I've done my own form of resolution testing with various digital cameras.
The E-3 is actually very remarkable. I wouldn't hesitate for a second to
happily use it for "landscape photography". The only real gain you're going
to get from the 5D vs the E-3 is MAYBE one paper size. The optics are going
to make a bigger difference than the sensor and in general availability and
usage, the Zuiko optics are definitely worthy of any sensor you stick behind
them.
Landscape photography generally means DoF and the 2-stop gain with the 4/3
format does help offset other things, including diffraction. Speaking of
diffraction, modern lenses are not linear in the diffraction calculations.
You cannot just apply the same old equation which worked for
spherical-elemented primes to today's aspherical wonder-lenses. The optical
engineers have been gaming the physics tables for quite some time.
Another MAJOR consideration for a "landscape camera" in my book is
ruggedness and weatherproofing. We can make all sorts of excuses for
ourselves like "I'm not out shooting when it is raining." Well, that sounds
fine, but what about when you are on that mammoth around-the-country
vacation and happen to be passing through beautiful Michigan when it is
raining? That one really cool shot of the mist and clouds is lost because
you fear for the electronics in your camera. I've shot enough in the rain
through the years to know that having a camera you don't need to worry about
is worth, in my case, one portfolio image per year. I'll not forget
spending two weeks in the Smokey and Blue Ridge Mountains, and it raining
for 11 of the 14 days. This was in the days of the OM system and a Mamiya
645, and I still managed to shoot an average of 8 rolls of film per day.
Inspite of the rain (or possibly because of it), those two weeks remain my
most productive period of photography ever. I cannot handle having a camera
that I'd need to baby and worry about. We won't even talk about abuse from
falling rocks...
Another critical advantage to the Olympus cameras is the color rendition.
Yes, the E-3 sensor has slightly less dynamic range than the Canon. But by
how much? Not near enough to actually make a difference in all but a
handfull of shots--and even then, it still blows the doors off of ANY slide
film. The noise of the E-3 is higher than the Canon, but not any worse than
the DX Nikons--it's just that the noise is "different". I won't say "film
like", because that is rather cliche'ish, but the noise structure of the
Olympus images possesses a certain 3d-ness characteristic to the noise which
is not dissimilar to film grain which is also physically 3d. The
differences between sensor noise/characterics is very much like the
differences between films using traditional grain vs T-grain (crystals,
actually). T-grain films have greater accutance when the lenses are more
wide-open, whereas traditional films have greater accutance when the lenses
are stopped-down. Some digital cameras mimick t-grain whereas others mimick
traditional grain. Regardless, I have found that I need much less color
processing with Olympus images than what most people have to do. I never
was able to get Nikon D2X images to match either color films or the Olympus
cameras.
In March or April I am planning a new digital camera upgrade. I can
honestly say that I have successfully pushed the E-1 to the theoretical and
practical limit of its capabilities. I can look in the mirror and say that I
have done the very best I can with that camera. I have gotten results that
amaze my fellow (Canon shooting) photographers. But not only has it taken a
few years to get to this point, but it is still only with the exception, not
as a rule that I push the limits of the technology.
You cannot just look at numbers or Phil Askey's tests and say that "that's
it, nobody can get an acceptable picture with anything less than a 1DsMk3".
What we have lost is "context". We have lost the ability to understand
exactly what it is that these cameras are capable of. Even the "horrid" E-3
is perfectly capable of exceeding your capabilities very quickly.
Diffraction, misfocus and camera motion is going to limit resolution before
the sensor is maxed out. Blaming the AA filter is misguided in most cases.
In "context", we see that a well-done picture taken with the E-3 is going to
meet and exceed REAL demands, not the artificial ones we place on ourselves
in pursuit of some "Holy Grail" of photographs. Without "context" we are
going to dis the new Ferrari 360 because it's accelleration is only 4.4
seconds 0-100kph, whereas the new Dodge Viper does it in 3.7 seconds. Never
mind the fact that the 360 is still faster than the famed "Super Snake".
I am embarking, in a few days, on a new photographic project for display in
the local "artists' hangout". This conceptual work will be limited to
prints no larger than 5x7.
AG
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|