, you mate that lens to a high megapixel count camera, and the output will have higher resolution than a better lens mated to a camera with fewer pixels. This is why (as an example) Olympus scores lower on a site like DXO even though it probably has a much better corrected lens than what is on some FF camera with 40mp. dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more to do with how much a particular company paid dxo. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:20:19 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , RichA wrote: By nicer looking I mean mostly bokeh. They've purposely produced lenses with lower resolution and aberration-control to enhance bokeh. However, you mate that lens to a high megapixel count camera, and the output will have higher resolution than a better lens mated to a camera with fewer pixels. This is why (as an example) Olympus scores lower on a site like DXO even though it probably has a much better corrected lens than what is on some FF camera with 40mp. dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more to do with how much a particular company paid dxo. Is there any evidence to support that claim? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more to do with how much a particular company paid dxo. Is there any evidence to support that claim? yes. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 08:44:02 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more to do with how much a particular company paid dxo. Is there any evidence to support that claim? yes. What is it other than rumour or gossip? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: dxo scores have less to do with the capabilities of the camera and more to do with how much a particular company paid dxo. Is there any evidence to support that claim? yes. What is it other than rumour or gossip? it's neither of those. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering) | Alfred Molon[_4_] | Digital Photography | 2 | December 24th 18 03:37 PM |
Please, tell me Zeiss's offering to the camera world won't be areskinned SONY!! | Neil[_9_] | Digital Photography | 1 | August 27th 18 01:00 PM |
Need a camera with specific features: | Gary Smiley | Digital Photography | 1 | May 22nd 06 02:31 AM |
Canon Offering $600+ Rebate on Digital Camera Equipment (3x Rebate Offers) | Mark | Digital Photography | 6 | November 4th 04 11:27 AM |