The 2X lens factor that is almost always quoted for the Oly four thirds sensor (FTS) is somewhat misleading. The FTS factor is 2X regarding only the horizontal (assuming a landscape orientation). A 35mm negative is 36mm across; the FTS is 18mm. However, the FTS factor is really 1.78 regarding the vertical, because the 35 negative is 24mm and the FTS is 13.5 mm. This might seem irrelevant because we think of
Why wory about it? Why must everything be related to 35mm anyaway?
Nobody makes a fuss over equating MF tp 35mm or LF, either.
Just think in terms of the format you are using and forget the equivalency.
Ronk, it's like "golf ball size hail" - something familiar to judge the anomaly by. Thirty years from now, 35mm will have gone the way of 620 film, the "old" standard will be the full-frame CCD/CMOS sensor by which the next technological trauma is guaged.......
probably right Bill, but when you say full size sensor, you are still refering to the 35mm format.
Right, Ronk, but in 30 years (when I'm 96), I'll lose that
First off, I certainly don't "worry" about this; as I noted I see it as a "not large but not trivial" issue. I say this because with the proliferation of formats it's natural that people refer to a well-understood standard, and yet this can be a bit misleading if we ignore differences in proportions. For example, 35mm is 3:2 and the Oly FTS is 2.67:2. In this I agree with Ronk that we need to get to know each format we use in its own terms.
One reason I thought about this was to decide if it was worth buying the 11-22mm Oly lens (rather than use a Nikkor 20-35mm on an F3 for the times I want seriously wide angle). It made me realize just how wrong are the critics of the FTS who claim it's bad for wide angle.
I agree that we can't tell what formats will win out, but it does seem to me that if the E-1 successor has seriously high resolution (perhaps via multiple sensors) the FTS could become a standard, due to its smaller lenses and (I think) better proportions than 35.
Anyway, it really was just meant as a small note, so happy photographing whatever the format!
Bill, in 30 yrs I will be 89!
Stewart do not sweat the "resolution", the newer interplation programs make the issue moot (SB May '06). An article in the latest Rangefinder 2 pro wedding guys went from Nikon to Oly's 5mp just for the glass.
I guess I can't totally disagree after arguing something like this in my posting about buying the 7.5MP E-330, which I like a very great deal. Moreover I do use Genuine Fractals. GF is a great program in many ways, but it cannot recover detail that was never picked up. For example, I have a shot of a person called "Frank" with his name tag looking like "Rank" insofar as you can see it. There's also a sign on the wall behind him which cannot be read. GF can do nothing about this: "Frank" still comes out looking like (a better version of) "Rank". Many times - most of the time I guess - this doesn't matter. But sometimes it does (not name tags but the general point about detail). If it's not captured that's it. So personally I will be looking at the resolution of the E-1 successor. To the best of my knowledge (based on what reviews I have found) the Zuiko lenses are capable of greater resolution than any of the current Evolt cameras can capture.
Stewart, I hear what you ree saying about the resolution. But this may be a LIGHTING?REFLECTION problem rather than a camera problem. There are times, even under overcast conditions, where the tonal or SBR is so large that detail cannot be picked up in highlights. This is akin to the lower contrast range that is the provenance of slide film.
I have never had a problem in the studio, but outdoors, yes.
How much resolution is enough? Depends on the photo and purposes, of course, but I just tried a 12 by 16 from the E-330 with the 14-54mm lens on an uncropped (originally RAW) image, color (which I think is easier to blow up generally - it hides resolution problems to some extent). I did use Genuine Fractals, though I don't think it made a huge difference. Of course others could disagree but I think it works at that size and that I would not really want to try larger. I know that some would say I can't really get that size. So, I suppose the answer is "it depends" - on what size you need.
Image quality, by the way, is terrific - it's a very high contrast scene of a tugboat in a partially rainy harbor with glinty reflections but deep reflections and shadows, perfectly exposed by the camera. Very nice color, in my opinion. So again, I really do like the E-330.