<?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: APS-C vs 35mm</title>
	<atom:link href="http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml</link>
	<description>You tell that other boy, not to touch the woodwork...</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:32:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-hemorrhage</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Raist3d</title>
		<link>http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-64710</link>
		<dc:creator>Raist3d</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:40:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-64710</guid>
		<description>I hate to say this but that ISO 400 shot of the e-500 looks suspect. Maybe it was developed the wrong way? I can vouch that the e-330 doesn't have that kind of noise at ISO 400, and from my experience with my own e-300 which uses the same sensor of the e-500, at ISO 400 the noise shouldn't be that visible particularly at the size this website is showing it. I think that's weird.

Was this a RAW file? I can believe that maybe in RAW by default it would look that way, but certainly not from jpeg.

- Raist</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hate to say this but that ISO 400 shot of the e-500 looks suspect. Maybe it was developed the wrong way? I can vouch that the e-330 doesn&#8217;t have that kind of noise at ISO 400, and from my experience with my own e-300 which uses the same sensor of the e-500, at ISO 400 the noise shouldn&#8217;t be that visible particularly at the size this website is showing it. I think that&#8217;s weird.</p>
<p>Was this a RAW file? I can believe that maybe in RAW by default it would look that way, but certainly not from jpeg.</p>
<p>- Raist</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; More foot in mouth.</title>
		<link>http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-38782</link>
		<dc:creator>The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; More foot in mouth.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:37:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-38782</guid>
		<description>[...] recommended camera out there (a fair comparison will have to wait until the Olympus P-1). I’m not a big fan of 4-3 because the line is missing a lot of cheap normal lenses and the liveMOS isn’t going to sell me [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] recommended camera out there (a fair comparison will have to wait until the Olympus P-1). I’m not a big fan of 4-3 because the line is missing a lot of cheap normal lenses and the liveMOS isn’t going to sell me [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Nikon going full frame</title>
		<link>http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-15109</link>
		<dc:creator>The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Nikon going full frame</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Dec 2006 20:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-15109</guid>
		<description>[...] Why? Well my theory is because it came in the right size at the right time with a resolution that was good enough quality to match our film expectations. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Why? Well my theory is because it came in the right size at the right time with a resolution that was good enough quality to match our film expectations. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; When did you go digital?</title>
		<link>http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-1911</link>
		<dc:creator>The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; When did you go digital?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-1911</guid>
		<description>[...] But while the first few were just passing obsessions, the last two were, I felt, very rational. They were based on Nyquist sampling, as I have talked about earlier. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] But while the first few were just passing obsessions, the last two were, I felt, very rational. They were based on Nyquist sampling, as I have talked about earlier. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Considering an entry level camera</title>
		<link>http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-1758</link>
		<dc:creator>The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Considering an entry level camera</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:11:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-1758</guid>
		<description>[...] I have been very down on Olympusâ€™s system in the past, but I take it back now and admit I am wrong. I think Four-Thirds is a viable system with some unique advantages. Ignoring the caveats I have mentioned about this system earlier, I want to point out that any lens you can buy in Four-Thirds, whether they are Zuiko (made by Olympus) or Leica (through their support of Panasonic), they are of top notch construction. My only complaint is one of price: the lenses are very expensive. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I have been very down on Olympusâ€™s system in the past, but I take it back now and admit I am wrong. I think Four-Thirds is a viable system with some unique advantages. Ignoring the caveats I have mentioned about this system earlier, I want to point out that any lens you can buy in Four-Thirds, whether they are Zuiko (made by Olympus) or Leica (through their support of Panasonic), they are of top notch construction. My only complaint is one of price: the lenses are very expensive. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Feeding the Canon trolls</title>
		<link>http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-1036</link>
		<dc:creator>The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Feeding the Canon trolls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://terrychay.com/blog/article/aps-c-vs-35mm.shtml#comment-1036</guid>
		<description>[...] Iâ€™ve gone against accepted wisdom for the last year stating that I think Canon shot their wad with the 5D. If you look at the roadmap data before itâ€™s introduction, the 5D replaced the 20D. Canon felt that APS-C was dead to serious enthusiasts and pros and waited for the sales of the 5D that never materialized. Canon missed the sweet spot by a mile which is why things like this became commonplace. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Iâ€™ve gone against accepted wisdom for the last year stating that I think Canon shot their wad with the 5D. If you look at the roadmap data before itâ€™s introduction, the 5D replaced the 20D. Canon felt that APS-C was dead to serious enthusiasts and pros and waited for the sales of the 5D that never materialized. Canon missed the sweet spot by a mile which is why things like this became commonplace. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
