> My first question is, how "big" can you blow up these digital
> pictures without looking like a mosaic.
When uprezzing to the right print size, you'll lose sharpness,
but unless the uprezzing method is shoddy you shouldn't see
mosiac patterns.
> Or, how many MPs do I need before I can do a 20x28, at least
> as well as a frame of Tri-X.
I'm assuming 35mm Tri-X? 4MP will probably do the trick.
Seriously! The noise/grain will be different, but the image
sharpness will be comparable from a 35mm neg at that size. If
you regularily print to that size, I'd recommend 8MP as a
minimum, 10-12 would give you equivelent image quality to
medium-format film.
> I've searched on the internet but I've gotten no definitive
> answer to this question...
Because it's so subjective. My 5MP E-1 gives me better color
enlargements than 35mm, but B&W isn't as good as film. At
20x28, most of your image-quality falloff is a product of lenses
and technique, not the sensor. Although the AA filter can be a
resolution brickwall (like in the E-1).
> and my local Wolf Camera said a 6mp can do 16x20, which I
> find hard to believe.
Absolutely! Again, what is defining the limit? Pixel count or
lenses and technique? With film, the more you enlarge, the more
the lens and technique blurries become visible. It is physically
impossible for most lenses to achive pixel-sharpness--more
pixels give more image smoothness and less artifacting, but the
limits are typically optical. Depending on the uprez
method/software, you won't get visible "pixelization" in the
print, but there will be a loss of sharpness. This usually
matches the same loss of sharpness you see from film
enlargement.
> One of my big contentions is that if I take pictures with
> digital, I'm locked into the size until the "next-gen" body
> comes out. I guess that this is the same with 35mm, but the
> format is so versatile that I never felt limited.
I only feel limited, really, when I'm bumped up against the AA
(anti-aliasing) filter and can't eake out any more resolution
because of it. I have two 5MP cameras and the AA filter in one
is much less aggressive than the other and the apparant
sharpness is greater. Either way, though, I'm able to get
enlargements beyond what I was practically able to with 35mm
film.
> N-O-I-S-E, talk to me.
How and what do you shoot? Usually not a problem for most of
us. Some cameras render noise more pleasing than others. One
key to survival, though, is to shoot RAW. JPEG handles noise
poorly and you get worms all over your pictures. For me, noise
is really only an issue when I am VERY heavy handed with
contrast and saturation adjustments in post-processing. Even at
that, a quick pass-through with a noise-removal program deadens
things down. Regardless, in the final print, noise usually isn't
as bad as it is on-screen because of additive vs subtractive
light in the viewing process. Inotherwords, a dark dot will be
more visible in a print than on a computer screen wheras a light
colored dot will be more visible on a computer screen than on
paper.
> xD picture cards... why? It seems that most people are going
> with SD.
I don't know. Most of us use CF.
> So, I'm looking at all the E goodness available to me. The
> E-330 sure sounds cool, but the selection of lenses available
> makes me a bit nervous.
What more do you need? I use the 14-54, which is an awesome
lens and equivelent to 28-108mm. I also have a couple of
adaptors that allow me to use all of my Zuikos on the E-1. I
frequently use the 35/2.8, 35/shift, 50/macro, 100/2.8 and 200/4
on mine. The sealed lenses for the E-system are top-tier lenses.
> I keep hearing about how the 4/3 system is supposed to allow
> the bodies to be much smaller, but I'm not seeing it;
> although, that new Leica/Panasonic thing is quite
> handsome.
Yes, that L/P thing is really interesting. I'm probably going
to get one myself. (or a used 1DS). Size is really about as
small as is practical. Pro bodies need to have a certain heft
to handle the bigger lenses better. If the camera is too small
you lose stability when taking pictures. The E-1, for example,
is about perfect because the mass absorbs the shutter shock so
well and is nearly silent in operation. To put this size thing
in comparison, my Minolta A-1 is just a 2/3" sensor camera but
is still rather large. In fact, with the battery grip it's a
hair larger than the E-1. When holding the camera and actually
using it "in anger" you really don't want it any smaller.
> And finally, what about these prosumer fixed lens shooters,
> like the Sony DSC-R1 and the Olympus 8080. Can anyone speak
> to the quality of the lens, control layout, picture output,
> noise, etc.
Lenses are usually very good. Picture output varies from model
to model, but the C8080 is outstanding. Control layouts are
typically gutwrenching as well as other performance issues. I
specifically bought the Minolta A1 because even though the
picture quality wasn't quite as good, the ergonomics, controls
and performance blew away all the other prosumers. BTW, why do
I shoot RAW? Well, a few months ago I started using RawShooter
Essentials to "develop" my A1 files. The image sharpness and
details improved substantially. In fact, the improvement was so
dramatic that it completely delayed the planned replacement of
that camera by at least a year. With with RAW converter, I get
more resolution out of A1 pictures than the E-1 pictures. The
difference between the RAW/RSE pictures and the in-camera JPEG
pictures is about 20% more resolution. Oh, and I've gone back
and reprocessed some of the pictures done two years ago and
given them a whole new lease on life.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|