I trust your math on the dof.
The main thing I don't like about 4/3 is that the system is optimized for an obsolete display standard. In another thread we learn that many photographers are selling a lot of images in digital format for display rather than print. Displays are evolving to 16/9 - this is the trend.
Tony P. Canon 50D, 30D and Digital Rebel (plus some old friends - FTB and AE1) Long-time amateur.....wishing for more time to play Autocross and Track junkie tonyp.smugmug.com
I trust your math on the dof.
The main thing I don't like about 4/3 is that the system is optimized for an obsolete display standard. In another thread we learn that many photographers are selling a lot of images in digital format for display rather than print. Displays are evolving to 16/9 - this is the trend.
I don't think this is really a valid argument. Nearly every compact P&S camera on the market is a 4/3 sensor. The only cameras that are 3/2 are DSLRs not made by Olympus or Panasonic. The large majority of photographs viewed on computer screens are shot with a 4/3 sensor camera - and that is not changing any time soon. The 16x9 screens are more a trend following televisions and HD video viewing - the trend has little to do with still photography.
One thing worth mentioning is that at least Olympus has f/2 zoom lenses - no one else does. So while the DOF may not be as great, I'll be honest, even shooting at f/2 often leaves part of someone's face in focus and part not. Even though it sounds like a disadvantage - in most situations it is rare for me to want narrower depth of field than 2.8 anyway.
One thing worth mentioning is that at least Olympus has f/2 zoom lenses - no one else does. So while the DOF may not be as great, I'll be honest, even shooting at f/2 often leaves part of someone's face in focus and part not. Even though it sounds like a disadvantage - in most situations it is rare for me to want narrower depth of field than 2.8 anyway.
You also have to remember that there is a lot more DOF than a full frame at F2.0, I can shoot my D700 at 2.0 and it is a thin sliver, while on 4/3 it has more uses since it is a bit more forgiving. 4/3 is great in that I can be at a much lower f-stop and have everything in focus for a landscape.
Comments
The main thing I don't like about 4/3 is that the system is optimized for an obsolete display standard. In another thread we learn that many photographers are selling a lot of images in digital format for display rather than print. Displays are evolving to 16/9 - this is the trend.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Canon 50D, 30D and Digital Rebel (plus some old friends - FTB and AE1)
Long-time amateur.....wishing for more time to play
Autocross and Track junkie
tonyp.smugmug.com
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
You also have to remember that there is a lot more DOF than a full frame at F2.0, I can shoot my D700 at 2.0 and it is a thin sliver, while on 4/3 it has more uses since it is a bit more forgiving. 4/3 is great in that I can be at a much lower f-stop and have everything in focus for a landscape.