Quoting Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hey, thanks, Joel. Great report on the OM 50/3.5 vs the
> ZD 14-54 on the
> E-1. As you pointed out, it doesn't fully answer my
> question about the
> OM lenses holding up to an 8MP sensor but it sure gave
> some interesting
> info.
Most welcome, Chuck. Thanks for the inspiration. Glad
there was something there of interest.
> On a related note I found this page on Luminous Landscape
> this morning:
> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/pixel-count.shtml>
> To quote:
>
> "... But they won't be able to get around the fact that
> the Canon 1Ds,
> [11MP full frame sensor] for example, with its 8.8 micron
> pixels, is
> already capable of greater resolution that almost any
> 35mm format lens.
> This came to light when the first test reports started to
> appear, and
> every technical reviewer since has pointed out that the
> camera is able
> to record fine detail greater than standard resolution
> charts are able
> to display. My own pragmatic tests show that to really
> put this camera
> to the test I need to use the best lenses at their
> optimum apertures,
> otherwise the lenses let down the imaging chip."
As long as it is possible to find a better lens or a better
stop, then you have not hit the limitation of the sensor yet
-- so I suspect we haven't even come up to the limitations
of the E-1 sensor. I hadn't expected an old Zuiko to be the
means to illustrate that!
> It's interesting to note that the E-1 has 6.6 micron
> pixels. I don't
> know about the E-300 except that they're clearly smaller.
> Is
> Reichmann's comment about 8.8 micron pixels and 35mm
> lenses correct?
> Although the 50/3.5 outperformed the 14-54 in this test
> is it possible
> that neither one of them is fully utilizing the
> resolution of the sensor
> even on the E-1 let alone the E-300?
>
> I dunno.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
I think Wrotniak made a similar claim about pixel size in
reviewing the C-8080 or E-300. He tends to prefer the E-1 I
think. I got slapped around a bit when I mentioned this
statement a few weeks ago (justifiably, since I didn't
really understand it -- no surprise there).
Just in a practical way, I like 5MP cameras. The files are
just easier to work with and if I want a large print (13x19
-- or more probably 11x14) PS's bicubic upsampling gives me
a 240 dpi file with more detail than my printer can deal
with. There's always a wall to run into somewhere, isn't
there?!
This whole topic reminds me of a conversation I had with our
local old-fashioned photography store guy, who told me once
that film was the wall, that for resolving power
contemporary lenses could just keep going. I guess I
accepted that as true, I suppose because I wouldn't like it
if it were the other way around.
I honestly don't know if my capture on the E-1 with 50/3.5
resolves more than might have been resolved on Velvia, but I
really do feel that that lens can keep going further. I
didn't attempt the experiment thinking that would be the
conclusion I would reach. I am surprised and mighty pleased
actually. I hope somebody with an E-300 will take it from here.
Today I'm walking around with E-1 and Zuiko 28/2. :)
Everyone please pray that Ken gets his OM adapter soon.
He's not speaking to me anymore.
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|