wayno wrote:canon arent getting it together in the smaller format cameras. olympus looks like a great option in the future...
nickthetasmaniac wrote:Check out my flickr album here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicktheta ... 820152046/
nickthetasmaniac wrote:Honestly, I think sensor technology has reached a point now where the gains between Micro Four Thirds and APS are almost imperceptible
wayno wrote:nick, are you shooting in RAW or jpeg? if RAW, how much post processing are you doing and what software are you using please?
phan_TOM wrote:The only cons so far even though it's less of a con than just getting used to it is the electronic viewfinder. It's a bit odd looking at a little TV screen instead of through the lens.
You say that you've used a lot of the quality lenses, what are your most used or favourite so far?
nickthetasmaniac wrote:Honestly, I think sensor technology has reached a point now where the gains between Micro Four Thirds and APS are almost imperceptible
I'd even go as far as saying that the same applies to full frame sensors in a practical sense. Yes, full frame has a shallower depth of field but with some of the fast MFT lenses this is pretty negligible, how shallow do you need to go. As far as light gathering and noise is concerned it's the same story. If I can get clean images at iso 1600, it's probably only going to be an issue for specialist photography like astrophotography or other low light long exposure stuff.
nickthetasmaniac wrote:The only exception I'd say is wide angle depth-of-field. For instance, the subject separation you can get with a 35/f1.4 or 24/f1.4 on full-frame is simply impossible on Micro Four Thirds.
In a practical sense yes, especially at 800px on the web. Like you say, there's definitely specialist applications where it matters (astrophotography or big prints, read about Ming Thein's 'ultra-print' project for an example) but by and large, most people won't notice and most photographers don't have the ability to take advantage of the difference anyway.
(Ming Thein)I keep coming back to the point of sufficiency because it’s one of the most misunderstood concepts by consumers, photographers and camera companies alike. Here’s what sufficiency means, in real terms. The megapixel number assumes you a) are sharp at the actual-pixels level, i.e. have good technique; and b) are using a Bayer sensor; c) noise is a non-issue or barely noticeable up to 1600 or average night conditions. Here’s what you need:
Hipstagram – 0.3MP, quality doesn’t really matter anyway
Social media/ facebook/ twitter/ etc – 800x800px: 0.64MP
Dedicated photo sites/ flickr etc – 2000x1500px: 3MP
6×4″ minilab print, 144dpi – 864x576px: 0.5MP
Single page newsprint ~20×15″, 72dpi – 1440x1080px: 1.5MP
HDTV playback – 1920x1080px: 2.1MP
18×12″ print, 240dpi (upper limit for most hobbyists and a lot of pros) – 4320x2880px: 12.4MP
Double page A4 magazine spread 16.5×11.7″, 240dpi – 3960x2808px: 11.1MP
8×12″ Ultraprint, minimum 500dpi, ideal 720dpi – 4000x6000px to 5760x8640px: 24-50MP
Very big billboard 40x20m, 5dpi – 7874x3937px: 31MP
Large fine art print, 36×24″, 240dpi – 8640x5760px: 50MP
10×15″ Ultraprint, 500-720dpi – 5000x7500px to 7200x10800px: 38-78MP
16×20″ Ultraprint, 500-720dpi – 8000x10000px to 11520x14400px: 80-166MP (!)
I’m willing to bet that most people don’t know 12MP or less is more than enough for just about every conceivable use
(Ming Thein)The Ultraprint resolves at the equivalent level of 720 PPI; that’s beyond the naked human eye’s ability to distinguish. What this means is that we can look at the prints as near as our eyes will focus, and there will still be the impression of more detail – you really need a 3-5x magnifying loupe to fully appreciate how much detail is in one of these prints.
phan_TOM wrote:...and in reference to his Ultra prints I'm going to start slapping anyone I see in a gallery looking at artworks with a magnifying glass, that'd be taking pixel peeping to a whole new level of stupidity(Ming Thein)The Ultraprint resolves at the equivalent level of 720 PPI; that’s beyond the naked human eye’s ability to distinguish. What this means is that we can look at the prints as near as our eyes will focus, and there will still be the impression of more detail – you really need a 3-5x magnifying loupe to fully appreciate how much detail is in one of these prints.
nickthetasmaniac wrote:True, but I still want to buy one
nickthetasmaniac wrote:phan_TOM wrote:...and in reference to his Ultra prints I'm going to start slapping anyone I see in a gallery looking at artworks with a magnifying glass, that'd be taking pixel peeping to a whole new level of stupidity(Ming Thein)The Ultraprint resolves at the equivalent level of 720 PPI; that’s beyond the naked human eye’s ability to distinguish. What this means is that we can look at the prints as near as our eyes will focus, and there will still be the impression of more detail – you really need a 3-5x magnifying loupe to fully appreciate how much detail is in one of these prints.
True, but I still want to buy one
Bringing this all back to Wayno's OP, I think the point is that it really doesn't matter too much. For basically all practical applications, the current crop of large sensor cameras (Micro Four Thirds and above) are really, really good...
My generic advice for someone in the market:
- Figure out how serious you are. There's some very good fixed lens, large sensor cameras out there now, and not everyone needs interchangeable lenses. Likewise, basically all dSLR's are massively over-featured.
- Figure out if you have any specialist needs (macro, astrophotography, architecture, weather sealing, high-speed sports etc...). And I mean real needs - a passing interest in photographing small things doesn't mean you need a 1:1 macro, likewise an interest in architecture doesn't mean you need a tilt-shift lens... If you do, some systems may suit more than others.
- Figure out a budget.
- Go to a camera store and play with everything that fits with the above three criteria; buy the one that you like.
wayno wrote:got my hands on the latest OM with the 2.8 14-40 zoom to try in a showroom.... i shouldnt have, i'm in love... what a fantastic camera... lightening fast zoom. fantastic macro. nice light compact body....
phan_TOM wrote:wayno wrote:got my hands on the latest OM with the 2.8 14-40 zoom to try in a showroom.... i shouldnt have, i'm in love... what a fantastic camera... lightening fast zoom. fantastic macro. nice light compact body....
You broke the fundamental rule there wayno. Never, never, never touch. Not only is it contagious but there is no known cure. I thought you would have been around the traps long enough to know that by now
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests