Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] FYI - Kirk did a nice preview of the OMD

Subject: Re: [OM] FYI - Kirk did a nice preview of the OMD
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:51:41 -0700
On 3/12/2012 10:24 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> On 09 Feb 2012, at 2:05 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>
>> But 16MP is more than enough. Right? Maybe, maybe not. ...
> I have to chime in here. Yes, 16MP is unequivocally enough!! It was
> back when the Canon 1DsMkII was first released years ago, it still is,
> and it will always be - because there aren't even many lenses that can
> out-resolve a 16MP sensor across the frame in most shooting
> conditions. And even if they do, what are you going to do with it?  ...

See below.

> There isn't a normal person on this planet that cares about the
> resolution difference between a 12MP Canon 5D Mk1 and the latest 22MP
> 5D MkIII. Not a single one. Seriously.

Ditto

> To my annoyance, there are also
> very few people that care, or can even truly tell, the difference
> between a print I made from a 4x5in negative and a good 35mm negative.
> Non-photographers just don't care. Subject matter, composition, light,
> timing is all that counts.

Isn't that what should count? I do think many non-photographers do notice sharp 
and fuzzy, as well, and how they play 
into the feeling of the image.

Should it matter to those who enjoy, rather than making, photographs? I don't 
think so. I was once flipping through a 
bunch of prints in a gallery that prided itself on all analog work. There were 
several MF and LF cameras represented, as 
well as 35mm. I remember thinking that analog vs. digital and specific 
equipment mattered far less to my relative 
enjoyment of the different prints than those primary characteristics.

Perhaps we should add to Ctein's quote "Nobody cares how hard you worked" a 
corollary with which I am sure he would 
agree "Nobody cares what equipment and supplies you used."

> All that ever has, all that ever will. You've been sharing your next-
> camera-purchase anxiety with us for a couple of years now, I think you
> should just go ahead and do it!

OMG! You would stop a major form of creative outlet for Ken and of 
entertainment for so many of us?

> ...
>
> I love not being part of the megapixel race. I had truly hoped it was
> over, but instead of putting a high-quality lower-res sensor in the
> tiny quarter-size (that thing is ridiculously small, just look at a
> picture of the camera with lens unmounted!) they had to go and push
> for 16 Megapixels. Imagine what 10MP, with Nikon D700-like low-light
> performance and Leica M8/M9-like acutance could have meant for real
> photographers.

The problem you don't seem to recognize, and why would you, shootin' film, is 
that sensor systems are still improving, 
even as MPs go up. The 12 MP Canon G9, with much higher pixel density than 
DSLRs, was replaced by the 10 MP G11, which 
was indeed better in IQ. But then the 12 MP S100 came out, and it's better than 
either. In fact, I think it's as good at 
ISO 80 as the 60D at 100. I haven't done a formal test as yet, but that's my 
feeling from experience. Of course that's 
after applying deconvolution to both. ;-) Focus Magic seems to be magically 
matched to the S100.

So there's this problem; not uncommonly, the newer camera with more MPs is also 
just plain better, at things other than 
simple resolution.

There's also another factor for those of us interested in color. The Bayer 
array has a problem with reds. How much of it 
is simple resolution, imperfect filters, easier clipping, and some other 
factors, I don't know. There was a careful 
comparison of a lower 'true' resolution Sigma to a 5D with flowers that made 
this clear. Even the beautiful pixel level 
quality 5D is sloppy with color boundaries, especially reds. It gets subtle 
tones wrong.

So more sensor level resolution, if not at the expense of DR, will tend give 
clearer colors with better boundaries, at 
least until different sensor/array technology goes mainstream.

Yet another factor is all the digital lens corrections for linear distortion, 
CA, deconvolution for focus correction, 
etc. At the moment, they are the future of lens technology. All these require 
pushing pixels around. The higher the 
sensor resolution, the easier it is to do all these well and without losing 
detail. It's entirely possible that we will 
soon see high MP cameras that do use the best resolution consumer optics can 
manage, after processing.

I don't know if you noticed, and we don't know yet how well it will work, but 
with the 5DIII Canon has just introduced 
detailed lens corrections, including what sounds like deconvolution to correct 
the lenses  AND reverse the effect of AA 
filters. For all we know, Canon's engineers may have gone with the higher pixel 
count more to make this new technology 
work well than to please the marketers.

> Good luck with your decisions! But don't stress too much about
> Olympus, and the "meaning" of the OM-D. They have still lost the plot,

Absolutely. I thought they lost it with the E-1, and haven't found it yet.

Plot? What Plot Moose

-- 
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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