E-P3 is a good upgrade from an E-PL1

David wrote:

Humansvillian wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

speaking stricltly as a EPL1 and an EP3 owner (still own them both, but i no longer use them), the EP3 offers better single AF performance, better controls, better build quality and an actual touch screen. You gain little or nothing in IQ and speed. EP3 is essentially a refined EPL1 with a (then) higher price tag

The successive 16mp generation offers more significant upgrades in all areas, save for build quality (not the EP5) and built in flash (not the EP5).

I have another question about image quality.

To simplify, I understand that the IQ of the 12mp sensor was great, and the IQ of the 16mp sensor was fantastic, and the IQ of the 20mp sensor should just be super fantastic.

But so far in my progression in the photography hobby, my use of digital images has been taking JPEGs and lightly editing them on simple free programs such as OLY 3, then posting them on Facebook or sending them by IM or email to friends, and occasionally printing one on my $100 bubble jet Pixma 922 printer.

I know that the new sensors have more dynamic range, more pixels, and are just all around better.

But for my uses, how much difference in usable IQ would there be between my PL1 and an OMD-M10II and the latest Pen F or OMD-M1II?

I'm all for better toys to play with, but where is the point of diminishing returns?

I gave my daughter an 8mp Canon EOS-350D with a kit lens last May and she's actually making money with the thing taking photos for clients, who never complain about the IQ of the pictures.

Is there a point where gains in sensor technology start to diminish in "real world" use for non professionals? If so, where is it?

You need to be aware that when people look at photos on Facebook or IM or email to friends, they are limited to the display they are looking at. For the most part, the display is at best 2MP. If it's 4K, then it's 8MP. In regards to dynamic range of the display, most display can show at best about 8 stops of dynamic range. The better ones is about 10 stops. The best expensive ones -- more than 10 stops.

Now.. What can your E-P3 do? At best about 10 stops of dynamic range at base ISO and you have 12MP. If you shoot at base ISO and with careful processing, you will get 12MP with 10stops of dynamic range, but because you are posting them on Facebook or IM, then the 12MP will get down sample to 2MP or 8MP (4K), thus making the images less noisy and with more acutance. You still need to rely on your friends and relatives to have the best monitor or display, but seriously, everyone these days view photos on the phone so how much can they tell whether you have a lot of dynamic range or not.

Serious photographers can because they already have great Retina displays or 4K or 5K displays to begin with, but sometimes we tend to imply that the whole world also own great displays and unfortunately, this is not true.

That's why your daughter with the 8MP Canon don't have clients complaining about IQ because with 8MP, you can still display the photos fine up to 4K. No problem with 2K that you have on most phones and for printing big, there is a software called Genuine Fractals that can enlarge low MP photos and print them big no problem. And most people demand prints up to 13x19 for which 8MP is enough to deliver.

I think some people tend believe that everyone is going for big prints -- 24x36 or 60x40" and print like in the hundreds and think each 24x36" or 60x40" cost like a dollar to print. And that we then need higher MP cameras with lots of DR and low noise so we can print them that big. In real life, very few people print @ 24x36" or 60x40" like most people do with 4x6" or 8x10" prints or up to 16x20" in which the E-P3 can handle very well. So why invest in so much gear when the perceived need is not yet realized?

All true, but the counter to that is to look at prints from decades ago and project that differential decades into the future. Whatever we do today may look quaint in the future, but I don't mind doing my best right now on the off chance that a distant relative might enjoy seeing what life was like way back in the '10s.

Video IQ offers an even more dramatic difference than stills, in this regard.