Details, details, details ...

Started Oct 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,640
Re: Here's your alias artifacts

Messier Object wrote:

Tim,
the questions I want to ask are:

1. if the same scene had been shot with an E-30 would you still find artefacts?

Based on my experience with an E3, no. Or, at least, these artifacts appear rarely. In tens of thousands of images, I once saw these artifacts once in an E1 image. This suggests its AA was very well tuned. Weak enough to rarely let artifacts through, strong enough to squash most of them. Only real detail and colour remained in most E1 files.

2. overall, would the E-30 image look as 'good' as the E-5 image ?

This is subjective.

  • If the appearance of sharpness is the #1 measurement of a 'good' looking image, then an E5 image would look better. Invented detail can be made to look extremely sharp.
  • If the appearance of real detail is the measurement, then an E30 would look pretty much the same.
  • If the appearance of real detail and the absence of colour shifts or other alias artifacts is more important, than the E30 will look better.

There is a problem with arguing that images 'look' better with the appearance of more 'sharp' detail. Putting a high degree of importance on micro detail implies that any camera with more than 16 mp beats everything Olympus has out. It follows that all 4/3rds users who think this way should pack up their Olympus cameras and get high mp FF cameras. I note the 24mp D600 is cheaper than either the EM1 or the E5.

Personally, I would not make this argument. That is why a 4/3rds sensor works for me. Preferably, one with an well tuned AA just as Olympus used to do when IQ at the sensor was their mantra.

I prefer my detail and colour to be generated by sensors and lenses rather than software.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow