<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Changing Camera Systems: The Pros and Cons &#8211; Part II</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.photographybay.com/2009/07/24/changing-camera-systems-the-pros-and-cons-part-ii/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.photographybay.com/2009/07/24/changing-camera-systems-the-pros-and-cons-part-ii/</link>
	<description>The latest in digital photography and camera reviews, news and rumors for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and more.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:29:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: w. mackey</title>
		<link>http://www.photographybay.com/2009/07/24/changing-camera-systems-the-pros-and-cons-part-ii/#comment-175673</link>
		<dc:creator>w. mackey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photographybay.com/?p=6541#comment-175673</guid>
		<description>You say Olympus&#039; 2.0 &quot;crop factor makes the zoom lenses better? How so? Its a &quot;crop factor&quot;. You get the same effect using larger sensors and croppng in tighter later in post production plus the added resolution and lower pixel density that a larger sensor affords. Its getting kind if annoying listening to people say that a greater crop factor makes your &quot;lenses longer&quot;. Given the same resolution and sensor technology, the larger sensor will yield more detailed, less noisy images. The lens focal length stays the same since it is dependent on mount to sensor distance.

Wade</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You say Olympus&#8217; 2.0 &#8220;crop factor makes the zoom lenses better? How so? Its a &#8220;crop factor&#8221;. You get the same effect using larger sensors and croppng in tighter later in post production plus the added resolution and lower pixel density that a larger sensor affords. Its getting kind if annoying listening to people say that a greater crop factor makes your &#8220;lenses longer&#8221;. Given the same resolution and sensor technology, the larger sensor will yield more detailed, less noisy images. The lens focal length stays the same since it is dependent on mount to sensor distance.</p>
<p>Wade</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://www.photographybay.com/2009/07/24/changing-camera-systems-the-pros-and-cons-part-ii/#comment-175642</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photographybay.com/?p=6541#comment-175642</guid>
		<description>Technically the K-7 is smaller than the only metal shell 4/3 Olympus... maybe dropping sensor size doesn&#039;t save so much space!!

Samsung produces sensors for Pentax (much like sony produces sensors for Nikon), and Pentax/Hoya/Tokina (they are the same corporate entity) make lenses for Samsung (who uses Pentax K mount).

Just thought I&#039;d add to the info.

Thanks for the good articles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Technically the K-7 is smaller than the only metal shell 4/3 Olympus&#8230; maybe dropping sensor size doesn&#8217;t save so much space!!</p>
<p>Samsung produces sensors for Pentax (much like sony produces sensors for Nikon), and Pentax/Hoya/Tokina (they are the same corporate entity) make lenses for Samsung (who uses Pentax K mount).</p>
<p>Just thought I&#8217;d add to the info.</p>
<p>Thanks for the good articles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 7/13 queries in 0.007 seconds using disk: basic

Served from: www.photographybay.com @ 2012-02-10 04:29:51 -->
