Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Olympus Macro review.

Subject: Re: [OM] Olympus Macro review.
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:01:17 -0400
Thanks.  I see it very clearly now.

Chuck Norcutt


On 5/19/2013 8:31 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> They are 100% crops, small doesn't mean it is non comparable, there is
> obvious more details on the Nikon scan image. I circled the area I used for
> checking, hope this help:
>
>>>>> 4000ED at 3000dpi
>>>>>
>>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/1984-09B-35.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> 5D II, 80/4 at 1:1, F11
>>>>>
>>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0088.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> 5D II, 80/4 and f=170mm macro adapter
>>>>>
>>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0089.jpg
>
> If you still don't see the difference, reduce the size of the two 5D II
> copies to make them the same size as the Nikon one will make it easier.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> I still don't see it because the Nikon scan image you sent is very
>> small.  Perhaps you made a mistake and sent the wrong image.  The 5D II
>> scans are very noisy with grain.  I don't think more resolution is
>> helpful there.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> On 5/18/2013 11:52 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't understand what this is supposed to show us.  You say the Nikon
>>>> scanner can do a better job than the 5D II with 80/4 but the 4000ED
>>>> image you show us is quite small and labeled 300dpi.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, it was a typo, the Nikon scan was done at 3000dpi. Since I was
>>> making
>>> around 10,000 scan, 4000dpi 16bit tiff will occupy too much space so I
>>> did
>>> most of my scanning at 3000dpi.
>>>
>>>> The 5D II images are much larger but seem to me to be mostly grain.  If
>>>> the grain is resolved don't we have everything there is to get from the
>>>> image?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can look at the roofs details, some finer roofs is clearly visible on
>>> the Nikon scan but marginal on the 1:1 5D II copy, while the magnified
>>> (~2x
>>> with macro adapter) copy shown more details. I'm sure with better slides
>>> and
>>> better lens (the Sigma wasn't the best) it will require higher resolution
>>> copy/scanning system to review all the details.
>>>
>>> C.H.Ling
>>>
>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2013 1:53 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>>>> I think the E-M5 may not be able to resolve a good 35mm frame. While I
>>>>> was
>>>>> working with the 80/4 and 5D II setup, I found it is not even able to
>>>>> get
>>>>> all from an old 35mm Kodak CP100. The result is ok for most application
>>>>> but
>>>>> not the best one can get, a sharp 4000dpi scanner like N*kon 4000ED
>>>>> seem
>>>>> did
>>>>> better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a crop from a 1984 Beijing shot taken with Sigma 35-70/2.8-4 on
>>>>> OM-10, handheld.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4000ED at 300dpi
>>>>>
>>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/1984-09B-35.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> 5D II, 80/4 at 1:1, F11
>>>>>
>>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0088.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> 5D II, 80/4 and f=170mm macro adapter
>>>>>
>>>>> www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0089.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> C.H.Ling
>>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz