Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Olympus Macro review.

Subject: Re: [OM] Olympus Macro review.
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 20:31:41 +0800
They are 100% crops, small doesn't mean it is non comparable, there is 
obvious more details on the Nikon scan image. I circled the area I used for 
checking, hope this help:

>>>> 4000ED at 3000dpi
>>>>
>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/1984-09B-35.jpg
>>>>
>>>> 5D II, 80/4 at 1:1, F11
>>>>
>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0088.jpg
>>>>
>>>> 5D II, 80/4 and f=170mm macro adapter
>>>>
>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0089.jpg

If you still don't see the difference, reduce the size of the two 5D II 
copies to make them the same size as the Nikon one will make it easier.

C.H.Ling


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>I still don't see it because the Nikon scan image you sent is very
> small.  Perhaps you made a mistake and sent the wrong image.  The 5D II
> scans are very noisy with grain.  I don't think more resolution is
> helpful there.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 5/18/2013 11:52 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>> I don't understand what this is supposed to show us.  You say the Nikon
>>> scanner can do a better job than the 5D II with 80/4 but the 4000ED
>>> image you show us is quite small and labeled 300dpi.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, it was a typo, the Nikon scan was done at 3000dpi. Since I was 
>> making
>> around 10,000 scan, 4000dpi 16bit tiff will occupy too much space so I 
>> did
>> most of my scanning at 3000dpi.
>>
>>> The 5D II images are much larger but seem to me to be mostly grain.  If
>>> the grain is resolved don't we have everything there is to get from the
>>> image?
>>>
>>
>> You can look at the roofs details, some finer roofs is clearly visible on
>> the Nikon scan but marginal on the 1:1 5D II copy, while the magnified 
>> (~2x
>> with macro adapter) copy shown more details. I'm sure with better slides 
>> and
>> better lens (the Sigma wasn't the best) it will require higher resolution
>> copy/scanning system to review all the details.
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/18/2013 1:53 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>>> I think the E-M5 may not be able to resolve a good 35mm frame. While I
>>>> was
>>>> working with the 80/4 and 5D II setup, I found it is not even able to 
>>>> get
>>>> all from an old 35mm Kodak CP100. The result is ok for most application
>>>> but
>>>> not the best one can get, a sharp 4000dpi scanner like N*kon 4000ED 
>>>> seem
>>>> did
>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a crop from a 1984 Beijing shot taken with Sigma 35-70/2.8-4 on
>>>> OM-10, handheld.
>>>>
>>>> 4000ED at 300dpi
>>>>
>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/1984-09B-35.jpg
>>>>
>>>> 5D II, 80/4 at 1:1, F11
>>>>
>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0088.jpg
>>>>
>>>> 5D II, 80/4 and f=170mm macro adapter
>>>>
>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0089.jpg
>>>>
>>>> C.H.Ling
>>
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> 

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz