5MP Olympus=6MP Nikon?

[jtk]

Given the 4/3 ratio Vs 2X3 ratio, Oly's 5MP is entirely assigned to an

8X10 image, whereas Nikon's is cropped at the end/s if you fill that

format/window...

 

In other words, if you reproduce to 8x10 format, not 2X3 format (not

addicted to that 35mm convention), wouldn't the 5MP Oly be at least

equal to the 6MP D70 in terms of resolution? And if you crop square,

might the Oly not be equal to 8MP? compare 2X3 to 4X5 to 6X6.

 

Opinions? Direct comparisons ?

[Brian_Edwards]

But some of us prefer the wider 3:2 format.

[basscheffers]

Yes, that is true. I like the 4:3 format and I like my E-1, it's a great camera.

[jbq]

The Oly produces images 1966 pixels tall, Nikon gets 2000 pixels, so there's indeed no difference in vertical pixel count, i.e. for any aspect ratio between 1:1 and 4:3 you get essentially the same results.

 

On the other hand for longer formats, (7:5, 3:2 and longer) the Nikon approach starts to yield an advantage.

 

Put it another way there isn't a situation where the Nikon approach does worse.

[jtk]

There's no situation where the nikon does worse...except square format.

If you crop Nikon's 6MP square you waste much more data than you would with Olympus...meaning the Olympus actually does beat Nikon with square format.

 

It's true that hobbiests (eg "street photographers") are often hung up on 2X3, but professionals and their customers don't have that concern.

 

In any case, since 2X3 is going to be only one of several digital proportions shortly (eg the new Pansonic/Leica semi-pano), maybe Oly's got the right idea here.

 

Personally, I'd prefer a square format for the same reasons graphics professionals have always preferred it. MUCH better for portraits, too.

[._._z]

If your only intention is to shoot at ISO 100 at 5x7, your comment regarding

resolution might be valid for someone making a purchase decision, but your

comparison presumes that the sensors are identical and that resolution is the

only differentiation in the final print. As numerous reviews and comparisons have

shown, however, there can be significant differences between Olympus output and that

of other DLSRs, especially at ISOs over ISO 200.

[jbq]

John: Uh? I'm not totally sure how you reach the conclusion than 2000x2000 is worse than 1966x1966.

 

Like I said, for all aspect ratios shorter than 4:3 the Nikon image is 2000 pixels tall and the Oly image is 1966 pixels tall.

[jtk]

OK, good responses. Perhaps we're left with the matter of optical quality and physical size Vs $$. Or perhaps Oly is just down and out.

 

The 2X3 format is an antique... it came into being as two 4:3 35mm motion picture frames...an accident that stuck. Amusingly, Olympus's original 18X24 format got dubbed "half frame" though Leica's 24X36 was originally known as "double frame."

 

Sometime in the Seventies it became a virtue among hobbiests ("street photographers") to print 2X3 with black borders...which was contrary to graphic professional preferences, the secondary reason designers/art directors almost universally prefer 6X6 (when film), in addition to the size.

 

When I see 2:3 and black borders, I remember Lava Lamps :-)

 

A mega 4:3 chip, or a even a big square chip, would move photography ahead visually. It'll be interesting to see how the new digital formats being introduced by Panasonic/Leica fly.

[Brian_Edwards]

Well let's just take all of the full-frame HCB (or Eugene Smith, or Gary Winnogrand, etc.) prints out there and trash them, since they clealy do not have any artistic merit!

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with individuals having different preferences about formats, but you express yours in just about the most prejudicial manner possible.

[jtk]

Brian, You may be familiar with some of the work of the people you mentioned (it's "Winogrand" btw):

 

Since at least two of them shot various formats, and since all cropped, do you think they believed 2X3 ideal?

[Brian_Edwards]

"..may be familiar..."

 

You do need a dose of humility.

 

You can try to pigeon-hole me all you want, but I think your argument, which appears to be along the lines that the preferences of graphic professionals and designers/art directors should somehow determine what the aspect ratio of film or digital cameras should be is simply, and I am putting this mildly, idiotic. If want to shoot square, shoot square. If you need a square image, but have a 6X7 camera, then crop. If you need a camera that has a square (or whatever) aspect ratio to satisfy the needs of your clients, then by all means, don't let any lowdown street photographer get in your way. Nobody is forcing you to buy a Canon, Nikon, or whatever digital camera, and nobody is forcing you into a 2X3 mold. Get over it, buy a 'blad and add a digital back, be done with it, and make your clients as happy as little clams.

 

By the way, it's spelled "hobbyist".

[basscheffers]

100 ISO 5x7"? Mr Z, you have obviously never actually seen a print from an E-1, have you?

[dg1]

Kind of a goofy discussion isn't it? If you've got 6meg you've got 6meg, if 5meg thats what you've got. If you crop either to the same pixel dimensions then they've got the same number of pixels.. well, what does that say? Nothing.

 

Similarly, I'm a hobbyist. And I like 3:2. OTOH, so did/do friedlander, eggleston, winogrand, hcb kertesz and a long list of non-hobbyists who use 35mm. Theres apparently no relationship here between format and level of achievement.

[basscheffers]

Dean, very true. 6MP at 3:2 is more pixels. If you like to go wider, you can make use of that. If you chose to crop to 8x10, you lose nothing.

 

But for every 2:3 lovin' pro out there you mention, there is a 6x6 or 6x4.5 or 6x17 or 4x5" lover out there too. It's personal preference, nothing more, and I prefer the 4:3 look.

 

To be honest, I think most of the 2:3 guys embraced it because that is what was available in the small cameras they prefered to work with and just naturaly framed it so their images looked good in that format; if Mr. Leica had put a 4:3 image on that piece of 35mm film, that would have been the standard today and probably what your heros would use.

[._._z]

Yes Bas, I've seen prints from them. And I think I must have a better understanding of

how results from it compare to those of larger-sensor-sized DSLRs, especially above

ISO 100.

[dg1]

Bas, I agree it is a matter of preference. I wasn't saying that one format is more professional than another, just responding to the comments above that 3:2 is somehow what "hobbyists" use.

 

I like 3:2 but also 4:3 and especially square formats. And "custom" crops. Whatever the picture seems to work with. Lately to save money, I've been buying standardized mats that are usually 4:3 (8X10, 11X14 etc, and I do find it annoying that 3:2 precut mats are not available..) and framing more 4:3 or 3:2 cropped to 4:3. If it looks good to you, it is.

 

I've also held,in the past that the DSLR and 3:2 are somewhat of an anachronism in so far as they are digital mimicing old film cameras. But even so, I find as far as rectangles go, I'm drawn to the 3:2. I don't ascribe any meaning other than personal preference, or habit, to that however.

[basscheffers]

Z, why would you "have a better understanding", simply because I have a different opinion than you? That's a bit thick...

[jtk]

The popularity of 2:3 is the result of Leica's combining two 18X24 motion picture frames.

 

Digital cameras don't shoot motion picture film

and few framing or professional applications exist for 2:3.

 

The suggestion that I advocated trashing famous 35mm photographers was absurd, badly intended.

 

Famous photographers who like uncropped 35mm format have had no other choice if they wanted fine small cameras.

 

When the digital formats that are just around the corner offer us a choice (eg Panasonic/Leica), we'll see more diversity and creativity than we've seen with 35mm.

 

4:3 or similar will inevitably replace 2:3 because 2:3 requires physically larger optics and camera bodies, contributing nothing to images other than nostalgia for the passing era of film. Both Nikon and Canon will want to go to a new lens form factor for business reasons, as well.

 

Compare today's obese DSLRs with old Leicas and you'll see how retrograde current 2:3 digital concepts actually are.

 

4:4 is even more logical than 4:3 because the processing needed to revolve shots, horizontal Vs vertical is wasteful, it consumes processing which degrades images. 4:4 would allow even smaller lenses than 4:3, as well.

[basscheffers]

John: too right. I am surprised that it hasn't happened yet, I'd rather see the extra sensor space for full-frame cameras be used to make APS sized ones square.

 

Could be quite profitable, we'd all need new petal shaped lens hoods for our zooms and extreme wide angles. And with the prices Canon charge for those pieces of plastic, they could make a fortune! :)

[._._z]

Because noise is noise, Bas, and the Olympus's smaller sensor, combined with much

higher noise above ISO 100, makes for a telling difference that all your protestations

cannot make go away.

[jtk]

Kodak's doing tremendously well, beating EVERY OTHER MANUFACTURER with its digicam technology, *including 4:3 and abandoning full frame 2:3.*

 

Canon and Nikon need something new: Dumb to keep reintroducing cameras that accept pre-existing lenses. Worse, poor C and N are pushing funky kit lenses ...becoming the Ford/GM of the photo industry, quality-wise. Sony's not doing to well right now, but their 8mp cell camera might change that.

 

Brian, you're entitled to "hobbyist" but for kicks you might want to browse under "hobbiest."

[basscheffers]

So I rarely shoot at ISO higher than 100, just like I did in the days of slide film, and I get to enjoy all the advantages the system has to offer for the kind of photography I do.

 

And noise is even much less visible in prints, the little noise you see in the Squirrel image in my portfolio is almost invisible in the 10x8 frontier print. ISO 400 is very usuable indeed.

[Brian_Edwards]

John:

 

...entitled to "hobbyist"...?

 

There is one correct spelling of the word. Check any real dictionary.

[._._z]

Yes Bas, you get to enjoy yourself as long as you limit yourself compared to what others

can do. Enjoy!

[joseph_wisniewski]

Bas "But for every 2:3 lovin' pro out there you mention, there is a 6x6 or 6x4.5 or 6x17 or 4x5" lover out there too."

 

Actually, no. 645 approaches 3:2 in weddings and portraits. The others are rarities. Pro square (6x6) failed: Rollei went bankrupt, Hasselblad dropped all square product development back in 1996, fired all the design staff in Sweden, and committed the company to 645 cameras degisned and built by Fuji.

 

In 35mm, companies tried every single format imaginable, from widelux and xpan, 3:2, 5:4, 4:3, square (I have a square shooting Zeiss Ikon) vertical 3:4.

 

And John keeps getting the history wrong on this. Movies were origionally gated 3:2, or even wider, like 1.85:1. "Acadamy format" 4:3 didn't happen till talkies, when they needed to narrow the gate to leave room for an optical soundtrack. It was only a short period in film history, not really overlapping the creation of the Leica.

 

They just went 3:2 horizontal feed, instead of 3:2 vertical. Bigger negative and more elegant camera design.