Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Micro 4/3 News and Rumors' started by Pelao, Aug 30, 2011.
An interesting article has been posted on LL:
CSM Image Quality
Very interesting until you get to the 'Comparison Table Between CSC and dSLR Formats', and which point... w.t.f.?
The table makes vague sense if they were specifically comparing Micro Four Thirds to a full-frame dSLR, but they aren't - they're comparing CSC as a format, to dSLR, as a format... But about half of it (Megapixel Count, Noise in Bright Light, Noise in Low Light, DR in Bright Light, DR in Low Light, Print Size) makes absolutely no sense if they're comparing NX or NEX to an APS dSLR, given that in many cases the sensors are identical...
Usually I'm a big fan of LL, but this article has me scratching my head.
Did anyone else wonder what exactly the article was trying to explain? Are they trying to compare CSCs with full-frame DSLRs?
It seemed more like a list of dictionary definitions with an extra sentence tacked on the end of each, ostensibly attempting to compare formats.
I think the article might have made more sense if this...
...had been reduced to this...
...with the end statements for each section removed, and the title changed to "Camera Image Quality".
I'm exactly like you : WTF ? LL being what it is, we can assume they are comparing FF DSLRs with :43: CSCs, and more or less agree until we reach "camera shake" counted as a - for :43: and + for DSLR.
1) this metric was never quantified in the article body - what are they talking about ?
2) we all know the larger the format, the worst the shake ! Why do you think field cameras *have to be on a heavy duty tripod* (and most MF cameras shouldn't be used hand held) ?
This pseudo issue is unsubstantiated at best, but mostly totally wrong.
If you really fear camera shake with :43:, use a tripod or OIS / IBIS, and delay the firing of the shutter (deep in Olympus menus, don't know for pany). It won't shake at all.
This is a surprisingly bad article from that reputable site; CSCs may not be suited to what make LL readership tick, but there's no point in spreading F.U.D (fear, uncertainty, doubt).
I found it a little useful as a summary of the various factors, so yes, I think you nailed it.
There are a lot of CSC users on LL, and the owner himself is a big MFT fan. I also don't see how it spread any F.U.D..
Beg to differ: LL regularly publishes poorly conceived, poorly written articles.
I still check 'em out; but, I expect very little!
lula seem like a mixed bag to me. I keep them in my feed reader because there is sometimes an article I am interested in, but a lot of what they publish is not really relevant to me and some of it is just not that well written.
Seems like an ok article. The + for dslr for camera shake probably results in their comment about the csc being lighter.
My own plan is to take some RAW with a tripod, print them at least 8x10, and compare to 35mm film scanned from my Zeiss Ikon also 8x10
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.