Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:46 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:53 pm
Posts: 13
As I understand, landscape picture taken from 4/3 camera will have a limited angel compared to 3/2 camera. In another way, using 3/2 camera would provide more beautiful landscape picture. I don’t know if my understanding is correct and it would be great if anybody could elaborate that understanding.

1. Would there be much difference getting from the same landscape picture taken from two different cameras (4/3 and 3/2)?

2. I am the one who loves taking landscape picture and is interesting in E-510 according to its function and picture tone, thus, it would be good if anybody could advise me about the above-mentioned matter.

3. In addition, as far as I know, lens wide for e-510, 7-14 zukio, is quite expensive and it seems to me that it’s not so easy to find reasonable lens wide range and price for e-510. So could anybody recommend any options or alternatives of camera and lens for me.

Thank you


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:33 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9784
Location: UK
universe_sound wrote:
...Would there be much difference getting from the same landscape picture taken from two different cameras (4/3 and 3/2)?...

Not having had experience with the E-510 (my last Olympus SLR was an OM-2) I'll leave those questions for others.

There isn't a simple answer to the question of 4/3rds vs. 3/2ths ( :!: ) for landscape work. If most of your preferred landscape compositions are a lot wider than tall (or, indeed, taller than wide) then 3/2 might be better. The reason I say this is that while you can frame the longest dimension of the subject with a zoom lens equally well with both types of camera when you come to print (or save the finished article on the computer) you will end up cropping more of your picture away with a 4/3rds camera. This isn't a deal breaker, however, as long as your final print/display size isn't limited by the camera sensor's resolution.

So, in summary, unless you print or display your pictures at sizes where sensor resolution might be an issue there is no reason not to choose a 4/3rds camera. If a lot of your shots look better framed near a 4:3 aspect ratio rather than a 3:2 aspect ratio then there is every reason to go for a 4/3rds camera. It's down to your preferred style and needs.

As always, it is important to try and get down to your local store and see how your short-listed cameras feel in hand. In my opinion that should be your first criteria for choosing a camera rather than worrying about the aspect ratio of the sensor.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M1 + ED 12-40mm f/2.8, H-F007014E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm 1:1.8, L-RS014150E.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9952
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
In addition to what Bob's said, remember all those pros shooting in medium format are working with a squarer (less wide) aspect ratio and it doesn't bother them! (of course they have the spare resolution to crop if desired, but many keep the squarer shape)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:49 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7896
Location: Germany
Hello universe_sound.
You're right, but only when you compare shots taken with a lens of the same focal length. So a 14mm on an APS-C-body gives you a wider field-of-view than on a four-thirds-body. This is the reason Oly is selling an ultra-wide 7-14 which is equivalen to a 9-19 on an APS-C-body - and command a premium for it.
So this has to be taken into account when you decide for a four-thirds system.

As to the remarks about the aspect-ratio of the pictures (not the sensor sizes!) I would lean to 3:2 not 4:3. Why? 3:2 is much closer to DIN-format (1.41:1) and to 16:9 TV or 16:10 (Monitor) so you have more from your pics!

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:53 pm
Posts: 13
Thank you for the answers :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:17 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7896
Location: Germany
Sorry, I have to correct myself: you have the same amount of cropping when printing a 4:3-pic on a DIN-paper (losing some areas top+bottom in landscape) as you have when printing a 3:2-pic on a DIN-paper (losing some areas left and right). But my assertion with monitors and TVs still holds true.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group