On 9/18/2016 3:08 AM, bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I'm still puzzled.
Let's suppose we have two cameras, one (a) with
2,000 pixels on the long side, and another (b) with 10,000 pixels on the
long side, and take a photo with each.
Now suppose we print them each
in a print which is 2,000 inches wide (on the long side). Forget the
absurdity of the dimensions for the moment.
My supposition is that the
print from (b) will be 5 times sharper (5 x more detail) than the one
from (a) because each inch from it contains information from 5 pixels,
not just 1 pixel.
Logically correct, and exactly what I wrote in the beginning of my reply to your first post on the subject. I then
proceeded to say that the same math, combined with other practical aspects, is exactly why you didn't see much
resolution difference between E-3 and E-M5.
We have subsequently seesawed back and forth, with f22 shots of flowers, where there will be no visible difference
between the cameras, resolution is quite low, because diffraction makes everything soft, and an f8 landscape shot where
you are impressed at the fine detail in a big crop.
Going back to your original complaint - "For some time I have been somewhat disappointed by the amount of image detail
provided by OM digital cameras." It would appear that your disappointment has varied depending on how and for what you
have used those cameras, the laws of optical physics and the limitations of digital sensor systems, rather than
shortcomings in the cameras themselves that aren't present in other brands and models.
I shot an E-M5 side-by-side with a Panny GX7 for some time. I did some very careful comparisons of images from 16 MP Oly
bodies and the 16 MP Fuji bodies with the somewhat larger APS-C sensors, with specific regard to resolution of detail.
I've written about both here, but in very brief summary, there are no practical differences in the resolution of the
sensor systems.
"Forget the absurdity of the dimensions for the moment." Other than to do an exercise in math, one can't. There are
issues of the reaction of light to passing close to edges and to digital sampling that have significant effects on the
imaging performance at the actual sizes of sensors.
If you really care about resolution, follow AG's advice, shoot Raw, get the Adobe subscription and learn to use at least
LR in place of FastStone for Raw conversion and editing. Anything less renders your complaint moot.
Resolute 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/
|