OMD with more MP?

Started 7 months ago | Questions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 19,040Gear list
Like?
Re: feasible within noise constraints
In reply to Steve_, 7 months ago

Steve_ wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Steve_ wrote:

That's not the way I see it ...

Everyone gets an opinion.

Sure. Just questioning the factual basis of yours. Take this RAW from IR for example:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1/EM1FAR2I0100.ORF.HTM

Do you find the noise troublesome if you let LR develop it at default settings?

Anders, I've been polite with you.

Polite by your standards possibly, hardly by mine.

I don't care what you make of IR's test shots.

I didn't ask you to care. I asked a question. You dodged it. I rest my case.

I shoot the camera in the conditions that matter to me and use the required RAW adjustments. I also do the same with a D7000 and K3 Pentax. The noise in the EM5 shots is much greater, to the point that I could not stand more noise.

What you personally can and cannot stand is of no interest to anyone but you. What is of interest is what you can substantiate. And judging by your response to my question above, you are not willing or able to enter a discussion about that.

Feel differently? I don't give two shits.

I didn't expect you to.

Lowering their resolution would not fix what ails them, making the entire point irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

What is your factual basis for claiming that lowering the resolution of Canon FF sensors would not fix what ails them?

That's just priceless. To quote you from earlier in this thread:

"Note that current MFT sensors are better in terms of DR (about one EV better in the case of the E-M1) than current Canon FF sensors with close to 24 MP. Nevertheless, I haven't seen a whole lot of suggestions that Canon should drop the pixel count down to 12 or so MP."

First you ridicule the idea of lowering their resolution,

I didn't ridicule that. I just pointed out that I haven't seen a whole lot of suggestions in that direction.

and than protest the notion that lowering the resolution would not help.

I didn't protest anything. I just asked you a question. You dodged this one too.

It's pretty obvious you are just arguing for the sake of argument, a point that you will no doubt argue as well.

Based on ordinary logic, the only thing that's obvious this far is your unwillingness and/or inability to answer questions and substantiate your position.

And since you think lowering the resolution would not help in Canon's case, why do you think increasing the resolution would be detrimental in the case of MFT?

Because of the consequences of reducing pixel pitch 31% from a level that produces noise performance that is just barely good.

As everyone can see for themselves, you effectively dodged this question too. First, you failed to address the inconsistency in your position that my question spells out. Second, you failed to spell out what specific (presumably negative) consequences of reducing the pixel pitch you have in mind.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
No.New
Why?New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow