Olympus announces E-420

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: punchkin
I have to say that anyone who continues to misunderstand this obviously doesn't have experience with different camera formats...

Like Hell. Get off your high horse, and admit you are flat out wrong, or worded your argument in the poorest manner. I have shot FF for 15 years. I have shot 1.6 crop for a few years.
I am aware of the crop factor, DOF, and forced perspective that comes into play. But you made a dumb 5.6 argument.

Nope, not at all. For instance, you wrote before: "He has still yet to prove why it has the same light gathering abilities as a 5.6 on a FF".

It's not just the lens, it's the lens/camera combo that gathers light and records it. If you still don't understand that a sensor four times as large, everything else being equal, gathers four times the light-- there's no reaching you. And that's really fine with me.

It may gather 4 times as much light, but that doesn't mean that I have to expose the same scene for any longer to get the same exposure.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

When will this be true? Define "collects the same amount of light in the same amount of time."

So a lens casts an image circle that is the size of a 4/3 sensor. Say, 100 photons strike this sensor and it has 25 sensor sites, so each sensor site gets 4 photons.

No we go to a FF sensor. 100 photons strike this sensor. It has 4x the area and 4x the sensor sites (100 sensor sites). So each sensor site only gets 1 photon, meaning it needs to increase its sensitivity 4x to match the exposure of the 4/3 sensor.

But this is pointless to argue because you will never encounter this "spreading out" of photons. Lenses can't just simply increase their projected image circle from 4/3 size to FF size, which is the only way the above example would ever work.

If you're talking about absolute amounts of light you must factor in the image circle in which this absolute amount of light is bounded.

And it has to all come down to exposure (and I'm using "exposure" colloquially - if one must argue semantics then I'm talking about "apparent exposure")

exposure = intensity * time
apparent exposure = exposure * ISO/100
total light = exposure * area

it's that simple. to get the same total light on a 4x larger area in the same amount of time your intensity must be 1/4, or 2 stops, lower. and to get an equivalent image on a 4x larger sensor you need a lens with 2x the focal length stopped down 2 stops. which results in the same absolute aperture.

assuming the same tech levels and MP, the 135 sensor is going to have a 2 stop sensitivity advantage over the 4/3 sensor. (4x the area and 1x the sites = 4x the photons per site assuming same exposure, or 1/4 the photons per site assuming equivalent images).

go look at the 20D to 5D comparisons at the end of the article i linked to. they're both similar tech levels so they're an excellent comparison.

and yes, there are practical considerations of lens design, but that is neither here nor there.


there is a reason that telescopes are rated by their apertures.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

When will this be true? Define "collects the same amount of light in the same amount of time."

So a lens casts an image circle that is the size of a 4/3 sensor. Say, 100 photons strike this sensor and it has 25 sensor sites, so each sensor site gets 4 photons.

No we go to a FF sensor. 100 photons strike this sensor. It has 4x the area and 4x the sensor sites (100 sensor sites). So each sensor site only gets 1 photon, meaning it needs to increase its sensitivity 4x to match the exposure of the 4/3 sensor.

But this is pointless to argue because you will never encounter this "spreading out" of photons. Lenses can't just simply increase their projected image circle from 4/3 size to FF size, which is the only way the above example would ever work.

If you're talking about absolute amounts of light you must factor in the image circle in which this absolute amount of light is bounded.

And it has to all come down to exposure (and I'm using "exposure" colloquially - if one must argue semantics then I'm talking about "apparent exposure")

exposure = intensity * time
apparent exposure = exposure * ISO/100
total light = exposure * area

it's that simple. to get the same total light on a 4x larger area in the same amount of time your intensity must be 1/4, or 2 stops, lower. and to get an equivalent image on a 4x larger sensor you need a lens with 2x the focal length stopped down 2 stops. which results in the same absolute aperture.

assuming the same tech levels and MP, the 135 sensor is going to have a 2 stop sensitivity advantage over the 4/3 sensor. (4x the area and 1x the sites = 4x the photons per site assuming same exposure, or 1/4 the photons per site assuming equivalent images).

go look at the 20D to 5D comparisons at the end of the article i linked to. they're both similar tech levels so they're an excellent comparison.

and yes, there are practical considerations of lens design, but that is neither here nor there.


there is a reason that telescopes are rated by their apertures.

No, No and No. The sensitivity advantage does NOT mean changes in exposure. Think about it, Nikon D3 captures several times more light than the other cameras, does that mean it has its own exposure metering system settings? Does that mean 3rd party exposure meter devices don't work on D3? How about cameras that have the same size of the sensor yet utilizes different photon technology (1DS MKIIn vs. 1DS MK3), would that mean 1DS MK3 has different exposure system as it can capture more light?

Test it for yourself by getting a Pentax camera and FourThirds lens. As I have done so, the exposure was the same whether the FourThirds lens was used or the regular Pentax lens was used.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

No, No and No. The sensitivity advantage does NOT mean changes in exposure. Think about it, Nikon D3 captures several times more light than the other cameras, does that mean it has its own exposure metering system settings? Does that mean 3rd party exposure meter devices don't work on D3? How about cameras that have the same size of the sensor yet utilizes different photon technology (1DS MKIIn vs. 1DS MK3), would that mean 1DS MK3 has different exposure system as it can capture more light?

Test it for yourself by getting a Pentax camera and FourThirds lens. As I have done so, the exposure was the same whether the FourThirds lens was used or the regular Pentax lens was used.

i have never said the exposure changes. where are you getting this idea?

the sensors are calibrated to give the proper exposure based on the ISO rating. if a sensor has improved microlenses so that it counts 50% more of the photons that strike it, then it is going to have more signal at all sensitivity ratings than a competing sensor. the same number of photons are striking the sensor, but more are being captured and counted by the one with the better microlenses. it changes the amplitude of the signal and also signal to noise ratio. the engineers know there is a changed amplitude when developing the processing engine, and develop accordingly. so exposure stays the same.

what does change is noise performance. when the signal is amplified by the ISO to get apparent exposure, the SNR doesn't deteriorate as much and you get a less noisy image. sensor improvements result in lower noise, not exposure changes.



oh, and fbb - of course the lens spreads out the light more. if the image a lens throws is the height of a 12x18 sensor at 25 mm focal length, then at twice as far away the image is going to be twice as tall and twice as wide, or the same as a 24x36 sensor. extension tubes work in exactly that manner. it's how zooms work.

mount a digital-specific lens on a 135 body. i did it with a sigma 10-20 and my film rebel. at 10 mm, you get an image that is super wide, probably 150 degrees or so, but with black borders on the side. by 14 mm all the complete blackness is gone, and at 16 mm it is giving pretty much the same image as it would at 10 mm on my 40D. the reason it doesn't get much dimmer zooming through it's range is because the absolute aperture increases, so, even though the light is being spread out more with the longer focal lengths, there is more light passing through the lens. it does get dimmer, though, because the aperture doesn't increase 1:1 with the focal length.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

When will this be true? Define "collects the same amount of light in the same amount of time."

So a lens casts an image circle that is the size of a 4/3 sensor. Say, 100 photons strike this sensor and it has 25 sensor sites, so each sensor site gets 4 photons.

No we go to a FF sensor. 100 photons strike this sensor. It has 4x the area and 4x the sensor sites (100 sensor sites). So each sensor site only gets 1 photon, meaning it needs to increase its sensitivity 4x to match the exposure of the 4/3 sensor.

But this is pointless to argue because you will never encounter this "spreading out" of photons. Lenses can't just simply increase their projected image circle from 4/3 size to FF size, which is the only way the above example would ever work.

If you're talking about absolute amounts of light you must factor in the image circle in which this absolute amount of light is bounded.

And it has to all come down to exposure (and I'm using "exposure" colloquially - if one must argue semantics then I'm talking about "apparent exposure")

exposure = intensity * time
apparent exposure = exposure * ISO/100
total light = exposure * area

it's that simple. to get the same total light on a 4x larger area in the same amount of time your intensity must be 1/4, or 2 stops, lower. and to get an equivalent image on a 4x larger sensor you need a lens with 2x the focal length stopped down 2 stops. which results in the same absolute aperture.

assuming the same tech levels and MP, the 135 sensor is going to have a 2 stop sensitivity advantage over the 4/3 sensor. (4x the area and 1x the sites = 4x the photons per site assuming same exposure, or 1/4 the photons per site assuming equivalent images).

go look at the 20D to 5D comparisons at the end of the article i linked to. they're both similar tech levels so they're an excellent comparison.

and yes, there are practical considerations of lens design, but that is neither here nor there.


there is a reason that telescopes are rated by their apertures.

No, No and No. The sensitivity advantage does NOT mean changes in exposure. Think about it, Nikon D3 captures several times more light than the other cameras, does that mean it has its own exposure metering system settings? Does that mean 3rd party exposure meter devices don't work on D3? How about cameras that have the same size of the sensor yet utilizes different photon technology (1DS MKIIn vs. 1DS MK3), would that mean 1DS MK3 has different exposure system as it can capture more light?

Test it for yourself by getting a Pentax camera and FourThirds lens. As I have done so, the exposure was the same whether the FourThirds lens was used or the regular Pentax lens was used.

careful there. I know what you mean, but just to clarify so this thread doesn't get any more confused: the D3's PIXELS capture much more light. at f/2.8 1/250th, the same amount of light hits a 1Ds sensor as a D3 sensor, because both are full-frame cameras. it's just that the D3 pixels are larger, and thus capture more photons, producing a cleaner high-ISO image.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: soydios
producing a cleaner high-ISO image.

at the expense of in RAW NDR.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: soydios
producing a cleaner high-ISO image.

at the expense of in RAW NDR.

???

it captures more photons, thus has a greater sample size, and a greater sample size enables you to extract better data

 

[Aharami]

haha this is the longest thread in this forum. Bringing an ATOT feel to the camera forum

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
oh, and fbb - of course the lens spreads out the light more. if the image a lens throws is the height of a 12x18 sensor at 25 mm focal length, then at twice as far away the image is going to be twice as tall and twice as wide, or the same as a 24x36 sensor. extension tubes work in exactly that manner. it's how zooms work.

mount a digital-specific lens on a 135 body. i did it with a sigma 10-20 and my film rebel. at 10 mm, you get an image that is super wide, probably 150 degrees or so, but with black borders on the side. by 14 mm all the complete blackness is gone, and at 16 mm it is giving pretty much the same image as it would at 10 mm on my 40D. the reason it doesn't get much dimmer zooming through it's range is because the absolute aperture increases, so, even though the light is being spread out more with the longer focal lengths, there is more light passing through the lens. it does get dimmer, though, because the aperture doesn't increase 1:1 with the focal length.

We're not talking about zooms or extension tubes here. We started out talking about a 50mm pancake prime and all of our examples have been about prime lenses. We are talking about prime lenses and we're keeping the lens to focal plane distance constant. The only variable we're changing here is the sensor size.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: soydios
producing a cleaner high-ISO image.

at the expense of in RAW NDR.

???

it captures more photons, thus has a greater sample size, and a greater sample size enables you to extract better data

It's not that simplistic. The theory is correct though.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

We're not talking about zooms or extension tubes here. We started out talking about a 50mm pancake prime and all of our examples have been about prime lenses. We are talking about prime lenses and we're keeping the lens to focal plane distance constant. The only variable we're changing here is the sensor size.

that's not at all what i've been talking about. i've been comparing a 25 f/2.8 on a four-thirds camera to a 50 f/5.6 on a 135 camera. they have the same total light, the same fov, the same bokeh, etc. they have different intensity because the 50 f/5.6 is making an image that is 4x larger. if you have the same technology and MP in the sensor, you can use the same shutter speed and a 2 stop more sensitive ISO and result in the same noise because the same number of photons are being counted by each respective photosite. if you have a higher MP sensor you can trade detail for noise reduction and achieve nearly the same thing.

using the same 50 mm lens will result in different pictures when different sized sensors because of the change in sensor size. so we have to change more than just sensor size to compare equivalents. a 25 f/2 on an E-3 placed on a tripod a certain distance from a subject will take an equivalent picture as a 50 f/4 on a 5D placed on the same tripod at the same point (not quite the same because of the difference in aspect ratio). the equivalent picture for APS-C is about a 31 f/3.2 sitting on the same tripod in the same place.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

We're not talking about zooms or extension tubes here. We started out talking about a 50mm pancake prime and all of our examples have been about prime lenses. We are talking about prime lenses and we're keeping the lens to focal plane distance constant. The only variable we're changing here is the sensor size.

that's not at all what i've been talking about. i've been comparing a 25 f/2.8 on a four-thirds camera to a 50 f/5.6 on a 135 camera. they have the same total light, the same fov, the same bokeh, etc. they have different intensity because the 50 f/5.6 is making an image that is 4x larger. if you have the same technology and MP in the sensor, you can use the same shutter speed and a 2 stop more sensitive ISO and result in the same noise because the same number of photons are being counted by each respective photosite. if you have a higher MP sensor you can trade detail for noise reduction and achieve nearly the same thing.

using the same 50 mm lens will result in different pictures when different sized sensors because of the change in sensor size. so we have to change more than just sensor size to compare equivalents. a 25 f/2 on an E-3 placed on a tripod a certain distance from a subject will take an equivalent picture as a 50 f/4 on a 5D placed on the same tripod at the same point (not quite the same because of the difference in aspect ratio). the equivalent picture for APS-C is about a 31 f/3.2 sitting on the same tripod in the same place.

Ok, what you're saying is definitely true, but I personally don't really care that much about "equivalent" images. It's good if you're doing by the book comparisons, but has very little practical value.

You currently use a 2X camera with a 25mm f/2.
You move up to a FF camera and want an equivalent lens.

Are you going to go out and buy a 50mm f/4 or a 50mm f/2? Of course you would buy the f/2! We can argue all day about this and that equivalent image but in the end it's a stupid argument because we'd both buy the 50mm f/2 which will result in the exact same exposure at the exact same ISO and shutter speed as the 25mm f/2 on the 2x crop body. If you want to be a hardliner and get the exact same DOF then you can always just stop down the f/2 to f/4 and try to live with a slower shutter speed.

Directed towards Punchkin: To argue on the basis of this image equivalency and to get the community all riled up about something that has very little practical value and is really about distinct semantics versus colloquial semantics is absolutely pointless. The truth is that for 95% of people, 25mm f/2 on a 2X IS equivalent to a 50mm f/2 on a FF. We don't care about the subtle DOF difference. We'd MUCH rather have the same aperture because this is what really matters in real life. This has nothing to do with people being uneducated, morons, or inexperienced shooting in multiple formats. This has everything with you making a mountain out of a tiny little fact that most people overlook because it simply doesn't matter.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: punchkin
I have to say that anyone who continues to misunderstand this obviously doesn't have experience with different camera formats...

Reading through this thread, there seems to be quite a few people who don't understand what you're talking about. They asked to provide evidence from an outside source, but you haven't. You've made the claim that you're a much better/more knowledgeable photographer than some of the other people who have posted in this thread: "Your tone should be way lower when talking to your betters-- way lower."

It only took you 10 seconds to check resellerratings and post a warning not to buy from the "store" in the OP. Why not take 20 or 30 seconds to back up your argument. Unfortunately, you're not earning any respect around here. ElFenix and FBB have earned the respect of people for posting quality information. I'm sure either one of them will apologize if they've made a mistake. But, it's time for you to step up to the plate and provide some 3rd party information from a reputable source to back your argument. Til then, you're simply giving people here more and more reasons not to believe anything that you say.

The problem with what you're saying is that I did back up what I said, many times. fuzzybabybunny even backed it up, with his boxes/water example. The fact that multiple people can't understand a fairly simple concept doesn't mean that I'm actually wrong-- and it's not so unusual, either.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
ok i was waiting for rossman to post 70,001 but this thread contains a lot of BS that needs corrected.


punchkin is correct that a 4/3 camera with a 25 @ f2.8 will give a resulting image that is equivalent to the image from a 135 camera using a 50 f/5.6. that is, the angle of view, perspective, and dof are equivalent between the two images.

also, the 50 f/5.6 collects the same amount of light in the same amount of time as the 25 f/2.8 because the absolute aperture is the same (50/5.6 = 8.93 = 25/2.8).

however, that light gets spread over a surface that is 4x larger, so keeping the exact same shutter speed and sensitivity will result in different exposures.

to keep the exposure the same you'll either have to decrease the shutter speed by 2 stops or increase the sensitivity by 2 stops. the later should produce images that are nearly indistinguishable assuming the same sensor technology was used. getting the same sensor tech can be difficult, and everyone's favorite 135 camera, the 5D, uses a several generation old sensor at this point.

punchkin is incorrect, however, that f/2.8 is not 'fast.' fast is, of course, a relative term. it really just means that you can use relatively fast shutter speeds for the light conditions. also, it can mean that in comparison to other lenses you can use a faster shutter speed.

i don't think you'd get any argument from anyone that the 25 f/2.8 isn't a fast lens (well, except punchkin, and yes, in comparison to other 'normal' lenses like a 50 f/1.4 it is 2 stops slower. for a pancake it's pretty quick).

the exposure calculation is the same, regardless of the size, type, or capabilities of the imager. and 4/3 is competitive enough through ISO 800 that for most lighting situations i doubt you could tell the difference between two large prints.

anyway, no punchkin, losing dof does not mean the lens isn't fast. the fact that the two systems wide open take different pictures don't mean the lens isn't fast. it just means they're different.

4/3 has it's strengths, but narrow dof isn't one of them. then again, dof on a 135 camera is a weakness compared to MF or 8x10 view cams. but hey, you can shoot wide open on a 4/3 camera and get a whole lot more in focus than you can with a 135 camera using the same f-stop and aov. that can be handy.



required reading for equivalence

Ho hum. You are restating what I've said over and over. NOWHERE did I say that losing (rather, GAINING) DOF made a lens slow. What I did say was that on a 2X crop camera, an f/2.8 lens is not really fast. This is because (for about the bajillionth time) you need to consider the way it works with the camera, and the resulting image.

Speed is indeed relative. For instance, a 600 f/4 lens on a full frame camera is fast, because it is faster than many comparable lenses. Here, when I say the f/2.8 25mm on a 2X camera isn't fast, note that I am including the camera in the statement. However, I guess you're right to call it a "fast pancake" in general.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

We're not talking about zooms or extension tubes here. We started out talking about a 50mm pancake prime and all of our examples have been about prime lenses. We are talking about prime lenses and we're keeping the lens to focal plane distance constant. The only variable we're changing here is the sensor size.

that's not at all what i've been talking about. i've been comparing a 25 f/2.8 on a four-thirds camera to a 50 f/5.6 on a 135 camera. they have the same total light, the same fov, the same bokeh, etc. they have different intensity because the 50 f/5.6 is making an image that is 4x larger. if you have the same technology and MP in the sensor, you can use the same shutter speed and a 2 stop more sensitive ISO and result in the same noise because the same number of photons are being counted by each respective photosite. if you have a higher MP sensor you can trade detail for noise reduction and achieve nearly the same thing.

using the same 50 mm lens will result in different pictures when different sized sensors because of the change in sensor size. so we have to change more than just sensor size to compare equivalents. a 25 f/2 on an E-3 placed on a tripod a certain distance from a subject will take an equivalent picture as a 50 f/4 on a 5D placed on the same tripod at the same point (not quite the same because of the difference in aspect ratio). the equivalent picture for APS-C is about a 31 f/3.2 sitting on the same tripod in the same place.

Ok, what you're saying is definitely true, but I personally don't really care that much about "equivalent" images. It's good if you're doing by the book comparisons, but has very little practical value.

You currently use a 2X camera with a 25mm f/2.
You move up to a FF camera and want an equivalent lens.

Are you going to go out and buy a 50mm f/4 or a 50mm f/2? Of course you would buy the f/2! We can argue all day about this and that equivalent image but in the end it's a stupid argument because we'd both buy the 50mm f/2 which will result in the exact same exposure at the exact same ISO and shutter speed as the 25mm f/2 on the 2x crop body. If you want to be a hardliner and get the exact same DOF then you can always just stop down the f/2 to f/4 and try to live with a slower shutter speed.

Directed towards Punchkin: To argue on the basis of this image equivalency and to get the community all riled up about something that has very little practical value and is really about distinct semantics versus colloquial semantics is absolutely pointless. The truth is that for 95% of people, 25mm f/2 on a 2X IS equivalent to a 50mm f/2 on a FF. We don't care about the subtle DOF difference. We'd MUCH rather have the same aperture because this is what really matters in real life. This has nothing to do with people being uneducated, morons, or inexperienced shooting in multiple formats. This has everything with you making a mountain out of a tiny little fact that most people overlook because it simply doesn't matter.

It has plenty of practical value. And again, in your focus on ISOs you have erred. Exposure refers to the light allowed to strike the sensor, not the settings on a particular camera model. The fact that a manufacturer assigned the label "100" to a particular level of sensor gain does not increase the level of light hitting the sensor, or make it equal to the level of light hitting the sensor in a FF camera at a sensor gain level also labelled "100".

These standard ISO ratings are made just so that one can fall into this sort of trap, thinking that things are equivalent when they're not.

 

[punchkin]

While I'm at it, I will apologize for any abrasive tone I've used, except in response to lame personal attacks. But I don't apologize for stating simple truths about surface area without feeling compelled to back it up with a link. It's elementary math.

By the way, I agree that it is certainly true that there are so many variables involved with performance of different sensors that no two sensors are ever likely to be differentiated in performance by such a neat number as two f-stops for one-quarter the size, etc.

This doesn't mean I'm wrong when I say that the 25mm f/2.8 on a 2X crop sensor behaves like a 50mm f/5.6 on full frame. It does, all relevant tech being equal. The angle of view and DOF differences just don't fluctuate due to the march of progress.

 

[soydios]

fine. as FBB said, "apparent exposure". your elementary math is not applicable to this argument.

punchkin, answer me this: Ignoring depth-of-field, will a photo at ISO200 1/125th f/2.8 in my D50, a D3, 1DmkIII, and an E-420 produce the same apparent exposure in their output file? Yes or No?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Ok, what you're saying is definitely true, but I personally don't really care that much about "equivalent" images. It's good if you're doing by the book comparisons, but has very little practical value.

actually it solves a lot of the so-called corner sharpness and shading "issues" for 135 cameras vs. crop sensors. so many complaints are made about the larger formats having bad corners, when the comparison isn't between equivalent images at all. (go on slrgear.com and compare the sharpness graphs for the 17-40L with the 20D set to 17 f/4 and the 5D graph set to 29 f/5.6).


cameras are tools, and it is all about using the right tool for the job. there is a place for crop sensors, there is a place for 135 sensors, there is a place for MF, and there is a place for 8x10 view cams.


and if you have the same sensor tech you don't have to live with the slower shutter speed to get the same perspective, fov, and dof. just up your ISO 🙂

 

[soydios]

I have noticed one thing though, ElFenix. you are a depth-of-field oriented shooter. granted that argument has its merits for macro, portrait, and daylight sports photography. but I'm more focused on the light-gathering ability of each lens: how much light per unit area, and to a greater extent the capabilities of the lens/sensor system as a whole. hence my forever-unrequited lust for the D3.

 

[ElFenix]

back to the actual topic, i am really digging this camera.

there are rumors of a digital k1000 that would compete with this in terms of size coming during the olympics or photokina. could get very interesting.

 

[soydios]

speaking of Olympics, here's for fingers crossed for a D3X

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: soydios
fine. as FBB said, "apparent exposure". your elementary math is not applicable to this argument.

punchkin, answer me this: Ignoring depth-of-field, will a photo at ISO200 1/125th f/2.8 in my D50, a D3, 1DmkIII, and an E-420 produce the same apparent exposure in their output file? Yes or No?

The "apparent exposure" does not let one compare apples and oranges as if both were apples. The image from the smaller sensor will be of lower quality. In order to achieve similar quality, one will need a wider aperture (or a slower shutter speed -- some way of freeing up space in the "light budget") in order to be able to use less sensor gain.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: soydios
speaking of Olympics, here's for fingers crossed for a D3X

It will come, but not likely in time to make a dent in sports-shooter use at the Games. I think the Olympics are overrated as an indicator of market trends, though-- as we know, pros can switch gear in droves in much less than two years...

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
back to the actual topic, i am really digging this camera.

there are rumors of a digital k1000 that would compete with this in terms of size coming during the olympics or photokina. could get very interesting.

Yep, me too. I will probably buy one for the wife, and will enjoy playing with it. If they add sensor stabilization in a future model I will carry one with me constantly...