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/
|