nathaniel_alpert

<p>For <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=419409">Edward Ingold</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 25, 2016; 10:14 p.m.<br> Any decent lens will "pass" higher frequencies than can be faithfully recorded by the sensor array in today's caneras. <br> Without an AA filter the lens projects an image on the sensor (focused by you). If there are enough photons you <br> can get a useable image. If there is an AA filter, it is in front of the sensor and the lens projects that image on <br> the AA filter, which removes or attenuates some higher frequency information. It is the sensor that is doing <br> the sampling not the filter. Each sensel is averaging the signal from a little patch on the AA filter.</p> <p>In the future it may be possible to make sensors with small enough sensels so that the lens no longer<br> passess information above the Nyquist frequency. Then no AA filter will be needed.</p>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=499395">Allen Herbert</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 24, 2016; 06:16 p.m.</p> <p>"Nathaniel, there are other factors to take into consideration "Allen<br> That's if I believe what you have researched...<br> Im sure ,if I researched, I would find contrary = opinions.</p> <p>-------------------------------------------------------<br> Allen, I take your point. In the overall scheme of things I simplified my discussion because the claim that the ideas expressed were in accord with the physics of the situation were just wrong. Perhaps you can find fault with my explanation, the the fact that there are contrary opinions on the net is not in doubt. You have to learn how to recognize truth when you hear it :=). On the net all opinions are equal but not all are correct.</p>

<p>"</p> <blockquote> <p>"Presence of an anti-aliasing filter is likely to degrade the image more for APS-C, since greater enlargement is required for display".<br> Allen - Likely, where did you get the "likely information from"?</p> </blockquote> <p>Quite simple, really, from a basic understanding of physics and optics. An AA filter is a low pass filter based on frequency. The principle and hardware are basically the same regardless of format. The same detail on a smaller format will constitute an higher frequency. Since high frequency detail is reduced by the filter, the greater the enlargement the greater the effect.<br> ----------------------------------<br> I don't think the physics and optics are on your side: The lens will pass (or not pass) the frequencies near nyquist with amplitude sufficient for photon detection. This projects the image onto the sensor. Then the sampling (pixel size) of the sensor will determine whether or not aliasing will occur. The actual design of the AA filter will be adjusted to match the properties of the sensor. Does that make sense?</p>

<p>Robin Smith wrote: "All I can say is there must have been something wrong with your Canon photography then. One can make great prints with the m4/3, but there is really no need to make a claim of superiority when it comes to image quality as I really do not think there is any hard data to support this. I have an APS-C Canon and a FF Canon and there is no way the APS-C files are as good. You can usually get them pretty well to the same point after processing, which I think is what you are saying. I also don't think there is any extra secret sauce in m4/3 that makes them better than APS-C either."<br> Hi Robin, I can see that my writing was a little tough to follow. Let me stipulate that I was not claiming that M43 is better than APS-C or FF. I was comparing the results I got with the Canon 5Dii and my L lenses, mostly zooms versus the Olympus M43 equivalents, arguing that the Olympuss was more than good enough to produce moderately large prints. In claiming superiority of the Olympus E-m1 with, say the 12-40 zoom versus my 5dii and the 24-105 L, I was not attributing the differences to the number of pixels for prints up to 16x24 inches. 16x24 is not very large. There are other factors at play: The 12-40 zoom turns out to have higher contrast and better microcontrast, and it is sharper into the corners than the Canon counterpart. I am claiming that the intrinsic pixel level quality of my M43 gear yielded noticeably better prints, not that it could make bigger prints. Keep in mind that the 5Dii was released in 2009; whereas, the e-m1 was introduced toward the end of 2013. Many of us thought the 5Dii was a real advance. It was and is a great camera, and I made many fine prints with it, but it did have limitations like highlight clipping that made printing some files challenging.<br> If we did the same comparison with the 5D3 and a well selected lens, I might well prefer the Canon. However, that obscures the story, which is that M43 gear can be significantly lighter than FF while providing roughly similar image quality in a wide range of imaging situations. Inevitably, the FF camera will be able to make better really large prints. Most of do not make prints that large. There is a psychology afoot like the explicit belittling of minivans versus SUVs. Not everybody needs to haul around a FF camera with the attendant heavy lenses. </p>

<p>I have been reading this thread with interest and some skepticism. Truthfully, how many of you have printed a picture this year that was bigger than 15"x20"? If you answer that you have, perhaps you NEED a 36 MP camera. If you answer no, then, well, you don't. This is called MPenvy, like seeing a red Porsche in the parking lot and dreaming of zero-to-60 in 3 seconds.</p> <p>My story is very similar to the originator of this thread. Canon guy, 5Dii with a load of L lenses. Getting older, arthritic neck. Why am I carrying this stuff? So, I start thinking about downsizing. At that time I was quite impressed with a series of photos published by Michael Reichmann using the Olympus E-M1. I thought, nah that camera has only 16MP. But then I thought that is more than the 'great' Canon 5D classic with 13MP that start the FF revolution. Reichmann touted the lenses available for the m43 system, so I thought why not give it a try? As a Canon guy for more than 30 years, I was shocked by what I found. I started with the E-m1 and the 12-40 mm zoom lens. This lens is roughly equivalent to the Canon 24-70 L f2.8. First, the E-m1 body has much better build quality than the Canon 5Dii; Olympus calls it splash proof and there are numerous videos showing it submerged or drenched in the shower. The E-m1 has many features that the Canon 5Dii (and 5Diii, too) does not have, such as fully functional touch screen, focus bracketing, live bulb, and in body image stabilization that provides about 4 stops improvement. There is an excellent electronic view finder that simulates your exposure, including a live-time histogram and levels and the viewfinder supports many focusing aids, including 14x magnification and zebras. Second, the 12-40 zoom is a gem, sharp wide open, corner to corner. Much lighter than the Canon equivalent. There are a full complement of excellent M43 lenses from Olympus and Panasonic covering from 14-600 mm FF equivalent; many are exemplary, as good as it gets. The primes are really small and light. I print on a 17 inch Epson printer and the prints I can make with the Olympus are better than i achieved with my Canon up to a size at least 16x24." I haven't done it but I am sure I can make excellent prints up to 30x40 inches.</p> <p>There is no denying that a high MP camera, can make higher quality big prints. But those are really, really big. I have large canvas prints from my old Canon 20D that still look great. But I have to tell you that for landscape work the E-m1 more than holds its own. The E-m5ii, which I also own, includes a high resolution mode useful in some landscape and product photography. The high res mode provides the equivalent of a 36MP camera, with very high image quality that supports very big enlargements.</p> <p>A major m43 advantage that has not been discussed in this thread is travel. One can select a set of lenses that will cover virtually any landscape or nature assignment and put it in a small carry-on size bag. It will not break your back to carry or lift it. Try that with a full frame system.</p> <p>Let's talk about the noise. In most cases, I am getting better IQ than the 5Dii ever got. I can shoot at ISO 1600 and expect very good quality with minimal noise reduction. ISO 3200 starts to show some issues but definitely usable if you expose properly. If you need to shoot at ISO 6400 or higher M43 is not for you.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The E-M1 provides ready access to all commonly used adjustments, including WB, via the touch screen and rear dials. You toggle between the adjustment screen and live view with a button the left rear of the camera body. There is no need whatsoever to dive into the menus.<br> It is reaally worth understanding this feature. Once understood it is most convenient, betterr than any camera I have owned.<br> Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Inge,<br> Do I understand correctly? Are ypu mounting a Canon FL-35 lens? If so, I wonder if that is the source of your problem. If so, it is not really a problem, if you shot in raw mode. Then you can set the white balance in post. Nothing is lost.<br> Hope this helps.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Edward Ingold wrote: "Feisol are Chinese-made Gitzo clones. There were some early problems with bonded parts, but no recent complaints. At half the price of Gitzo, and Gitzo's diminished warranty, they're worth a shot."<br> <br> Although it may seem like picking a nit, Feisol tripods are designed and made in Taiwan not China. And while it is common to complain about Gitzo clones, I don't agree in this case. The Feisol 3442 does have three legs and shares some features with Gitzo, but if you study the specs and design you will see they are unique. For example, the 3442 features a spider milled from an aluminum block Gitzo does not.<br> The word warranty was mentioned. It should also be stated that a simple google search produces lots of complaints about Gitzo service.<br> For half the price, there are few to no complaints about Feisol service and there are many testimonials.<br> <br> <br> </p>

<p>Hello Kerry,<br> I don't think you need to go to RRS to get excellent performance. I agree that you should not have to sacrifice stability for weight and price. There are certainly trade offs but as with many luxury items, getting that last 10% costs a lot. That said, I recommend you consider the Feisol 3442 CF tripod. It is a systematic design which has been offered for some time now and the vast majority of reporters are very satisfied, me to. There was a comparison on the Nikonian tripod forum comparing the 3442 to Gitzo. The results showed little difference in performance and in some cases, paradoxically it seemed to the tester, the 3442 was marginally better. In my use I find it very stable with a 5Dii and the 70-200L. Problems became apparent on windy days with the 100-400, particularly with the hood attached. These shortcomings may be due to inadequacies of my ball-head.</p> <p>Hope this is helpful</p>