First, I think the reviews you have posted are really rather worthless
and poorly done. For example, the first one complains about flare in
the m.Zuiko 9-18 lens but compares it to a 12-24 Nikon costing 3 times
as much.
Your confusion over resolution can be resolved by realizing the sensor
size quoted in megapixels is an area measurement whereas resolution is a
linear measurement.
The E-10's sensor is 10 MP with vertical resolution of 2736 pixels
The E-M5's sensor is 16.1 MP with vertical resolution of 3456 pixels
The D800E's sensor is 36.3 MP with vertical resolution of 4912 pixels
Looking at vertical resolution the E-M5 is only 26% greater than the
E-10 and the D800E is only 42% greater than the E-M5. Perhaps more
dramatic is that the 360% greater pixel count of the D800E over the E-10
is only 80% greater in resolution.
Trying to measure resolution is fraught with difficulty. Understand
that the camera will never produce full resolution unless the lens is
capable of it at its optimum aperture, unless the lens is not set to
such a small aperture that diffraction obliterates the resolution and
finally that the camera is on a rock steady tripod shooting a rock
steady object.
You've mentioned recently about shooting at f/22 for depth of field.
Understand that while that increases depth of field (the *relative
sharpness* differences between near and far objects) is also has the
effect of reducing total resolution/sharpness rather dramatically.
You might want to review this page
<http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm>
I haven't performed the calculation but I suspect that at f/22 the E-M5
is only actually resolving about 1-2 MP because the size of the Airy
disk (minimum spot size created by the lens) is 8 times the diameter of
a single pixel.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/14/2016 5:15 AM, bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I have to confess that this issue puzzles me. Yes, I know it is not
the only one ...
For some time I have been somewhat disappointed by
the amount of image detail provided by OM digital cameras.
The best
two I have are very close in performance as far as I can tell; these are
the E-3 and the DE M5.
I've just taken delivery of John shaw's book
"Digital Nature Photography" in which he points out that he uses
exclusively Nikon gear and the Nikon D800e has 36.30 Megapixels.
So I
thought I'd see how that impressive figure compares with the M5's 16.1
MP.
The first site I looked at indicated there's very little
difference between the two. Certainly not a 36/16 difference.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-d800-vs-olympus-om-d-e-m5-comparison-20255
A somewhat dubious video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o13ndzqQDiQ seemed to indicate that on
their unstated gear, OM is better.
http://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D800-vs-Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-II
gave Nikon the nod without visible evidence.
For video (which I don't
use) the OM acquitted itself very well
http://nurseryrhymes.pw/watch/krq5r2Zhlzc/olympus-om-d-vs-nikon-d800e
When I set out to write THIS page I tried to locate a web-site I found
earlier int eh day which had a very few side-by-side images, but failed.
As I recall, the Nikon had no visible advantage.
There are many
sites about he M5, but few making the comparison I want. It might have
to be phase 10 !! :-)
Brian
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|