Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: which slide film?

Subject: [OM] Re: which slide film?
From: Wayne S <om4t@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:32:06 -0400
Yes, I pulled your shots into PS and compared them at identical size
features. Clearly the film is much better in the shots you show. 10-12
megapixels might equal that film shot.

The shots I was comparing were macro shots taken with the 90/2 on the
OM-4t. I used aperture prefire, tripod, and the exposures were in the
1/4-1/8 range. They were just not as sharp as I thought they should be.
I'm sure it was pilot error on my part. But I do think there are
situations where it is more than film or sensor resolution that
determines what you can get. Getting that potential resolution requires
extra care in a lot of situations. The E-1 has a lot lower inherent
vibration compared to the OM-4t. The ability to do precise focusing is
another. With wide angle infinity shots, focus is not much of an issue,
but telephoto work, macro work, limited DOF, it is much more critical.
For instance, this shot is not something I could have done as well with
the OM-4t:

http://www.zuik.net/E1/Tubing2_8013695.jpg

The shot was handheld in a moving boat, lens at 200mm (400mm
equivalent). I doubt I could have focused any better with a manual
lens, especially when everything was bouncing around; if I had the
subject somewhat centered in the frame I was doing good. In this
particular shot, the tube was at a fixed distance from the boat, so
yes, I probably could have pre-focused with a manual focus lens. But if
it was a passing subject.... who knows?

If we could, I'm sure we would all mount our cameras on a concrete
tripod or shoot at 1/1000 with large DOF, but that is usually not an
option. There just seems to be some limits coming from the camera as a
system in certain cases, especially in the 1/4-1/15 speed range with
the OM's. And just how accurate can you really focus an OM? I often
stop down just to cover the slop in my focusing, but if I really had to
depend on my ability to focus to get the potential resolution, I doubt
it would exceed 5mp. The film may have lot's of resolution, but me and
my 2-13 screen don't.

It is good to know that film can give some pretty decent resolution,
but what I'm saying is that what you can actually get in the field may
depend more on other factors than absolute sensor/film resolution.

So in my opinion, it is possible for a 5mp camera to get better
resolution than 100 iso film in several different situations (if we are
talking Olympus cameras that is). And clearly 5mp is not better than
100 iso film in the landscape wide angle situation. I would like to see
some other comparisons besides the infinity wide angle shots.

OK, so this pilot is going back into the field for some more
comparisons. I need to figure out what is the reason for my poor macro
shots and why I seem to do much better with the E-1. First test is my
scanner though.

Wayne

At 11:44 AM 9/10/2004, you wrote:

>Talking about resolution I have to step in again, it is never possible that
>a 5MP E-1 or 6MP 10D is better than ISO100 slides. During my Europe trip I
>have a few slides that are taken with the Zuiko 21/2 and E-1 with 11-22 (at
>11mm). There is one example, don't complaint about the slightly different in
>object size, the resolution different between the two is very obviouse.
>
>http://www.accura.com.hk/P8193517.jpg (1.1MB, 11mm at F4, 1/800s)
>
>http://www.accura.com.hk/P_06.jpg (3.2MB, 21/2 at F5.6, OM4 auto)
>
>C.H.Ling


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz