> As to the limits imposed by physical laws, I think you are likely wrong,
> and those limits have not been reached. I have posted more than once
> my tests of the central portion of the 5D sensor with the same physical
> area as the 300D vs. the 300D sensor itself. The 5D section has only
> 5.1 Mp, compared to the 6.3 Mp of the 300D. Yet in side-to-side
> comparisons with all other variables the same, the 5D sensor clearly
> resolves more detail while at the same time having much less noise.
> I'm sure it's more than just the sensor, the whole imaging system.
> Anyway, it points out that there may still be room for improvements
> that would make Khen's claims a theoretical possibility.
I agree we've probably not reached the limits of sensor sensitivity.
However, I was talking about what can be done at present, not what might
theoretically be possible 10 years from now. So the question remains -- does
Olympus "know something", or have access to technology not available to
other companies? Not likely -- especially when their pixels are 1/4 the area
of those on a full-frame sensor.
Does anyone out there know -- "fer shure"?
It's ironic -- or perhaps inevitable -- that electronic imaging is
supplanting chemical imaging not long after photographic chemists gained
seemingly total control over granularity, contrast, saturation, and color
rendition. I think the next step in electronic imaging will be camera
controls that specifically address image "character" in a coherent fashion,
through a single interface, rather than as isolated parameters. True, image
character can be modified in Photoshop, et al, but you know the Japanese --
if they can cram another feature into a product, they will.
>> I find the E-500 user manual isnt too bad. It explains the basic
>> stuff. People often ask how they can start to use more of the
>> features in the camera. I tell them to start in auto and work
>> their way around slowly. Experiment on their own. Isn't that
>> we did with manual SLR's back in the day?
No, we didn't. We understood the camera's capabilities from Day 1. When I
bought my first good camera -- a Nikon F Photomic T -- in 1969, the learning
curve was short and steep.
> Perhaps pull out an OM-n manual and make the comparison yourself.
Good suggestion, but the reason we didn't complain quite so loudly about the
bad manuals for other, less-automated cameras was that there was at least an
order of magnitude _fewer_ ways in which they could be bad, simply because
the cameras has an order of magnitude fewer _features_.
I need to clarify what I mean when I say the E-500 has a horrible, terrible,
rotten manual. It's not just that the writers simply don't understand the
meaning of English words.
Cameras with manual focusing and exposure have traditionally had short,
simple manuals -- any person reading this e-mail should be able operate a
Nikon F, a Minox, a Leica, a Polaroid 110B, a view camera, etc, with little
or no trouble. The basics of focusing and setting exposure are _assumed_ by
the people who wrote their manuals, and need little, if any, explanation.
(By the way, did you know that Polaroid invented the EV system?)
As cameras became increasngly automated, their manuals became increasingly
complex. Why? Because the basic kernel of knowledge -- how to set focus and
exposure -- could no longer be assumed. The user had to be educated as to
how the camera did these things, so he could properly control what, in
theory, was not supposed to _need_ user control. (The sole exception to this
was the SX-70 -- the ultimate "automated" camera -- whose user manual
consisted of a small cardboard trifold with a bunch of pictures and a bit of
text. It's classic -- one of the best user manuals for anything, ever.)
If you wanted to bracket exposure on a Nikon F, you "just did it". But
digital cameras do _everything_ in software. On the E-500 (and other
cameras), you have to activate a specific bracketing feature and indicate
how many exposures you want, how large the exposure steps should be, etc.
This is not, in itself, a bad thing -- in fact, in one way it's a major
improvement, because you can take all the photos in a single burst, without
changing framing even subtly, as you don't have to pull the camera from your
eye to change the aperture or shutter speed. And you can still switch the
E-500 to manual exposure, and do it "the old way". The problem is that _too
many_ of the E-500's features are badly explained -- or not explained at
all -- in poor English.
To give one example -- does anyone here _really_ understand what Olympus
means by "gradient"? I have a rough idea, but I'd like to know what Olympus
thinks this setting is supposed to do. Any experimentation should be to
select a setting for a particular shot -- NOT to figure how it works!
Here's an example of incomplete instructions -- how, exactly, to you set the
two reset configurations? (Or the My settings, for that matter. I noticed
last night that it's locked out of the menu. I'll have to dig through the
manual to figure out why.) I could _guess_, and experiment to see if I'm
right -- but why the @#&%* should I _have_ to guess? The manual is
_supposed_ to explain such things, so I don't _have_ to experiment!
Please don't give me any crap about how I'm an experienced photographer and
am supposed to know these things. Leave such remarks for the idiots in
Olympus's customer service department.
I can't say enough bad things about the instructions for the E-500's
built-in flash and the FL-36 shoe-mount flash. They're _so_ bad, that to
call them "beneath contempt" would be to compliment them. Utter, total,
almost-useless garbage, full of missing information (note the oxymoron) and
inconsistencies.
For better or worse, digital cameras (and, to a lesser extent, highly
automated film cameras) force the user to accomodate himself to the way the
camera does things. Manufacturers have, at the very least, a practical
obligation to provide documentation that helps the customer get the most out
of their product (if only to keep customers from calling for help), with a
minimum of wasted time and mental effort. In this regard, Olympus (and most
Japanese firms) fail miserably. "You just wasted my precious time." I'm
asking Olympus to "think twice" -- and many times more -- because it's _not_
"all right".
You can ignore the problem, or complain, complain, complain. Which is what
I'm doing.
I appreciate the near-total consensus (of those responding) that the E-500's
manual sucketh badly. It's not that it's qualitatively worse than previous
Olympus manuals -- they were no better -- it's rather that there are so many
more topics to cover -- and too many are covered so poorly -- that it's
quantitatively worse, by a huge and appalling margin.
> As Canon wasn't making manuals freely available for older models,
> a group on the EOS list got together and began a project to write
> their own, and to write them better. ... There's always that option --
> writing your/our own manuals, for free distribution. Perhaps setting
> up a wiki somewhere might be a go...
As Mr. Burns would say... "EHGGG-selent." I'd be happy to contribute, should
someone set one up.
PS: As I mail this -- a second time (my anti-virus software screwed up the
first transmission) -- I'm seeing a TV ad for Walgreen's, suggesting it
would be nice to have a professional take care of your photographic needs.
They show a man with a incident-light meter -- and he's actually holding it
correctly. (I admit, with some embarrassment, that it took me a while to
understand that you pointed the dome at the camera, not the light source.)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|