View Poll Results: What do you want in your next Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds camera sensor?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • More pixels at about the same quality as we have had for 2 1/2 years.

    1 2.27%
  • The same number of pixels but significantly improved quality.

    39 88.64%
  • Not sure.

    4 9.09%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    807
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    21 Posts
    Likes: 1
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    The one thing I would like above all else is more dynamic range. Current pixel count is adequate for me, I normally get by on a mere 10.3 Mpx and manage the occasional acceptable A3 print from it. I even have one 8 ft wide as a poster for a forthcoming exhibition but I must admit it needs viewing from a distance!

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,099
    Blog Entries
    30
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    398
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    443
    Thanked in
    354 Posts
    Likes: 70
    Liked 115 Times in 83 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike_j View Post
    The one thing I would like above all else is more dynamic range. Current pixel count is adequate for me, I normally get by on a mere 10.3 Mpx and manage the occasional acceptable A3 print from it. I even have one 8 ft wide as a poster for a forthcoming exhibition but I must admit it needs viewing from a distance!
    8 feet wide?! It would also need viewing from a distance if it was taken on 24mp full frame!
    View my ebook, The Light Fantastic, at: http://store.blurb.co.uk/ebooks/3026...ight-fantastic

    John

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,099
    Blog Entries
    30
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    398
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    443
    Thanked in
    354 Posts
    Likes: 70
    Liked 115 Times in 83 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    200ppi is normally fine for prints. And the larger the print, the lower the ppi is required as the viewing distance increases.

    Ian
    I believe Robert Watcher (on FTU) prints professionally at 180ppi. Based on 200ppi and 50% upsizing 12mp would print at 30 inches, whereas 16mp would print at 34˝ inches. That's hardly a difference, is it?
    View my ebook, The Light Fantastic, at: http://store.blurb.co.uk/ebooks/3026...ight-fantastic

    John

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    189
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    66
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    31
    Thanked in
    26 Posts
    Likes: 5
    Liked 9 Times in 4 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    No need for more pixels.
    12mp can give you large quality prints without problems.
    Largest print I have made was 60x45cm (24x18") using a photo taken with an E600
    Most of my photos are seen on a screen so 12mp would cover my needs anyhow.
    I'll prefer improved quality anyday
    René

    Cameras : Olympus E-M5, E-520, E-600
    Lenses : mZD12, mZD45, mZD12-50, ZD35, ZD14-42, ZD40-150, Sigma 70-200

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    807
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    21 Posts
    Likes: 1
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Perriment View Post
    8 feet wide?! It would also need viewing from a distance if it was taken on 24mp full frame!
    You are right of course and you can't compare posters with fine prints, I was only kidding.

    But it is interesting that projected images (RPS, club competitions etc) are normally projected 6 or 8 feet wide from 1024 pixels wide x 768 (? for 4/3) and are deemed wholly acceptable until someone puts up a Kodachrome slide on a good 35mm projector.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ely, UK
    Posts
    2,125
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    37
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    58
    Thanked in
    33 Posts
    Likes: 6
    Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    All of these discussions of resolution miss the point that the AA filter strength + sensor gives the real resolution of the camera body. This will only be realised by a sufficiently sharp lens that can make use of the camera body. My partner's 21MP 5Dmk2 and my E-5 have virtually the same vertical resolution - taking into account the effect of the AA filter. Talk of 180ppi or some other figure for printing misses this point. In practice, the 21MP 5Dmk2 and the E-5 can produce equally large prints.

    Andy
    Olympus E-M1 ZD 7-14 f4, 300 f2.8, PL 25 f1.4D
    mZuiko 12-40 f2.8 Pro, 60 f2.8, 40-150 f2.8 Pro
    EC-14, EC-20, HLD-7
    Metz 58 AF-1&2 , Manfrotto 441, Gimbal Head, Velbon Neopod 74


    Gallery: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/elliott.aje.andy

    Website: 361photography.com 361wild.com

    "Oly_OM" @ e_group

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,099
    Blog Entries
    30
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    398
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    443
    Thanked in
    354 Posts
    Likes: 70
    Liked 115 Times in 83 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyElliott View Post
    All of these discussions of resolution miss the point that the AA filter strength + sensor gives the real resolution of the camera body. This will only be realised by a sufficiently sharp lens that can make use of the camera body. My partner's 21MP 5Dmk2 and my E-5 have virtually the same vertical resolution - taking into account the effect of the AA filter. Talk of 180ppi or some other figure for printing misses this point. In practice, the 21MP 5Dmk2 and the E-5 can produce equally large prints.

    Andy
    Hi Andy,

    That's certainly true, it's not the number of pixels that count, it's the quality of those pixels. That's why the jump in quality between the E-3 and E-5 is much more than a mere 2mp would suggest and why I feel increasing the pixels from 12mp to 16mp or whatever is irrelevant. Far better to squeeze even more quality out of the pixels we already have and Olympus seem confident they can do that.
    View my ebook, The Light Fantastic, at: http://store.blurb.co.uk/ebooks/3026...ight-fantastic

    John

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Fulbeck
    Posts
    245
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    69
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    Likes: 7
    Liked 45 Times in 28 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Theoretically, as macro work (unless you are image stacking) works with apertures well beyond the diffraction softening threshold, I wouldn't have thought more pixels would be beneficial.

    Ian
    Yes Ian I agree, although I try to go no higher than f8, for the more extreme macro objects I often have to go to f11 0r f16 to get the DoF. However with most other wildlife subjects f8 is my max and crops of 50% or more where more pixels could help.

    David
    E-M1, Tamron 14-150mm, ED 75-300mm, ED 60mm, FL50R,
    Canon 7DII, Canon 400mm f5.6L, Sigma 150-600mm Sport, EF 55-250mm, EF 18-55mm, National Geographic Expedition Carbon.

    "It is better to light a single candle than curse the darkness" - Confucius (551–479 BC)

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Xela, Guatemala / Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,121
    Blog Entries
    7
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    175
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    303
    Thanked in
    216 Posts
    Likes: 51
    Liked 441 Times in 250 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    I believe Robert Watcher (on FTU) prints professionally at 180ppi.
    That's true John - - - but not for any other reason than that was the number that gave me the point of diminished returns for smaller sized prints when I was first getting into digital and printing - and so I have stuck with it for print quality that suits me. For larger print sizes the resolution can easily be dropped down to 150 dpi or lower depending on the content.


    ------------


    As to the original discussion - - - an E-5 12MP sensor image dimensions are 4032 x 3024 pixels. The Panasonic DMC-GH2 16 MP sensor image dimensions are 4608 x 3456 pixels. On a linear level the 16MP sensor is about 14% larger (in terms of pixel count) as mentioned and will allow a modestly larger print to be made without interpolation - but not that much difference that I'd change cameras expecting to notice a real difference based on maximum print size.

    Something that few people take into consideration too - when it comes to comparing the Olympus camera smaller and squarer format 4/3 sensor with the larger and wider format APS sensors - - - is that the vertical dimension of say the 16MP GH2, is about the same height as the 18MP 60D, both at 3456 pixels. The 16MP Nikon D7000 dimensions are 4928 x 3264 and so offer fewer vertical pixels than the GH2 does.

    Now it is subjective as to whether the extra horizontal pixels of the APS will be thrown away or not - - - but if printing standard sized prints or cropping, the 12MP 4/3 sensor with 3024 pixel height - on a pixel to pixel basis is more pixels than Nikon's 12MP D700 at 2,832 pixels high and so the Olympus E-5 technically can produce slightly larger prints without interpolation. In fact just about the same difference as between the 12 MP E-5 and 16 MP D7000. Oh by the way, based on a printing resolution of 300 dpi, the largest non-interpolated print size that can be made with the 25MP Nikon D3x which contains about 25 % more vertical pixels than the 12MP E-5 - is about 13 1/2 x 20 inches - - - and based on numbers alone, it will still need both lower dpi settings and interpolation to get to larger 30 inch print sizes. Just cuz I like math - that is the way I see it.

    Obviously numbers aren't all there is to the equation as has been mentioned by others. Mind you if a higher MP camera comes along from Olympus while maintaining or improving on the DR and high ISO performance - I'll accept it. But then there is also a down side in that it will also obviously mean larger file sizes to deal with when processing and storing. And so I'm content with what I have or what will be available when this camera breaks down or requires an upgrade.
    Last edited by Robert Watcher; 29th June 2011 at 01:01 PM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    1,437
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    128
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    189
    Thanked in
    118 Posts
    Likes: 3
    Liked 38 Times in 16 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Quote Originally Posted by hschnee View Post
    And physics dictates that more pixels means a lower diffraction limit--diffraction will limit sharpness at larger apertures than with fewer pixels, thus making one choose between sharpness and depth-of-field.
    - Hal -
    That's a very relevant point and one that does need to be kept in mind.

    Paul
    GH-3, OM-D, 7-14, 12-35, 35-100, 100-300, 25, 60 macro, 40-150 Pro.

    RX100

    View my online albums Picasa and
    Flickr

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •