Reading mode: Light Dark

Why so few Oly MkII HiRes shot on the net?

Go to last post
J

Jorginho

Veteran Member
Messages
15,484
Solutions
3
Reaction score
9,154
Location
NL
I am seriously interested in buying the Mk-II HiRes.

Three things hold me back:

1) The possible addition of this feature on the 10 MkII

2) A soon to be released (what is "soon"?) version that will take 1/60s vs the current 1 s.

The main reason: when I search for HiRes shots, I find litte of them. When I narrow the search down to my preferences and add "landscape" etc it does not matter. The few shots I do see look fantastic and the photogs even note how good it is compared to their FF (like a A7r).

Anyone knows a reason for this or a place where I CAN find landscape pics? Didn't find them on flickr (not a lot).

Thx!!
 
Jorginho said:
I am seriously interested in buying the Mk-II HiRes.

Three things hold me back:

1) The possible addition of this feature on the 10 MkII

2) A soon to be released (what is "soon"?) version that will take 1/60s vs the current 1 s.

The main reason: when I search for HiRes shots, I find litte of them. When I narrow the search down to my preferences and add "landscape" etc it does not matter. The few shots I do see look fantastic and the photogs even note how good it is compared to their FF (like a A7r).

Anyone knows a reason for this or a place where I CAN find landscape pics? Didn't find them on flickr (not a lot).

Thx!!
Click to expand...
I'm also considering the E-M5 Mk II or the E-M10 Mk II if it features high rez mode, but only to be used when needed, like delivering a big file to a billboard printer for a hotel Advertising, or something like that.

For web viewing, HR mode is overkill. That might be why there are not so many images around. Besides, the camera have been out for a few months only, I'd say there are like 90 % of E-M5 Mark I images in the web, and the percentage is getting phased out by the E-M1 first, and eventually will come to the E-M10 and E-M5 Mark II. So, no need to worry if you don't see them much.
 
Martin Ocando said:
Jorginho said:
I am seriously interested in buying the Mk-II HiRes.

Three things hold me back:

1) The possible addition of this feature on the 10 MkII

2) A soon to be released (what is "soon"?) version that will take 1/60s vs the current 1 s.

The main reason: when I search for HiRes shots, I find litte of them. When I narrow the search down to my preferences and add "landscape" etc it does not matter. The few shots I do see look fantastic and the photogs even note how good it is compared to their FF (like a A7r).

Anyone knows a reason for this or a place where I CAN find landscape pics? Didn't find them on flickr (not a lot).

Thx!!
Click to expand...
I'm also considering the E-M5 Mk II or the E-M10 Mk II if it features high rez mode, but only to be used when needed, like delivering a big file to a billboard printer for a hotel Advertising, or something like that.

For web viewing, HR mode is overkill. That might be why there are not so many images around.
Click to expand...
Here I disagree. If so I would not be able to tell the difference between a shot made by an 645Z or a GH4. I do. Also, I think you are hinting at the resolution mostly which I understand as this is my question. However, it is not that only where I am after What I in particularly like is also the wy it gets rids of bayer restrictions. The better colours and also the lower noise. These can be readily seen in images. It is that what makes this cam come close to the 645Z I think when hires is possible. Hence I'd expect to see it on the net.
Martin Ocando said:
Besides, the camera have been out for a few months only, I'd say there are like 90 % of E-M5 Mark I images in the web, and the percentage is getting phased out by the E-M1 first, and eventually will come to the E-M10 and E-M5 Mark II. So, no need to worry if you don't see them much.
Click to expand...
But there are plenty MarkII images, just not that many HiRes. I know what it an do, but I think my main point is that it might be that it is vastly more restricted than I imagine (for landscapes mostly).

Thx for replying!
 
:-(
 
Jorginho said:
Martin Ocando said:
Jorginho said:
I am seriously interested in buying the Mk-II HiRes.

Three things hold me back:

1) The possible addition of this feature on the 10 MkII

2) A soon to be released (what is "soon"?) version that will take 1/60s vs the current 1 s.

The main reason: when I search for HiRes shots, I find litte of them. When I narrow the search down to my preferences and add "landscape" etc it does not matter. The few shots I do see look fantastic and the photogs even note how good it is compared to their FF (like a A7r).

Anyone knows a reason for this or a place where I CAN find landscape pics? Didn't find them on flickr (not a lot).

Thx!!
Click to expand...
I'm also considering the E-M5 Mk II or the E-M10 Mk II if it features high rez mode, but only to be used when needed, like delivering a big file to a billboard printer for a hotel Advertising, or something like that.

For web viewing, HR mode is overkill. That might be why there are not so many images around.
Click to expand...
Here I disagree. If so I would not be able to tell the difference between a shot made by an 645Z or a GH4. I do. Also, I think you are hinting at the resolution mostly which I understand as this is my question. However, it is not that only where I am after What I in particularly like is also the wy it gets rids of bayer restrictions. The better colours and also the lower noise. These can be readily seen in images. It is that what makes this cam come close to the 645Z I think when hires is possible. Hence I'd expect to see it on the net.
Click to expand...
Oh, and I agree. I would be using HR mode a lot because of all those advantages. But just for mere web posting, I rather upload the accompanying low rez file, instead of re-sizing the big file.

That is out of the top of my head. I might be talking nonsense, and the HR mode files do look way better downsized than the same size standard rez files.
Jorginho said:
Jorginho said:
Besides, the camera have been out for a few months only, I'd say there are like 90 % of E-M5 Mark I images in the web, and the percentage is getting phased out by the E-M1 first, and eventually will come to the E-M10 and E-M5 Mark II. So, no need to worry if you don't see them much.
Click to expand...
But there are plenty MarkII images, just not that many HiRes. I know what it an do, but I think my main point is that it might be that it is vastly more restricted than I imagine (for landscapes mostly).
Click to expand...
I truly believe that if there were something wrong with the feature, other than then known moving subject issue, the forum would be flooded with complains. It might be that people just don't use it much, because they don't have the real need for it.

I would use it very much. Specially on those hard to repeat events. I rather have a big 60MP DNG stored on my Amazon cloud.
Jorginho said:
Thx for replying!
Click to expand...
 
finnan haddie said:
:-(
Click to expand...
This can be dealt with by using one shot to use it for the parts where artifacts do happen. I have seen longer exposures of the sea (lots of movement) and then it was not so bad at all. But I am aware of this problem, which is may be due to interpolation or so? With PhotoAcute you do not get these artifacts I believe because of the use of a good sample in those place affected by movement.

But you could be right of course and it would be a good way to explain why so few shots are uploaded. If so this would mean that I would skip it. Because then I would expect the cam to be something it is not/ it cannot do.

THX!
 
i got those artifacts e.g. in water and leaves

sure, you can work around that in post, but that costs extra work and time
 
Jorginho said:
I am seriously interested in buying the Mk-II HiRes.

Three things hold me back:

1) The possible addition of this feature on the 10 MkII

2) A soon to be released (what is "soon"?) version that will take 1/60s vs the current 1 s.

The main reason: when I search for HiRes shots, I find litte of them. When I narrow the search down to my preferences and add "landscape" etc it does not matter. The few shots I do see look fantastic and the photogs even note how good it is compared to their FF (like a A7r).

Anyone knows a reason for this or a place where I CAN find landscape pics? Didn't find them on flickr (not a lot).

Thx!!
Click to expand...
I think this tells you something about how often 3 things coincide:

- more than 16 megapixels needed

- a tripod is at hand

- the subject is static

The relative newness of the camera is also a factor, at least for me. I'm quite interested to explore HiRes, but since I acquired the II, I haven't had a lot of time to shoot, and it takes a while just to sort out the menus and basic stuff (coming from Panasonic at least).
 
TomFid said:
Jorginho said:
I am seriously interested in buying the Mk-II HiRes.

Three things hold me back:

1) The possible addition of this feature on the 10 MkII

2) A soon to be released (what is "soon"?) version that will take 1/60s vs the current 1 s.

The main reason: when I search for HiRes shots, I find litte of them. When I narrow the search down to my preferences and add "landscape" etc it does not matter. The few shots I do see look fantastic and the photogs even note how good it is compared to their FF (like a A7r).

Anyone knows a reason for this or a place where I CAN find landscape pics? Didn't find them on flickr (not a lot).

Thx!!
Click to expand...
I think this tells you something about how often 3 things coincide:

- more than 16 megapixels needed

- a tripod is at hand

- the subject is static

The relative newness of the camera is also a factor, at least for me. I'm quite interested to explore HiRes, but since I acquired the II, I haven't had a lot of time to shoot, and it takes a while just to sort out the menus and basic stuff (coming from Panasonic at least).
Click to expand...
I ave one and 2 covered. For landscaping I use tripods almost exclusively (landscapes do not tend to rund away or change rapidly, but for a MarkII they seem to ;-)). I use grad filter which I can put in front of the lens manually. Much easier with a tripod.

Three is the problem it seems. It needs to be hyperstatic....Even so that the tripod needs to be very sturdy, stable etc.

I wanted to go the PhotAcute way, but then they stopped supporting it about a year ago ("they" = the company making it). And I see no software that is comparable.
 
finnan haddie said:
The actual use of f.64 was and ideal that is originators seldom needed. Stopping down to such a tiny aperture to achieve the standards of acuity and depth of field the group insisted upon usually required very long exposures, sometimes minutes, which could themselves cause problems such as camera or subject movement. For most subjects, f.32 gamve full depth of field and allowed a shutter speed four times faster than f.64, but the very bright lighting of Apple Orchard's snow scene permitted a relatively brief one-second exposure.
Click to expand...
Some people were skilled back in the days and captured famous landscape photographs regardless of the long exposure times with the real "FULL FRAME" cameras that 35mm owners doesn't even want to be mentioned.

And now when something has a 1s limitation, pixel peepers consider it serious flaw and problem, what is just as excuse so they don't need to take their camera gear out.
 
Here's my Flickr album with hi-res shots.

Loading…

www.flickr.com

I was very curious about the feature when I first got the camera, but that curiosity has decreased considerably.

Any motion or changes in light during the 8 exposures result in hatched artifacts in the final image. The artifacts are not that easily seen unless pixel peeping, but if you're not pixel peeping, do you need hi-res?

Michael
 
Good question. I have the EM5 11 but just haven't had the time to use it yet, despite the fact that this feature was one of the reasons that I bought the camera. When I do use the feature, I suspect it will only be for certain scenes that I might intend to enlarge, like really make big. I would use the high rez feature in situations where the primary subject matter is static, and the camera on a tripod. I would be most interested in this feature if the camera can capture images at a time scale much less than 1 second, too.

This technology does offer hope that we can use our existing lenses to get nearly the quality of the Pentax 645Z. I am willing to wait, rather than shell out big bucks for an occasional application!

Thanks for posting this question. Jeff
 
tkbslc said:
Most people have 1080p monitors. Sharing a huge 40MP photo seems rather pointless.
Click to expand...
May be anything beyond 4 MP is pointless to share then? Hi Res is about better colours and better noise too. If that is not visible on a 1080 p monitor then how would that be visible in a 4 K one?
 
and no, a pixel peeper i'm not
 
Jorginho said:
tkbslc said:
Most people have 1080p monitors. Sharing a huge 40MP photo seems rather pointless.
Click to expand...
May be anything beyond 4 MP is pointless to share then?
Click to expand...
For most of us, yes.
Jorginho said:
Hi Res is about better colours and better noise too.
Click to expand...
Not really. It's about the ability to print huge. If your output size is 16MP or less, the benefits are approaching zero .
Jorginho said:
If that is not visible on a 1080 p monitor then how would that be visible in a 4 K one?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it would.

If you can tell the difference between these two shots scaled to fit in the browser, then you have much better eyes than I do.



P1010011.jpg






P1010012.jpg
 
Last edited:
Fri13 said:
Fri13 said:
The actual use of f.64 was and ideal that is originators seldom needed. Stopping down to such a tiny aperture to achieve the standards of acuity and depth of field the group insisted upon usually required very long exposures, sometimes minutes, which could themselves cause problems such as camera or subject movement. For most subjects, f.32 gamve full depth of field and allowed a shutter speed four times faster than f.64, but the very bright lighting of Apple Orchard's snow scene permitted a relatively brief one-second exposure.
Click to expand...
Some people were skilled back in the days and captured famous landscape photographs regardless of the long exposure times with the real "FULL FRAME" cameras that 35mm owners doesn't even want to be mentioned.

And now when something has a 1s limitation, pixel peepers consider it serious flaw and problem, what is just as excuse so they don't need to take their camera gear out.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of Edward Weston's famous nautilus shot. He used an 8x10 view camera set at f/256 (equivalent to f/16 in m4/3). The speed of his film was incredibly slow, so the required exposure was over four hours! He had to keep repeating the shot because when he developed the frames he saw that the image was not sharp. He attributed the blur to trucks passing his house during the four hour exposure!
 
Fri13 said:
Fri13 said:
The actual use of f.64 was and ideal that is originators seldom needed. Stopping down to such a tiny aperture to achieve the standards of acuity and depth of field the group insisted upon usually required very long exposures, sometimes minutes, which could themselves cause problems such as camera or subject movement. For most subjects, f.32 gamve full depth of field and allowed a shutter speed four times faster than f.64, but the very bright lighting of Apple Orchard's snow scene permitted a relatively brief one-second exposure.
Click to expand...
Some people were skilled back in the days and captured famous landscape photographs regardless of the long exposure times with the real "FULL FRAME" cameras that 35mm owners doesn't even want to be mentioned.

And now when something has a 1s limitation, pixel peepers consider it serious flaw and problem, what is just as excuse so they don't need to take their camera gear out.
Click to expand...
The difference here is that when taking a long exposure shot with either film or a standard sensor that motion blur is exactly that - blur. Visually acceptable and even appealing. You can even exploit the motion and extend your exposure further to increase it.

With the high res stacking method currently the result of motion in the scene from water or wind is extremely distracting high contrast checkerboard artifacts. This is very definitely a limitation of the stacked high res technique and it is worth being aware of. This is also nothing surprising as Olympus pretty clearly stated there are such limitations and recommended this for studio use only - not any sort of field use. It is a neat technique that works very well in some situations and is hit or miss in other situations. But I fail to see the comparison to long ago long exposures on film as those exposures did not produce the obvious and distracting artifacts that the high res stacking technique can.
 
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