You make it sound bad, but it's really not. Perhaps you don't mean to.
No, I didn't mean to. As a matter fact, I am all for Sony 20MP pixel density if Olympus can put their magics and control the noise; then we can have 40MP OMD without pixel shifting trick.
So if you could explain me the real-word advantage...?/sigh
If I was a religious man I'd be praying for patience right about now. Anyway...
Watch this:
E-M5 mark II, 75-300mm II @ 300mm, 1/100s, tripod vs hand-held:
Tripod left (IS off, electronic shutter), hand-held right (IS on, electronic shutter)
Those are center crops from an A2 test chart shot from about 9 meters away. Multiple images were shot from the tripod to ensure consistency. Multiple hand-held shots were taken as well (from a standing position utilizing typical long-lens technique), and a little bit more than half of them were just as sharp as the tripod mounted shot. So if I can do this @ 300mm and 1/100s, which is a pretty challenging situation (and I wasn't even feeling particularly steady at the time), I guess the question is this: what has led you to conclude that this problem you speak of is so significant that the benefit of more MP would be subsumed by the problem of camera shake?
Just to show that we're not coming up against a print resolution limitation here, here is the chart element in question at a greater degree of magnification (shorter camera-to-subject distance):
Unfortunately I didn't think to do a High-Res shot of this chart because I wasn't approaching this test from that angle at the time. If I repeat it I will. But we can still demonstrate that there is indeed a resolution advantage to be realized even with this lens at this focal length: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55629712
My guess is that given the effectiveness of IBIS, the eradication of shutter-shock, and the fact that much of the time people are probably going to be shooting at shorter focal lengths and faster shutter speeds, the MP advantage will be a real one.
Same is true for film. Sports were shot with it, landscapes etc. Why are we not still using film. Why not 2 MPi? Why not 4. One point: 16 MP is not enough to get the best out of an A2 or A2+ printer, like the Epson 3800-series. You indeed need more MPixels for that (and I think more than 24 MPixels too).But you think you can do so? Say no more.Wrong.Nothing more IS needed.Hi,
I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.
See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp camerasIt was the same in the Nikon camp when Nikon had only 12mp sensors. Nothing more was needed he he
Maybe you think thats good enough for you, but who gave you the right to speak for others?
Amazingly, Six MP pics were used for high-gloss mag covers, big placards and everything else and these pics still are gorgeous. I only can repeat it: get real.
So Mediumfromat, Nikon D810...all absurd. 60 Mp. 50, 36....80 Mp. And now you start talking about 40 Mp Oly. How come you are talking about that at all in any positive way. Why should someone not want 30 MP (who ever said that umber in this thread btw..;-)), but ike a 40 MP sensor that even handheld is stilll restricted in use?
The samsung is the superior sensor, only very high ISO with very dark shades indeed perform less than a D7200 especially but it does perform better in high ISo with good light. I would say th eformer is more important than the latter samsung lenses are fine, very nice. May be not exactly as good as mFT but close. Main objection with them is size of the best ones. at least to me. But the multitude of panasonic and Oly lenses are to be found in the sub 100 mm category. Many lenses there are double or exchangable. Like 25 mm, 42,5 or 45 mm, 15 or 17 or 20 mm. 12-35 anny 12-40 Oly. The line up is not well thought out, focussing on primes so much. samsung and Fuji understand this better.
For you, Market is moving on and tells us all the market wants something different. and this simply means we will get it. Oly HR mode was not introduced for fun.
No you are certainly not alone at all. While the 16 MP offer enough for me, for landscapes I would very much like a 30-40 MP sensor as long as it gets me good enough IQ noisewise, DR wise too. While Ihave a passionate dislike of the Oly menusystem, the Em5MarkII for various reasons becomes mor eappealing to me. I have seen shots with a moving see that were very much to my liking and the low ISO noise at even ISO1600 is a great asset too for my shooting.
Olympus don't need to work any magic, people just need to realize that the appropriate way to compare sensor performance is at the image level (a given print/display size) and not at the pixel level. The DxO Labs results for both sensor types indicate that there is less than a stop between them at high ISOs under such conditions so when you bring the Sony tech up to 4/3"-type sizes the performance should be roughly equivalent, and even with a bit better dynamic range at low ISOs.
Well said. For myself having used the Nikon D810 and Sony A7r for quite a while, I find the ability to crop very useful.
And that most us us do not print large very often is also no valid argument for not having more resolution.I don't think you were really paying attention. So I guess I will reiterate:
Sure: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55665722
Well, this is like saying if you don't want to make the jump from the Lamborghini Diablo to the Bugatti Veyron, why are you driving a car instead of a horse carriage. That's just rethoric but nothing else.Same is true for film. Sports were shot with it, landscapes etc. Why are we not still using film. Why not 2 MPi? Why not 4. One point: 16 MP is not enough to get the best out of an A2 or A2+ printer, like the Epson 3800-series. You indeed need more MPixels for that (and I think more than 24 MPixels too).But you think you can do so? Say no more.Wrong.Nothing more IS needed.Hi,
I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.
See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp cameras
Maybe you think thats good enough for you, but who gave you the right to speak for others?
Amazingly, Six MP pics were used for high-gloss mag covers, big placards and everything else and these pics still are gorgeous. I only can repeat it: get real.
There certainly are special applications where higher MP number are necessary. More often then not when a customer asks for high-MP pics. So, for these cases, you've got the middle format cameras, the high-MP 36mm cams of CaNikon - and the high-res-mode. 99.8 percent of those taking pictures just don't need this. It's just waist of money and resources. You just don't see the difference in you usual photography if you don't go pixel peeping or measurberating. Nonetheless, the high-res mode is a cool trick. You haven't to use it but you can say: I could shoot 64MP raws if I wanted to. Very cool if you want to impress you neighbour. And perfect as you haven't to spend hundreds or thousands of bucks for upgrading your entire infrastructure.
Say no more... In FT land, they were blamed for offering too many zooms, now it's for offering too many primes. This is ridiculous.
Wrong. The marketing has realised that a new round of the pixel race is the easiest way to make people believe that their current gear is not good enough anymore. And with people like you following their bait uncritically, Olympus will be forced to once again increase the MP count although nearly nobody needs it. Thank you very much.
If you are unable to recognize the evidence for what it is because you can't see what others can see then that's simply an issue on your end and not an invalidation of my results.
So I guess you can see it, in which case I'm not sure what your issue is.
I don't think you understand how it works. It's basically a pretty good simulation of exactly what would happen if you put a higher resolution sensor in a MFT body.
