[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

["Berry Ives" <yvesberia@earthlink.net>]

I think David's points about scaling are correct.  However, I think there is
great potential for the 4/3 format even for those who are skeptical today.
Sensors will very likely continue to improve.  The need for a FF sensor will
be reduced, and the market share for that format will diminish.  There will
simply be no desire, even among the large majority of demanding
professionals, to lug all that heavy gear around.  When that day will
arrive, I wouldn't speculate.  Does anyone know what is the market share of
FF digital among professional photographers working digitally today?

Naturally, there will be some who continue to demand the very highest
resolution with the lowest noise attainable, just as there are still folks
shooting 4x5 (I think larger has almost vanished).  But I'm guessing that
the answer to the question "Is the better quality of FF digital worth the
inconvenience?" will eventually trend towards "no".

For my work, that is already the answer.  :~)

Berry


On 7/7/07 8:34 AM, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
> From: "Berry Ives" <yvesberia@earthlink.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> You're right, Olympus is taking forever to bring out the new model, which
> has probably cost them some market base, but I'm waiting for it.  The leaked
> info sounds great.  The 14-35mm f2.0 lens is taking even longer, and isn't
> expected until next spring, rumor has it.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> (Sorry to be on your case here: feel free to tell me to take a hike. I find
> format comparisons interesting, but end up being a larger-format partizan.)
>
> I realize that an f/2.0 28-70mm equivalent lens sounds pretty cool.
>
> But you are forgetting to take the other aspects of the format difference
> into account.
>
> For the same pixel count (to a rough first approximation, 10 is about the
> same as 12.7), a 4/3 camera's pixels are 1/4 the area, and thus are two
> stops less sensitive.
>
> And DOF scales with the format size, so you "gain" two stops of DOF. (Only
> at the wide end, at smaller apertures, diffraction kicks in two stops
> sooner, so while f/16 on FF results in sharp images, apertures smaller than
> f/8 on 4/3 will show diffraction effects. (One of the early 5D/D2x
> comparisons bogusly shot them both at f/16, unfairly making the D2x look
> soft.))
>
> So that sexy-sounding f/2.0 lens will be functionally indistinguishable from
> an f/4.0 28-70mm lens on FF (with the FF at four times the ISO for identical
> noise/dynamic range).
>
> It may be that the f/2.0 bit buys you an AF advantage, but I'm not sure. In
> FF vs. APS-C arguments, the point that an extra 1.4x TC is functionally
> equivalent to a smaller pixel pitch (test show that TCs do not significantly
> degrade the angular resolution of the lens) fails since the 5D's AF isn't an
> extra stop better than the APS-C AF, and the 5D can't focus with an f/5.6
> lens + 1.4xTC.
>
> Note that to actually be equivalent, the 4/3 lens has to provide _twice_ the
> resolution (twice the lp/mm at any given MTF, or an MTF curve shifted up by
> a factor of two due to the finer pixel pitch) at f/2.0 than the FF 28-70mm
> lens does at f/4.0. (Interestingly, MTF performance does scale up with
> decreasing format sizes, so this point may not be a problem; but the need
> for twice the resolution at a much wider f stop may be problematic.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> davidjl@gol.com
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
> body



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body