>Look Ken, I don't know at whom or what you are ranting. Is it just me?
Who is ranting? Honestly I am actually in agreement with you (although with
caveats). I am NOT picking a fight when I say that the 5Dmk2 is the "2009
Landscape Camera". If that was my gig and I wasn't going to buy a
Phase-One, the Canon is the best thing going. Trust me when I say that the
5Dmk2 is actually on my very shortlist of cameras to possibly purchase in
March/April. Canon has addressed a couple of my own deal-breakers and if
the handgrip actually works for me, it is almost a given.
All I was trying to do was place all this in perspective. That's all. My
mistake is approaching this from a businessman perspective and not a
hobbiest/holy grail perspective.
>Am I really THAT wrong and wrong headed? Am I just a convenient
>surrogate target? Someone you can shoot at who will make a good fight
>of it? Who or what are you really so very angry at?
Why do you assume I'm targeting you? I'm not. I happened to just respond
to the same thread as you. Now, Chuck I'll pick on, but I'm not going to
pick any fights with you. :) I'm just trying to add perspective to the
discussion.
>As it happens, Brian asked a very specific question about detail
>resolution of cameras, that point being even more clearly stated in his
>second post. So if you don't agree that that is a meaningful question
>for a landscape photographer, why not post a reasoned and organized
>discussion of what other factors he should consider and why.
I have.
>Oh pshaw! Nikon is on a roll, Oly has done better in DSLRs lately than
>in ages. I didn't say Canon is best in any overall way, nor even the
>best landscape camera. I answered a specific question. And I believe my
>answer was accurate. Again, if you disagree, show us.
Yes Nikon and Olympus are both on a roll. But in the argument of
"resolution", Canon still remains head and shoulders above the rest.
However, we are reaching (or have reached) the point of diminishing
returns. It is a tough call to identify prints taken with one camera vs
another based on resolution and detail. However, it is easier to identify
prints taken with one camera vs another based on color and tonalities.
A fellow listmember did a very interesting test for me a few years ago. He
sent two identical B&W prints--one taken with a Mamiya 7 and the other with
an OM. These were 8x10s are were indistinguishable except for one
telltail--DoF. Had it not been for that one thing, I would not have been
able to identify which was which.
>I'd think you've been around long enough to know that the leaders in
>various fields change with time. Who ever heard of LG?
Yes, they used to be called Goldstar. The LG Electronics group also
includes Zenith which was acquired about the time they changed names.
>I also said I believed the 5DII would be the most popular landscape
>camera for a while. That doesn't mean it will be the best in all ways,
>nor that the best landscape images will be taken with it. The
>photographer still matters a great deal.
Total, 100% agreement. I'm wearing my "I agree with Moose" t-shirt today.
>OK. Are you claiming his shots in the L-L article I linked to are
>frauds? Did you actually look at them? You don't need to read his
>opinions, just look at that d**n images.
I can selectively make any technology appear to be superior to another
technology if I maximize the strengths of the one. The example pictures
exploit digital's advantage when it comes to edge-definition, but
micro-detail in "random subjects" like vegetation is mysteriously missing in
soem of those shots because that's where the "other technology" happens to
be superior. For many subjects, edge-definition rules!
>The 5D clearly does not resolve more detail than 4x5 Velvia.
Actually, it does. But, again, only in edge-definition. Velvia suffers from
lateral halation (not to be confused with bad breath) which is well
documented and known. Digital sensors do not suffer from lateral halation
other than the extent to which the AA filter blurs the image.
>Back to E-3 and 5D, I ask the same question. Are you saying that the
>images posted on dpreview are faked?
Of course not. However, we are losing sense of perspective. You'd think,
from comparing the Ferrari 360 to the Dodge Viper that the Ferrari is pure
junk based on accelleration numbers. Never mind the fact that both are
world-class automobiles.
AG
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|