Reading mode: Light Dark

EP2 incredible sharp!

Go to last post
IchiroCameraGuy said:
Ability to receive the light transmission from the lenses has an effect on resolution. This is why an equal design telescope with larger objective will always have more resolution. The Olympus models have great resolution for their spec and sensor size but in varying light there will be times they still can not match the resolution of the 12 megapixel Full Frame cameras.

It's not just about dynamic range and high ISO ability.
Click to expand...
That would be a good post if what you said was actually related to differences in sensor size in any way. The objective of a telescope is the lens, it's not equivalent to the sensor.

You can effectively put any size objective in front of a micro four thirds lens. I've mounted my Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S on my GF1 before. It's focusing light at exactly the same distance from the objective as it would on a Nikon body, the only difference is it's focusing on a 2x crop with higher pixel density than any Nikon body. You're whole thing about varying light changing resolution, I'm not even gonna touch that. Nothing you said is actually related to pixel density or sensor resolving power though.

If anyone wants I could mount the same lens on the GF1 and D700 or D300 and do a sharpness comparison. Steve Huff already compared an EP2 with the 20mm f/1.7 to a D3s with the 50mm f/1.8, see below.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/
 
IchiroCameraGuy said:
Fearless_Photog said:
oly-pl1 said:
Yes, Oly P2 is "good"
FF (full frame) is GREAT
Click to expand...
A full frame camera with the same megapixel count as an EP2 such as the D700 wouldn't have any advantage over the EP2 when it comes to sharpness alone. In fact the weak AA filter combined with a lens like the 20mm f/1.7 actually gives the micro four thirds cameras an advantage in actual resolving power. Dynamic range is another story.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/
Click to expand...
Ability to receive the light transmission from the lenses has an effect on resolution. This is why an equal design telescope with larger objective will always have more resolution. The Olympus models have great resolution for their spec and sensor size but in varying light there will be times they still can not match the resolution of the 12 megapixel Full Frame cameras.

It's not just about dynamic range and high ISO ability.
Click to expand...
Completely misleading. Will a $3000 camera outresolve a $1000? My bet is yes, but sensor size is just a tiny part of it. The lens is the biggest, and things like a weak AA filter help.

By your silly standard, a Canon EOS 5D (Circa 2005) with its 12MP sensor can out resolve a Canon 7D with its 18MP sensor.
 
oly-pl1 said:
I'm sorry but you are wrong. FF is always sharper than 4/3.

If you don't believe me, try it yourself. Use some good lens with FF and than mount it with adapter on m4/3. The difference is noticeable.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be sorry, you just have to provide some evidence that I'm wrong. As I said in my post above, I've already done that. Both my Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S and Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 SL II are definitely capable of more resolution than a 12 megapixel full frame camera can resolve. I've used the 300mm on a D200, D2X, D300, D700, D3X and my GF1, I have a pretty good idea what it's capable of.

So while a full frame camera is less demanding, and a relatively low performance lens will appear better on a full frame camera than a crop camera... a high end lens that still has a lot more resolution will just keep resolving more with higher pixel density. If that wasn't true there would be no point in making cameras like the D3X.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/
 
I love how the counter arguments in this thread are based around the idea that resolution isn't related to either the lens or the pixels, but only the sensor size. If two cameras are 12 megapixels, and the lens mounted on them is capable of resolving more than 12 megapixels, which appears sharper will likely come down to the one with the weaker AA filter, nothing to do with sensor size. Anyone who's been reading reviews on this site for a while knows the D2X sensor resolved more detail than the original 5D, mostly because the 5D had a stronger AA filter, all you need to do is follow the same logic.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/
 
Here's another one for you. Two 12 megapixel cameras, one has a smaller sensor, one also has a lens with much smaller elements, but which has more resolving power? Is it getting through yet? Notice I also picked a very exceptionally good SLR lens, a lot of ones in the APS-C tests can barely break 2000 LW/PH

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/464-pana_20_17?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/381-zeiss_za_135_18?start=1
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/
 
Fearless, read what I wrote again and think about it, it's not an opinion.

Images are light, resolution depends on the ability of the sensor to receive the light rays being transmitted through the lenses.

Everdog, quit with your silly exaggerations. You response to what I posted is way off base and attempt to stretch the information I provided.

This micro 4/3 forum has to be the worse with people pretending to know what the heck they are talking about and being rude to someone actually giving proper information. It goes over the edge way too often.

This is rudimentary knowledge in professional photography.
 
IchiroCameraGuy said:
Fearless, read what I wrote again and think about it, it's not an opinion.
Click to expand...
Opinion or not, it's not even related to digital sensors.
IchiroCameraGuy said:
Images are light, resolution depends on the ability of the sensor to receive the light rays being transmitted through the lenses.
Click to expand...
Resolution also depends on the resolution of the sensor... using your over simplified thought process someone could conclude that a 2 megapixel 36x24mm sensor would have more resolution than a 12 megapixel 17x13mm sensor. You're trying to argue a point without using an actual knowledge or facts, just vague concepts.

Also, I'm not some kind of blind micro43 fanboy, I've been shooting professionally with Nikon SLRs for years, I'm relatively new to this forum, I just happen to own a GF1. You wouldn't know that, having been a member of this forum less than a month, but with nearly 150 posts per week... wow. Most of them seem to be about NEX bodies too. Since you don't have any profile link to a website or gallery, mind telling me which full frame body and lenses you shoot with?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/
 
Okay, I'm neutral on this topic but wanted give a few observations as well.....I'm probably wrong but.....

1) A good full frame sensor with a good lens, stopped down 2-3 below open, will likely have more resolution than a MFT 12MP sensor with same lens.

2) If you are printing at anything at 8x10 or lower, you won't see any difference between the two (assuming that one prints at 300 dpi...the traditional eye limit of resolution). One is just throwing away pixels if you have more than 12MP for this size print.

3) DR of the sensor is a different story. DR and Resolution are two very different parameters.

To be blunt, a person with great sharpening technique can make most pictures look great. That said, nice image with very good resolution IMO. Well done.
 
Nasty insults going back and forth...

I just wanted to point out that the OP posted a 900x1200 (1.08 megapixel) JPEG image and found it to be quite sharp.

Sharpness in all modern digital cameras is limited by the quality of the lens and the size of the sensor, which determines the noise. Resolution beyond a few megapixels is not relevant unless you are printing wall-size; its all about sensor size and lens quality. In fact, all of our m43 photos would be sharper if our cameras had 6 megapixels with the same sensor size, because the pixel noise would be lower; but customers want lots of pixels.

The conversation has veered away from the OP, but the subject of sensor size vs resolution vs lens quality as limiting factors is a useful one.
 
Jonas B said:
After having read through the post above I think some balance is needed. It's not like a 12MP FF camera is sharper by some magic automatic. In this case however a FF with a faster lens would have been good, read better, as the background is terrible and the bokeh isn't that good.
Jonas
Click to expand...
First, let me congratulate the OP on a really nice photo and that he demonstrates that he knows how and is interested in getting good photos from a really nice camera. You had great light as well which is always a big plus.

I wanted to comment on the quoted text because while I agree that some "balance" is needed in the debate about lenses, sensors, etc and that there are quite a few fanboy-like comments being tossed around about M4/3, I can't fully agree with this statement. And I am one who just finished tossing my big sensor DSLRs with fast glass, etc for the liberty of these great little cameras.

The original photo is sharp and well exposed because the OP used the camera to its strengths. He chose a medium high shutter speed (1/160th) suitable for the focal length, moderate portrait focal length (38mm aka 76mm eq) and stopped down to f5.6 so he had some good depth of field (maybe cause that is what the kit lens was open to at that FL). This lessened the requirement on him to hold the camera overly steady, both for shutter blur and to maintain good front to back depth of field. As a result, he got some of the fullest capability of the camera to record a crisp, sharp image.

If as the previous poster had suggested he was using a faster lens (I don't care about the sensor size it is mostly immaterial) then you are going to lose the depth of field, gain nothing useful in shutter speed and probably not take nearly as "sharp" appearing photo. I am not saying that the point of focus won't be sharp, but you won't get the great depth of focus shown in this photo that makes it look so outstanding.

I see a huge number of photos posted here and on other forums where someone takes a fast lens, crank it wide open, often in low light where the shutter speed is about 1/4 the focal length, and then wonder why their shots are not sharp. The recent thread about the Canon 50mm 1.8 comes to mind.

Take a lesson from the OP, use the tools that your camera comes with that allow you to take great photos. Sure it is fun to play around with shallow depth of field and "bokeh" but moderately stopped down, reasonable shutter speeds will deliver great photos every time.
 
Jogger said:
Giuseppe D'Agata said:
Hi,
this is one of my first shots with my brand new EP2.
This picture looks to me incredible sharp and clean.
RAW+ACR

What do you think?



Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why is it unfortunate that the background is sharp (and it really isn't, let's be honest here)? The planting is attractive and it gives a nice warm weather setting to this sunny photo of a guy in a straw hat. Better to make it look like (wow!) a portrait from Walmart portrait studies with the drop-down blurry background instead of some nice natural planting?
 
StillHaveMyDiana said:
Sharpness in all modern digital cameras is limited by the quality of the lens and the size of the sensor, which determines the noise. Resolution beyond a few megapixels is not relevant unless you are printing wall-size; its all about sensor size and lens quality.
Click to expand...
Cropping and online display/viewing also need to be considered.
StillHaveMyDiana said:
In fact, all of our m43 photos would be sharper if our cameras had 6 megapixels with the same sensor size, because the pixel noise would be lower; but customers want lots of pixels.
Click to expand...
That is not a correct statement either with respect to the relationship of pixel density to "sharpness" or the assumed correlation of "pixel noise" to pixel density or, for that matter, the assumption that greater noise means less sharpness.

The topic is far more nuanced and involves more factors than the overly simplistic statement by our NEX friend that all just boils down to sensor size. Check out Bjorn Rorslett's analysis of DX vs. FX for an interesting examination of the topic.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_rev06.html#top_page
--
My photos: http://www.pbase.com/imageiseverything/root
 
just curiously - (I'm more trying to see if I have the idea right than argue one side or another)

Thinking about two sensors with 12 megapixels of datum but different pixel densities - ignoring the "scaling" issues from different aspect ratios (Ie not an ep-1 and a d700) and a lens that is capable of resolving far more than both systems while keeping the same perspective; which actually resolves more> ? Doesn't the higher pixel density resolve more lines per millimeter than the lower pixel density camera?

Does magnification size also play a role in the final resolution of the image in print (or display)
--
A poor photographer blames his tools.
 
A great portrait, I'd be proud to have taken it.

I've just bought a Panny GH1. Before buying it I took my wife's G1 plus 14-45 out with my D700 and took the same landscape at the same focal length. I used an 18-35 Nikkor on the D700, which distorts but is sharp overall (stopped down) and very sharp in the centre (well, mine is).

Light was reasonable, I could use base ISO on both cameras, I shot RAW and opened with ACR.

I underexposed with both to protect highlights.

After a few minutes pp I couldn't distinguish between them on my monitor even at 100%.

I don't care about pixels and AA filters and lens resolution, it's the results that matter. And in the real world given good light there's nothing to choose.

In poor light or for photographing fast moving subjects it's different, FF clearly wins.

But the convenience and lightness means I have a camera with me when I wouldn't considor heaving FF and lenses around, so I get pictures I would otherwise have missed.

If I had to choose between them, which system would I keep? I'm not sure. Glad I don't have to make a choice.

IchiroCameraGuy's unnecessary rudeness should be ingnored, there are posters like him on every forum.

--
Rens
 
Ravncat said:
just curiously - (I'm more trying to see if I have the idea right than argue one side or another)

Thinking about two sensors with 12 megapixels of datum but different pixel densities - ignoring the "scaling" issues from different aspect ratios (Ie not an ep-1 and a d700) and a lens that is capable of resolving far more than both systems while keeping the same perspective; which actually resolves more> ? Doesn't the higher pixel density resolve more lines per millimeter than the lower pixel density camera?

Does magnification size also play a role in the final resolution of the image in print (or display)
Click to expand...
Assuming the same framing and perspective and assuming that the lens has perfect performance across the whole frame (not likely), the higher pixel density won't really give you and advantage. That's because on a screen or in print, every pixel will be represented as the same size, regardless of it's size on the sensor. The pixels in the files outputted from the camera won't be any more densely packed from one to the other. The advantage of higher pixel density really only comes into play when you can put more pixels on a given area. Say taking a picture of a far off bird with both a D300 and D700 with the same lens. Both 12 megapixels, but the D700 will only get about 5 of them onto the same part of the subject that the D300 covers with all 12.

Of course in the case of things like Foveon sensors, you get more per-pixel sharpness because on conventional sensors, every pixel is really an interpolation from one red, one blue, and two green pixels in the bayer pattern. The Foveon is a more direct output from one pixel layered with filters.

As far as Bayer pattern sensors go, most of the differences in sharpness when dealing with the same pixel count will come from variations in the strength of the anti-aliasing filter, microlenses, and of course the camera's actual processing engine. That's why you see variations in performance from different camera models even if they use exactly the same sensor. It's pretty widely known that the D700 and D3 have a fairly strong AA filter, however with the same lens they'll tend to look sharper than a cropped sensor body because bigger pixels are less demanding of the lens. The D2X and D3X have weaker ones that let more detail, and aliasing through. The Leica M8, M9, and S2 don't use any, and get rid of aliasing in processing, so they have very high resolution for their pixel counts. Most of the M43 cameras also have weak AA filters.

Between my own experience with lots of SLR models, various online lens tests, and my experience with the GF1, I'd be willing to put it up against any SLR of a similar pixel count when when it comes to sharpness, especially with the 20mm f/1.7 on there. There are plenty of advantages to SLRs, but that really isn't one of them unless you're using one with a significantly higher pixel count, like a D3X or 5D Mark II.

As I said earlier on, if people on here want me to I'll gladly test the GF1 and D700 against each other with the same lens and post the results. A GH1 would be a better test since it can do 3:2 and add horizontal pixels, but I don't have one.

I feel bad for the OP because this has gone way off topic, the issue of resolution and sharpness really isn't even relevant in web sized pics, and the output of any camera can be made to look very sharp with the proper post processing. All he wanted to do was share his satisfaction with his photo and the EP2.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcullenphoto/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top