[LRflex] Re: Wildlife (almost)
- From: "David Young" <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Richard Ward" <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:11:15 -0700
In a message dated 26/07/2011, Richard Ward said ...
> Hi David,
> My comments aren't tongue in cheek! First, when I see that these delicious
> images are 70% crops of the original files I am struck at the speciousness of
> arguing 4/3rds sensors are inferior to a bigger sensor just because the
bigger
> sensor is, well, bigger.
Good Morning, Richard!
I must admit, I've been very, very pleased with the output of the E3 and
it's 4/3rds sensor.
When it comes to sensors, bigger is better, in just three respects.
1) If we were to assume that all sensors had, say, 12 megapixels, then
obviously, a bigger sensor would have bigger pixels. And bigger pixels
will absorb more light during a given exposure. This results in a higher
signal, which means the signal does not have to be amplified as much, thus
yielding less "noise". Proof of this is in Nikon's full frame, 12mp D3.
I guess one reason I'm happy with the E3, when others might not be, is that
the noise levels are very similar to the DMR, which I used before and was
very pleased with.
(I recently spoke with a young lady who has just moved up to the E5 from
the E3, who tells me that the E5 is significantly improved it's noise
characteristics over the E3. They've also used the lightest AA filter on
the market, significantly improving the IQ. Of course, other makers are
also steadily improving their cameras, so the relative noise levels should
remain the same.)
2) so called Full Frame sensors are particularly important to people who
own and use wide angle lenses. These lenses are "compromised" in their
field of view, when used on cameras with smaller sensors. For those who
are buying into new systems, they simply buy shorter focal length glass, to
get the wide angle.
3) When I shoot rodeos (for example) I usually use the 50~200 Oly zoom.
It's a great piece of glass, and at $1200, not all that expensive. The 2x
crop factor allows me to "effectively" have a 100~400, a nice range for
that work. But, the DOF is still that of a 200mm lens, making it tougher
to isolate a cluttered background into blur. In such situations, a 100~400
lens on a FF camera would, perhaps, be a better choice.
Otherwise, if the glass is good and matched to the sensor, there is little
to choose between any of them!
>We have an embarrassment of riches these days as
> photographers.
Truer words were never spoken.
>As for a critique of your Butterflies(?) I would point to the viewer
issues
> created by blurred areas of an image that don't easily 'fall' into the
> foreground or the background. In this case the foliage in one image and much
of
> the near wing of the insect in the other.
I agree. However, it is one of the "benefits" of shooting with the
combination I did. Had I used a different lens combo, and got closer,
things might have been different (even better). However, I threw my back
out, last weekend, and so only took one lens with me, to save weight on my
back. My choice was made in the hopes of finding a bird, not a butterfly
(or moth, or whatever they are...).
Thanks for taking the time to look and for your comments.
Cheers!
David.
--
David Young - Photographer
Logan Lake, CANADA
Wildlife: www.furnfeather.net
Personal: www.main.furnfeather.net
A micro-lender through www.Kiva.org.
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
