EM-1X - is this the Bee's Knees of ALL MFTs, or - did Olympus blow it? (Page 10): But that is not opinion. The dimensions are available. What is opinion is what one considers...

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Chris T wrote:

That's okay, WD … you're entitled to your opinion … as I am - mine!!!!

BTW - I NEVER indicated I thought the EM1 II - to be a monster (just for the record!)

But that is not opinion. The dimensions are available. What is opinion is what one considers "monster". It is much closer to the E-M1mrII with the battery grip in size than it is to the size of the EOS-1DX. It is the biggest Olympus yet, but the EOS-1DX would be the one for title of "monster".

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Chris T wrote:

WD - the one thing you seem to conveniently forget is this - the 1Dx is FULL-FRAME. Whereas the EM1x is MFT - creating an image on its sensor, which is approximately ONE EIGHTH the size of a FF Sensor. When you take that into consideration - it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to state, emphatically - the Performance of the Canon is WORSE than the performance of the EM1x. They are on two entirely different levels. Do you see?

It isn’t 8 times smaller Chris. But all that is irrelevant. M4/3 is capable of producing very good IQ. In fact when printers can’t tell the difference, the IQ is better than you give it credit for.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

tdekany wrote:

It isn’t 8 times smaller Chris. But all that is irrelevant. M4/3 is capable of producing very good IQ. In fact when printers can’t tell the difference, the IQ is better than you give it credit for.

I agree. Of course, I wish there were 5X7 and 8X10 digital backs for view cameras. One could make the pixels 50% to 100% bigger than medium format pixels and still have more than a thousand pixels for the image and it would out do anything we have today - and probably cost millions. But then we would still have a debate of IQ comparability. For most of us, sensors 4/3rds and up, and even some 1" sensors , provide enough quality for discerning customers.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

wdross wrote:

But that is not opinion. The dimensions are available. What is opinion is what one considers "monster". It is much closer to the E-M1mrII with the battery grip in size than it is to the size of the EOS-1DX. It is the biggest Olympus yet, but the EOS-1DX would be the one for title of "monster".

I would definitely agree with that … that the 1Dx II can be more appropriately called - monstrous. Perhaps, I will delve into this further. Put up a chart indicating the width, height, and weight of all the PRO DSLRs - would have to include the D5 as well as the 1Dx II, and the Sony a99 II, and the Pentax K-1 II. Should be a very interesting "reveal" - huh, WD?

Then - put the EM1x on the bottom - so everyone can see the difference, with their own eyes - huh, WD?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

tdekany wrote:

It isn’t 8 times smaller Chris. But all that is irrelevant. M4/3 is capable of producing very good IQ. In fact when printers can’t tell the difference, the IQ is better than you give it credit for.

Start with a sheet of paper - equate it to FF. Tear it in half - and now you have two APS-Cs.

Tear those in half, and you have 1" ...

Tear those in half, and you have MFT ... right? ... Or do I have the bottom two switched?

It may be better IQ ... but, it's STILL 110-film sized, Tom ... and you CAN'T get decent blowups (30x40) from a frame size that small. It's impossible!!! ... Clean 30x40s are even a push for FF!!!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

wdross wrote:

I agree. Of course, I wish there were 5X7 and 8X10 digital backs for view cameras. One could make the pixels 50% to 100% bigger than medium format pixels and still have more than a thousand pixels for the image and it would out do anything we have today - and probably cost millions. But then we would still have a debate of IQ comparability. For most of us, sensors 4/3rds and up, and even some 1" sensors , provide enough quality for discerning customers.

There ARE digital backs for both 4x5 and 8x10 View Cameras, WD … they DO cost thousands, tho' - not millions. Not for 5x7, though. That format's out the window. I have one, but only make contact prints from the images obtained. A Mamiya 645 with 80mm lens, and LEAF digital back - costs thirty grand. Hassy is now turning out 100MP bodies which cost fifty grand. No Lens. It's all gotten quite costly to use digital beyond FF. You can buy the new Fuji GFX 100 for ten grand, body only. The GFX 50S is the same price as the D5 - $6500. The GFX 50R Rangefinder-style MILC - can be picked up for just $4,000 Body Only ….

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Chris T wrote:

Start with a sheet of paper - equate it to FF. Tear it in half - and now you have two APS-Cs.

Tear those in half, and you have 1" ...

Tear those in half, and you have MFT ... right? ... Or do I have the bottom two switched?

It may be better IQ ... but, it's STILL 110-film sized, Tom ... and you CAN'T get decent blowups (30x40) from a frame size that small. It's impossible!!! ... Clean 30x40s are even a push for FF!!!!!

A screenshot for you Chris, so you don’t need to wait an hour. Click on download

(Download)

tdekany Loc: Oregon

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/03/when-will-micro-43-equal-medium-format-film-we-have-the-definitive-answer.html

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Chris T wrote:

Start with a sheet of paper - equate it to FF. Tear it in half - and now you have two APS-Cs.

Tear those in half, and you have 1" ...

Tear those in half, and you have MFT ... right? ... Or do I have the bottom two switched?

It may be better IQ ... but, it's STILL 110-film sized, Tom ... and you CAN'T get decent blowups (30x40) from a frame size that small. It's impossible!!! ... Clean 30x40s are even a push for FF!!!!!

You have it wrong. M4/3 is 2x

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

tdekany wrote:

You have it wrong. M4/3 is 2x

And APS-C is 1.5 or 1.6 (Canon) and the kneebone's connected to the thigh bone, and the …. so what???

These are just conversion numbers, equating the smaller formats with Full Frame.

It doesn't pan out to FF being twice the size of MFT!!!

APS-C - total area - is HALF the size of Full Frame.

And, MFT - is HALF the size of APS-C (approximately!) Work out the areas, Tom ....

FF is 864 sq. mm ... go from there ... !!!!!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Chris T wrote:

And APS-C is 1.5 or 1.6 (Canon) and the kneebone's connected to the thigh bone, and the …. so what???

These are just conversion numbers, equating the smaller formats with Full Frame.

It doesn't pan out to FF being twice the size of MFT!!!

APS-C - total area - is HALF the size of Full Frame.

And, MFT - is HALF the size of APS-C (approximately!) Work out the areas, Tom ....

FF is 864 sq. mm ... go from there ... !!!!!

FF is 4 x not 8x

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

tdekany wrote:

You have it wrong. M4/3 is 2x

Here, Tom … present for you (since you were so nice to send me one for V-Day!!!)

The chocolates were delicious, btw … thanks so much!!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

tdekany wrote:

FF is 4 x not 8x

Yes, I made a mistake … so sue me!!!!

The 1" sensor is 8x smaller than FF - approximately …

Check the chart I just sent you, Tom - pretty much ALL formats are listed.

It gives you the width and length. Multiply those and you have the area …

Then - you can much more easily compute the difference. FF is 864 sq. mm.

le boecere

wdross wrote:

I agree. Of course, I wish there were 5X7 and 8X10 digital backs for view cameras. One could make the pixels 50% to 100% bigger than medium format pixels and still have more than a thousand pixels for the image and it would out do anything we have today - and probably cost millions. But then we would still have a debate of IQ comparability. For most of us, sensors 4/3rds and up, and even some 1" sensors , provide enough quality for discerning customers.

So, am I to read in what you and the M4/3rds community are saying, here, that; there's no real need for any sensor other than the M4/3, as it is superior to all other sensor sizes? (Yes, of course the phone-cameras still need a tiny sensor, but in "real cameras"?)

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Chris T wrote:

Yes, I made a mistake … so sue me!!!!

The 1" sensor is 8x smaller than FF - approximately …

Check the chart I just sent you, Tom - pretty much ALL formats are listed.

It gives you the width and length. Multiply those and you have the area …

Then - you can much more easily compute the difference. FF is 864 sq. mm.

Chris, you thought 1” was larger than m4/3 earlier.

I also sent you 2 articles from people who have tested and use m4/3. Not opinions.

However, I personally don’t care what camera was used, I am more interested in the end result.