On 09 Feb 2012, at 2:05 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> But 16MP is more than enough. Right? Maybe, maybe not. For the vast
> bulk of
> my photography today, it will be more than sufficient. But in three
> years,
> it might not be. It's not that I'm a slave to the megapixel race,
> (far from
> it), but as often as I do this, I will want to jump as deep into the
> state-of-the-art as possible.
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? The
prints market is down... Everybody is looking at pictures on their HD
TVs and facebook. Ken, no matter what you say, by making that
statement, you are indeed falling into the megapixel race trap,
because your reasoning is *exactly* the same as any person who
continually buys the next higher-megapixel model.
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. 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.
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! I guarantee you the Olympus OM-D will
not have the "system" to satisfy an OM connoisseur's tastes, and in
this regard Canon EOS may be a better, if less progressive or
"interesting", choice. But both will more than satisfy anybody's
needs. You need *serous* glass and technique to want higher
resolution, and then you'd truly be more satisfied buying the stone-
age Leica M9, because most of the lenses (which nobody can afford or
even find in stock) are up to the task of properly satisfying the 18MP
sensor.
I foresee many unhappy Nikon D800 users, for there truly are few
lenses that can satisfy such an insane over-the-top high resolution
sensor. The Cosina-made Zeiss ZF lenses come closer, but even there
one has to be super-careful, and actually start accounting for sample
variation, which they do suffer from (especially the beastly 21mm f/
2.8).
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.
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,
they will still never repeat or match the OM system, and they will
still not cater for real professionals. It's a totally different
market now.
Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|