Four Thirds vs 35mm Legacy....


Status
Not open for further replies.

sulhan

Moderator
Staff member
May 11, 2002
4,028
0
36
45
Melbourne, Australia
www.md-sulhan.com
#1
Hiee Pals..

Just to have some thoughts from everyone....is it me or is it really that the image comparison is not a good one...http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/technology/fts/popup2.html

Looks like the 4/3rds seems to suffer form bad purple and green fringing....
Though the "squareness of coverage is well described i.e it being able to campture the corners better......but...:dunno: isn't the corners contain less info....

rgds,
sulhan
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
#4
somwbody posted before that 4/3 is crappy
 

icarus

Senior Member
Jan 27, 2002
3,874
0
0
East
#6
By right the digital should be sharper as its cropped (somemore cropped 2x) but on the 2 test shots, I don't see any significant difference leh.. :dunno: :dunno:
 

#7
icarus said:
By right the digital should be sharper as its cropped (somemore cropped 2x) but on the 2 test shots, I don't see any significant difference leh.. :dunno: :dunno:
for sharpness in cropping will depends on the software used, some softwares will make it even softer than the original.

the difference from those shots from zuiko or 35mm lens are:
" The distortion and unclear shape of the letters can be seen" as quoted from the source.
 

LittleWolf

New Member
Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#8
sulhan said:
Just to have some thoughts from everyone....is it me or is it really that the image comparison is not a good one...http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/technology/fts/popup2.html
What this test compares is the performance of specific lenses. One could compare good 35mm lenses vs. bad 4/3 lenses, or bad 35mm lenses vs. good 4/3 lenses. It has nothing to do with sensor format or lens mount.
 

litefoot

New Member
Jan 27, 2005
888
0
0
#9
user111 said:
somwbody posted before that 4/3 is crappy
4/3 is an open standard in digital photography just like OSI model. What's so crappy about it?
 

litefoot

New Member
Jan 27, 2005
888
0
0
#11
icarus said:
By right the digital should be sharper as its cropped (somemore cropped 2x) but on the 2 test shots, I don't see any significant difference leh.. :dunno: :dunno:
You noticed those big mamas made by Oly? Zooms with constant f/2. Fully exploit the construction of 4/3 standard. We can yak so much about APS/DX digital, Oly seems to be the company that dropped everything and adopted 4/3 developed with Kodak. Its open and any maker can adopt it and we have equipment that can be used interchangeably indepandant of makers.
 

litefoot

New Member
Jan 27, 2005
888
0
0
#12
djork said:
hey man, can you please give it some thought before you post..
Yah, we can comment about how well a standard is being recieved. I believe 4/3 is about 2 years plus, but not many big makers support it.
 

hammer_400

New Member
Nov 13, 2003
691
0
0
32
Sg
#14
litefoot said:
... Zooms with constant f/2. Fully exploit the construction of 4/3 standard. We can yak so much about APS/DX digital, Oly seems to be the company that dropped everything and adopted 4/3 developed .... .
one of the benefits is that ALL the lenses being designed for the system give us 'nice' FOV ranges (not to mention corner to corner sharpness, whatever minimal distortion/vignetting/CA info stored in lens for easy correction in oly studio)... unlike legacy lenses which all end up with wierld ranges especially with their best pro lenses( 28-70 becomes 45-112 etc)... canon's ef-s lenses are not L class quality and using full-frame is costly and u still have poor corners and vignetting... nikon's DX range is better with some nice bright zooms but still no where as many and as good as thier 'legacy' lens....
 

icarus

Senior Member
Jan 27, 2002
3,874
0
0
East
#15
litefoot said:
You noticed those big mamas made by Oly? Zooms with constant f/2. Fully exploit the construction of 4/3 standard. We can yak so much about APS/DX digital, Oly seems to be the company that dropped everything and adopted 4/3 developed with Kodak. Its open and any maker can adopt it and we have equipment that can be used interchangeably indepandant of makers.
Yup... Nikon yak so much, so far their DX series of lenses mostly cant make it...
sigh
Hope Nikon can follow oly and give us better quality DX lenses (assuming they really not making FF DSLR)
:rolleyes:
 

jumbocrab

New Member
Jun 27, 2004
406
0
0
#16
icarus said:
Yup... Nikon yak so much, so far their DX series of lenses mostly cant make it...
sigh
Hope Nikon can follow oly and give us better quality DX lenses (assuming they really not making FF DSLR)
:rolleyes:
Perhaps you can explain why you said that "...mostly cannot make it..."? As far as I can gather from the web forums, they are quite good. The 17-55 is excellent. The 12-24 is very good. The 18-70 is good value for money.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#17
icarus said:
Yup... Nikon yak so much, so far their DX series of lenses mostly cant make it...
sigh
Hope Nikon can follow oly and give us better quality DX lenses (assuming they really not making FF DSLR)
:rolleyes:
I'll have to disagree on your statements. the 10.5DX is a wonderful piece of glass. The 17-55 is inbetween 17-35 and 28-70 in quality, 12-24 performs nicely at f5.6-f/8.

Event the lately 55-200DX is an awesome performer for it's price. Not forgetting the 18-70DX too.
 

icarus

Senior Member
Jan 27, 2002
3,874
0
0
East
#18
jumbocrab said:
Perhaps you can explain why you said that "...mostly cannot make it..."? As far as I can gather from the web forums, they are quite good. The 17-55 is excellent. The 12-24 is very good. The 18-70 is good value for money.
I am speaking from my actual hands-on experience with the four DX lenses, i don't wanna argue what DX lens is better or what, this has been argued to the death on the forums esp. on the 12-24 lens :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: Just felt that Nikon can give us more exciting range of DX lenses if they are gonna stick with the DX sensor format. Where are my large aperture DX prime lenses?? :dunno:
 

icarus

Senior Member
Jan 27, 2002
3,874
0
0
East
#19
espn said:
I'll have to disagree on your statements. the 10.5DX is a wonderful piece of glass. The 17-55 is inbetween 17-35 and 28-70 in quality, 12-24 performs nicely at f5.6-f/8.

Event the lately 55-200DX is an awesome performer for it's price. Not forgetting the 18-70DX too.
i think the only good DX lens is the 17-55, and that comes at a monsterous price :cry: :cry:
 

litefoot

New Member
Jan 27, 2005
888
0
0
#20
icarus said:
i think the only good DX lens is the 17-55, and that comes at a monsterous price :cry: :cry:
Dun go into that vicious cycle again lah. I learnt it the hard way...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom