chris...two of the new Sony s have live preview,

well worth a look I think.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013004sonyalpha300350.asp

---

shelfpics

I saw this diagram in a magazine a few weeks ago. The 4/3 system is not much more than a quick slice off the sides of APS-C. Something I do anyway when sizing for 5x7 or 10x8 output.

An APS-C is ~1.5 times smaller than a full frame which is a fair old slice and a 4/3 is ~1.5 smaller than an APC-S or ~half the size of a full frame. So you are still sticking roughly the same number of sites onto a considerably smaller sensor.

---

It was when she said 'put the camera down and come to bed' that I knew I'd finally gone too far.

Tazzers DCM gallery

E-510 & lenses are simply stunning, have a look in "post your best here" -"animals", some pics I shot of the Duck's stright out of the camera, noise filter off, no post processing (but you may think it may need a bit, I dont know).  I had a Canon 350 before, for my standard of taking pics the 350d didn't get close (other may).  Many people wont even consider Olympus - The fools.

---

Beefy

...and I wonder how many of those who slate olympus 4/3 sensors for noise also state that they only ever shoot at ISO100?!

---

a few mediocre pics

The Fools

---

Beefy

sue allen:

...and I wonder how many of those who slate olympus 4/3 sensors for noise also state that they only ever shoot at ISO100?!

Well most of Tazzers with photo info in his gallery are at ISO100...very nice images but I doubt its down to the sensor.

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full :)

MY GALLERIES

I've never used an Olympus so I cannot commented on its ISO capabilities, I have considered them and have supposed that they may not be as good at keeping noise under control at high ISO than a camera with a bigger sensor. It appears I am wrong.

---

It was when she said 'put the camera down and come to bed' that I knew I'd finally gone too far.

Tazzers DCM gallery

Much of this noise thing seems to be down to the photographer - you should see the noisy results I can achieve with my 40D after a bit of my expert 'processing'!

---

a few mediocre pics

Tazzers:

An APS-C is ~1.5 times smaller than a full frame which is a fair old slice

Full frame is a different format altogether. The thread is about beginer DSLRs.

Tazzers:

and a 4/3 is ~1.5 smaller than an APC-S or ~half the size of a full frame. So you are still sticking roughly the same number of sites onto a considerably smaller sensor.

You've made it sound as though the reduction from full frame to APS-C is the same as the reduction going from APS-C to four thirds. This is not true - your math is quite incorrect. The difference between APS-C and 4/3 is marginal in comparison.

The important point here is that we will usually crop to make a print. If you crop to make a print, then the difference is even smaller.

Craftysnapper's diagram makes this visually clear, but anyone in doubt can do the calculations as the numbers are there also.

 

---

Chris Seary

My gallery

My Blog

shelfy:

chris...two of the new Sony s have live preview,

well worth a look I think.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013004sonyalpha300350.asp

Thanks, Shelfy, this is worth a look. Which models have Live View? The A200 seems to be the one in the right price range, but I didn't think this had Live View. Am I incorrect here?

 

---

Chris Seary

My gallery

My Blog

Chris said:

"Full frame is a different format altogether. The thread is about beginer DSLRs."

 I was responding to Craftysnapper, I agree it was off topic I apologize for perpetuating the off topic debate.

Chris said:

"You've made it sound as though the reduction from full frame to APS-C is the same as the reduction going from APS-C to four thirds. This is not true - your math is quite incorrect. The difference between APS-C and 4/3 is marginal in comparison."

I have haven't I? Can you put my numbers straight for me please as I fail to see where I have gone wrong? I said that an APS-C is roughly 1.5x smaller than a full frame and that a 4/3 is roughly 1.5x (actually 1.42x granted) smaller than an APS-C. You say I am wrong, please explain why. It is a genuine question, I am not trying to demean anybody or the system they are using, I am merely interested.

---

It was when she said 'put the camera down and come to bed' that I knew I'd finally gone too far.

Tazzers DCM gallery

Hi Tazzer

Really sorry if I seemed abrupt - hope no offence was taken.

I made a table:

	Height	Width	Area	10x8trim	area 10x8 trim
Full Frame (FF)	24	36	864	30	720
4/3	13	17.3	224.9	16.25	211.25
APS-C	14.8	22.2	328.56	18.5	273.8
Ration FF to APS-C	1.621621622	1.621621622	2.629656684	1.621621622	2.629656684
Ratio aps-c to 4/3	1.138461538	1.283236994	1.460915963	1.138461538	1.296094675