OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 24,056
Like?
Re: On "gold standards" for printing ...
In reply to John King, Jun 3, 2013

John King wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

John King wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Thus, the only point of more than 5 MP is to print larger or crop heavily.  Above you said that more than 12 MP will not produce a visible (to the naked eye) increase in resolution for prints up to 50 x 38 inches.

Here, let me make the matter unambiguously clear so that there is no confusion:  if Olympus produced two cameras, one with 12 MP, the other with 18 MP, that were otherwise identical (size, weight, price, frame rate, etc., etc., etc.), and you were never going to print larger than 50 x 38 inches or crop heavily, which camera would you choose?

Sorry, Joe, but all things are never equal, as you have been informed time and time again by many people posting here.

Just answer the question as posed, if you would be so kind.

I have already answered it. Just not the answer you were so patently seeking.

Um, no, you really didn't.  The answer will take the form of "The 12 MP camera" or "The 18 MP camera".  I didn't notice where you said that.

However, back to printing. I am perfectly happy with the course of action that I have chosen, my choice of printer, and the print quality it produces.

I'm pleased to hear it.

You appear to dispute every aspect of that choice...

Please link and quote where I said, or implied, anything that disputed any aspect of your choices.

...including the observations made by myself about the quality and resolution of the prints that are produced by all my digital cameras and camera phones on this printer. The print quality from this printer is widely known, and has no equal at its level.

John, I've seen your photos.  I've seen what you call "stunning".  I would not dispute, in the least, that you see no differences between an E1 and E30, or, for that matter, a difference between an E1 and a D800.

What are you trying to say, Joe?

That I've seen photos you called "stunning", and I'd use an antonym to describe them.

I don't like most of your images either, but that's a difference in taste.

Sure.  Just so we have a context, here are the types of pics I take:

Here are the types you take:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51568977

You are patently of the pictorialist school of photography , from what I have seen of the images you have chosen to post here at DPR. I am not of that school.

Here are some more of the types of photos I take:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39537128

We very clearly take different kinds of photos, and I can easily understand by the photos you take why you wouldn't like the types of photos I take.

It does not mean that I want or need to demean your images and your choices at every turn.

Not at every turn, of course, but:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38834123

And, of course, I could not be more pleased that we have different opinions on the matter.

You further dispute the other poster in this thread who has also minutely examined these prints.

I dispute neither his claim, nor yours, that you saw no differences in the prints.  I have merely asked why you think that is.  Specifically, why there is no visible difference in resolution between a 5 MP file and a 12 MP file printed at 17 x 22 inches.

You have yet to answer that simple question.  Please, take all the time needed to give me a direct answer to the question asked.

But I have answered it. Time and again. You do not appear to like the answer given, so you keep badgering me for the answer that you want me to give. Sorry, but that is highly unlikely to occur.

Because there simply isn't any difference to the naked eye (with appropriate glasses/contact lenses, as necessary).

Not only in my eyes, but also in the eyes of another poster in this thread.
Neither of us can discern any difference with the naked eye.
Also in the eyes of many others who have examined my A2 prints from these cameras - professional photographers; artists; "ordinary" people ... .
Are you disputing the opinion of all of these people? 
Or are you disputing the competence of the optometrist I use?

I have also already stated that one can see a minor difference when using a 4x magnifying glass. So has the other poster.

Do you think, or are you asserting, that we are both:

  • Incompetent?
  • Have extremely poor eyesight (against the opinion of our respective, and different, optometrists)?
  • Are incapable of assessing any print properly?
  • Do you think, as you appear to, that we are both failing to tell the truth for some dark reason?

Exactly what are you trying to assert here, Joe?

Why do you appear to find it so difficult to understand or believe this simple fact as it stands?

You miss the point entirely, John.  I understand you see no difference.  I'm not saying that I would see a difference.  I am asking you *why* you feel that, for the particular photos in question, that there is no difference in resolution for a 17 x 22 inch print from a 5 MP E1 and a 12 MP E30?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Hmm.New
Yup!New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow