Reading mode: Light Dark

Lusting for fullframe (cont'd)

Go to last post
sportyaccordy said:
Adielle said:
sportyaccordy said:
M43 may be good for today but what about 10, 20 years from now?
Click to expand...
Are you going to develop superhuman vision in 10-20 years, which allows you to see some kind of "pixelation" in 20MP pictures from a viewing distance that doesn't involve you being almost glued to the picture / print?
Click to expand...
No need to attack me. If M43 is all you want and need then enjoy it. But 42MP FF on 4K has been a huge step up, and when 8K rolls around I want to capitalize on that improvement too.
Click to expand...
I didn't "attack you" at all, and this has nothing to do with MFT or FF, but with resolution, and a picture with a resolution of 20MP is far, far, far, far beyond something you'll ever be able to discern "pixelation" in, or any lack of detail that's caused by the resolution itself, whatsoever, from any viewing distance that doesn't involve you being a few cm away from a really large print, if you're lucky. Obviously that would mean that the part of the picture that's gonna be in focus in your field of view would be a small fraction of the entire picture.

This obsession with "is it gonna be good enough in X years" is senseless. 20MP is always gonna be "good enough", because the vision acuity limit has been far surpassed by resolutions like it. You will never in your life print anything that will require a higher resolution because 20MP is "not enough", because it's simply impossible for it not to be enough. The only possible way for it not to be enough is if you're making extremely large prints that are meant to be viewed not as a whole picture, but from up close, in extreme "pixel peeping" conditions. If that's the kind of unusual and unexplainable thing that you intend to do, then it may not be enough, but this has no relevance to people who take pictures that are meant to be viewed normally, as pictures.
 
Last edited:
Adielle said:
sportyaccordy said:
Adielle said:
sportyaccordy said:
M43 may be good for today but what about 10, 20 years from now?
Click to expand...
Are you going to develop superhuman vision in 10-20 years, which allows you to see some kind of "pixelation" in 20MP pictures from a viewing distance that doesn't involve you being almost glued to the picture / print?
Click to expand...
No need to attack me. If M43 is all you want and need then enjoy it. But 42MP FF on 4K has been a huge step up, and when 8K rolls around I want to capitalize on that improvement too.
Click to expand...
I didn't "attack you" at all, and this has nothing to do with MFT or FF, but with resolution, and a picture with a resolution of 20MP is far, far, far, far beyond something you'll ever be able to discern "pixelation" in, or any lack of detail that's caused by the resolution itself, whatsoever, from any viewing distance that doesn't involve you being a few cm away from a really large print, if you're lucky. Obviously that would mean that the part of the picture that's gonna be in focus in your field of view would be a small fraction of the entire picture.

This obsession with "is it gonna be good enough in X years" is senseless. 20MP is always gonna be "good enough", because the vision acuity limit has been far surpassed by resolutions like it. You will never in your life print anything that will require a higher resolution because 20MP is "not enough", because it's simply impossible for it not to be enough. The only possible way for it not to be enough is if you're making extremely large prints that are meant to be viewed not as a whole picture, but from up close, in extreme "pixel peeping" conditions. If that's the kind of unusual and unexplainable thing that that you intend to do, then it may not be enough, but this has no relevance to people who take pictures that are meant to be viewed normally.
Click to expand...
Lots of fallacies in here.

1 I never said anything about being worried about pixelation.

2 People view photos in other ways besides printing. I have a lot of prints on my walls... some of which are pretty big... but I view the bulk of my photos digitally.

3 Even without "extreme pixel peeping" (another strawman), more MPs in a photo = more detail, even downsampled to print resolutions. Furthermore it's not unusual or unreaosnable to zoom into a photo beyond the framing. And the true resolution from a camera is lower than the resolution of a monitor due to aliasing. Each pixel on a camera is more like a third of a full color pixel whereas each pixel on a screen can replicate any color.

4 "Normal viewing" is arbitrary and subjective.
 
sportyaccordy said:
Adielle said:
sportyaccordy said:
Adielle said:
sportyaccordy said:
M43 may be good for today but what about 10, 20 years from now?
Click to expand...
Are you going to develop superhuman vision in 10-20 years, which allows you to see some kind of "pixelation" in 20MP pictures from a viewing distance that doesn't involve you being almost glued to the picture / print?
Click to expand...
No need to attack me. If M43 is all you want and need then enjoy it. But 42MP FF on 4K has been a huge step up, and when 8K rolls around I want to capitalize on that improvement too.
Click to expand...
I didn't "attack you" at all, and this has nothing to do with MFT or FF, but with resolution, and a picture with a resolution of 20MP is far, far, far, far beyond something you'll ever be able to discern "pixelation" in, or any lack of detail that's caused by the resolution itself, whatsoever, from any viewing distance that doesn't involve you being a few cm away from a really large print, if you're lucky. Obviously that would mean that the part of the picture that's gonna be in focus in your field of view would be a small fraction of the entire picture.

This obsession with "is it gonna be good enough in X years" is senseless. 20MP is always gonna be "good enough", because the vision acuity limit has been far surpassed by resolutions like it. You will never in your life print anything that will require a higher resolution because 20MP is "not enough", because it's simply impossible for it not to be enough. The only possible way for it not to be enough is if you're making extremely large prints that are meant to be viewed not as a whole picture, but from up close, in extreme "pixel peeping" conditions. If that's the kind of unusual and unexplainable thing that that you intend to do, then it may not be enough, but this has no relevance to people who take pictures that are meant to be viewed normally.
Click to expand...
Lots of fallacies in here.
Click to expand...
The only fallacy is your "is it gonna be good enough in 10-20 years?" as if something that is more than good enough already and can't possibly become less than good enough is capable of becoming not good enough later on.
sportyaccordy said:
1 I never said anything about being worried about pixelation.
Click to expand...
I don't care how you call it, call it "detail" if you want.
sportyaccordy said:
2 People view photos in other ways besides printing. I have a lot of prints on my walls... some of which are pretty big... but I view the bulk of my photos digitally.
Click to expand...
No monitor or any medium that can display an image will ever allow an image of 20MP to be "lacking in detail" to any human unless that image is not viewed as a whole but as small fragments from up close, which is not what people take pictures for. "Normally".
sportyaccordy said:
3 Even without "extreme pixel peeping" (another strawman), more MPs in a photo = more detail,
Click to expand...
More detail != more visible detail. Fallacy much?
sportyaccordy said:
even downsampled to print resolutions. Furthermore it's not unusual or unreaosnable to zoom into a photo beyond the framing.
Click to expand...
Don't go down the "cropping" rabbit hole. Using that "logic" I could claim that everything available is never gonna be good enough because I might need to "crop".
sportyaccordy said:
And the true resolution from a camera is lower than the resolution of a monitor due to aliasing.
Click to expand...
Aliasing has nothing to do with "the true resolution"
sportyaccordy said:
Each pixel on a camera is more like a third of a full color pixel whereas each pixel on a screen can replicate any color.
Click to expand...
You really have no idea what you're saying.
sportyaccordy said:
4 "Normal viewing" is arbitrary and subjective.
Click to expand...
Normal viewing of pictures is completely related to "is it gonna be good enough" which is as subjective as it gets, and "normal" is related to the fact that people usually take pictures that are meant to be viewed as pictures and not as fragments of a picture, and therefore your question can easily be answered with "it's gonna be good enough because it's already more than than good enough and can never become less than good enough".
 
Last edited:
I don't need this negative energy. Enjoy your 20MP M43 images.
 
gx85sacto said:
You ''downresolve" the noise, you downresolve the signal as well;
Click to expand...
That's common sense, judgment derived from gut feeling rather than study.

Not many of us have physics and mathematics in our guts ;)

"As well" is not quantified in your suggestion, and qualifying it as "by the same amount" is mostly inaccurate.
 
Aaron801 said:
David said:
Serguei Palto said:
petreluk said:
Just buy an FF camera and have done with it, if that floats your boat. It will do things an M43 camera cannot do. No amount of bizarre defensive techtalk will ever change that. I would not be in the least bit surprised if FF was the dominant format in five years’ time, with a couple of APS-C and 1” specials for the long-reach crowd and everyone else using very capable smartphones. I like M43 but Olympus versus rest of the world is a bit of a foregone conclusion, isn’t it.
Click to expand...
Buying FF does has a sense, but only after the FF will have the number of pixels 4 times more than m43, and the lenses will be as good as those for m43 in terms of the absolute resolution. Otherwise the two systems have their advantages and disadvantages with respect to each other depending on a task.

For example, the larger pixels density and exellent tele-lenses (like Oly 300 f/4) in case of the m43 make this system to be significantly better for the world-life photography than FF systems I know. Also the excellent pro lenses like OLY 17 mm f/1.2 allow for m43 to compeet with FF at low light. I do not know f/1.2 lens for FF that is perfectly sharp across the frame (Oly 17 f/1.2 is indeed increadebly sharp at f/1.2). Even at f/2.8 FF lenses are so-so according to my criteria.

The higher dynamic range of FF sensor is only significant if we are looking at an image at the1:1 size or capable to see all the resolved details. But in majority cases, if you are interested only in the full-frame view you can downsample the m43 image and increase the dynamic range. For example, the down-sampled m43 image from 16 Mpx to 4 Mpx will have the same dynamic range as 16 Mpx FF-image. From my experience 4Mpx images printed on the A5-size paper are hardly distinguished from the 16Mpx ones in terms of the visible detailes. The properly downsampled photo looks better if printed at proper size.

The proper downsampling can also be important in future, when FF-sensors with huge amount of pixels (~80 Mpx) will be typical.

I am sure that m43 system has the Future.
Click to expand...
Sorry; but what is this nonsense?!? Downsampling my 16MP to 4MP so I can print like a full frame. Show me a great 4MP image downsampled MFT file of a 30x40 or 40x60 print that will rival a full frame? You can not increase dynamic range and tonal range with downsampling. All you are doing is creating a physical illusion of extended dynamic range, because the image is small. When you print big; and I have done that many times, I can tell you no one is printing 4MP to get gorgeous 30x40 prints. Besides, why do people need a D850 or EOS 5DSR?!? For that 45MP and 50MP to print beyond 40x60"!

The higher dynamic range from full frame is only significant when printing really really big. The difference will begin to show; guess what from 30x40 and up. Shows up and is noticeable at 40x60". Which is why professional galleries only accept 45-50MP full frame and medium format files! They also sell prints starting at $10,000 as well. I used to have a client who runs a gallery at Granville Island and sell those 40x60" and up and you can tell a difference between my 16MP E-P5 vs her Nikon D810 and if I am forced to print that big. But I don't.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to question the tech knowledge that you're writing here because that isn't something that I know (or care) too much about. The gallery though that doesn't take anything but full-frame and medium format files? Really? One of what is probably the greatest photography galleries is in my town and I've seen just about every kind of camera and process represented in shows there. One of the shows that I know that they were most proud of was of Robert Frank's work, which was all pretty large prints and was printed largely from old, grainy 35mm film. Even if I was using a large mpx camera, I'd probably skip showing my work at such a gallery because if they have to ask my what I shot the work with, they aren't doing a very good job of actually looking at the work.

I feel like a lot of this mpx stuff is just academic. Sure, if you're printing giant and you still expect people to walk up to the work so that they can see tiny details then I suppose that you do need to make the images with a camera that makes a giant file. So much of the time though, images aren't experienced in this way and having fine detail is really just an aesthetic decision not any kind of guarantee of the overall quality of the work. So much of painting isn't in a photo-realist style, so why does photography only get judged by measures of realism?
Aaron801 said:
Isn't A5 prints; like 5x8"? You don't need full frame for that. In fact,, I had once printed a 16x20" print taken with my E-P5 and shown to the store where they had a couple of professional photogs working there. All thought I shot it with a Nikon D800!

But sorry, your analysis is your personal opinion..
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
People don't need huge, expensive printers if the are really curious about how MP impacts print size. Just use a good-quality 8.5x11 capable printer and print crops. I think most will find it is pretty hard to see grain from a 24MP camera on a 16x20 print (maybe larger, depending on the ISO) and most won't notice any detail difference printing from a 16MP file or a 24MP file. Pixel counts have long surpassed what most will ever need for printing under really large sizes. You are better-off buying the best lenses you can (because in print you can definitely see edge aberrations) than gaining an incremental MP increase by buying a new camera body.
 
Serguei Palto said:
petreluk said:
Just buy an FF camera and have done with it, if that floats your boat. It will do things an M43 camera cannot do. No amount of bizarre defensive techtalk will ever change that. I would not be in the least bit surprised if FF was the dominant format in five years’ time, with a couple of APS-C and 1” specials for the long-reach crowd and everyone else using very capable smartphones. I like M43 but Olympus versus rest of the world is a bit of a foregone conclusion, isn’t it.
Click to expand...
Buying FF does has a sense, but only after the FF will have the number of pixels 4 times more than m43, and the lenses will be as good as those for m43 in terms of the absolute resolution. Otherwise the two systems have their advantages and disadvantages with respect to each other depending on a task.

For example, the larger pixels density and exellent tele-lenses (like Oly 300 f/4) in case of the m43 make this system to be significantly better for the world-life photography than FF systems I know. Also the excellent pro lenses like OLY 17 mm f/1.2 allow for m43 to compeet with FF at low light. I do not know f/1.2 lens for FF that is perfectly sharp across the frame (Oly 17 f/1.2 is indeed increadebly sharp at f/1.2). Even at f/2.8 FF lenses are so-so according to my criteria.

The higher dynamic range of FF sensor is only significant if we are looking at an image at the1:1 size or capable to see all the resolved details. But in majority cases, if you are interested only in the full-frame view you can downsample the m43 image and increase the dynamic range. For example, the down-sampled m43 image from 16 Mpx to 4 Mpx will have the same dynamic range as 16 Mpx FF-image. From my experience 4Mpx images printed on the A5-size paper are hardly distinguished from the 16Mpx ones in terms of the visible detailes. The properly downsampled photo looks better if printed at proper size.

The proper downsampling can also be important in future, when FF-sensors with huge amount of pixels (~80 Mpx) will be typical.
Click to expand...
So let's sum up your points:
  • Until FF has 4x the pixel count as mFT and the lenses for FF resolve just as well in the corners at half the DOF, then, and only then, does FF make any sense.
  • According to your "analysis", FF doesn't have lenses that can outresolve mFT at the same DOF, much less at half the DOF.
  • Any lack of DR that mFT may have can be "fixed" by downsampling by a factor of two (the loss of resolution being irrelevant because a "properly downsampled" 4 MP photo looks better than a "properly processed" 16 MP photo, anyway), and the fact that this "logic" would also apply two fold to a 36+ MP FF photo is besides the point (perhaps because FF lenses are so soft compared to mFT lenses, despite all the tests and photos showing rather the opposite).
  • "Properly downsampled" photos "look better" when printed at the "proper size".
Serguei Palto said:
I am sure that m43 system has the Future.
Click to expand...
It surely does. But the survival of mFT is not predicated on gross distortions and misrepresentations. It is sufficient to say, "I like mFT and it works brilliantly for me. For those that it does not, they may find they are better served by other options."
 
David said:
It really does not matter how you slice and dice it and try to spin it. People buy what they feel they want; not by any logical means.
Click to expand...
For a fact. How logical is it to buy an Audi A5 for twice the price of a Camry? How logical is it to by a 25 / 1.2 over a 25 / 1.4 or 25 / 1.8? How logical is it to buy a camera at all when you don't make income from it?

We are all, first and foremost, emotional beings. Logic is simply a tool that aids or hinders our pursuit of emotional gratification.
 
norman shearer said:
CanonSharpShooter said:
Adielle said:
sportyaccordy said:
I don't need this negative energy. Enjoy your 20MP M43 images.
Click to expand...
and I don't need your negativity either, and I certainly will. Enjoy your more detail.
Click to expand...
I’m enjoying my whiskey 🥃 for the New Years!
Click to expand...
Enjoy your tiny wee drink (m43), meanwhile I'll sup a pint of Boddingtons draught bitter (FF) - much better. :-P
Click to expand...
To be a real man you’ll need to sup the pint in a Scottish kilt and bare chested in the snow. Enjoy!
 
Aaron801 said:
David said:
Serguei Palto said:
petreluk said:
Just buy an FF camera and have done with it, if that floats your boat. It will do things an M43 camera cannot do. No amount of bizarre defensive techtalk will ever change that. I would not be in the least bit surprised if FF was the dominant format in five years’ time, with a couple of APS-C and 1” specials for the long-reach crowd and everyone else using very capable smartphones. I like M43 but Olympus versus rest of the world is a bit of a foregone conclusion, isn’t it.
Click to expand...
Buying FF does has a sense, but only after the FF will have the number of pixels 4 times more than m43, and the lenses will be as good as those for m43 in terms of the absolute resolution. Otherwise the two systems have their advantages and disadvantages with respect to each other depending on a task.

For example, the larger pixels density and exellent tele-lenses (like Oly 300 f/4) in case of the m43 make this system to be significantly better for the world-life photography than FF systems I know. Also the excellent pro lenses like OLY 17 mm f/1.2 allow for m43 to compeet with FF at low light. I do not know f/1.2 lens for FF that is perfectly sharp across the frame (Oly 17 f/1.2 is indeed increadebly sharp at f/1.2). Even at f/2.8 FF lenses are so-so according to my criteria.

The higher dynamic range of FF sensor is only significant if we are looking at an image at the1:1 size or capable to see all the resolved details. But in majority cases, if you are interested only in the full-frame view you can downsample the m43 image and increase the dynamic range. For example, the down-sampled m43 image from 16 Mpx to 4 Mpx will have the same dynamic range as 16 Mpx FF-image. From my experience 4Mpx images printed on the A5-size paper are hardly distinguished from the 16Mpx ones in terms of the visible detailes. The properly downsampled photo looks better if printed at proper size.

The proper downsampling can also be important in future, when FF-sensors with huge amount of pixels (~80 Mpx) will be typical.

I am sure that m43 system has the Future.
Click to expand...
Sorry; but what is this nonsense?!? Downsampling my 16MP to 4MP so I can print like a full frame. Show me a great 4MP image downsampled MFT file of a 30x40 or 40x60 print that will rival a full frame? You can not increase dynamic range and tonal range with downsampling. All you are doing is creating a physical illusion of extended dynamic range, because the image is small. When you print big; and I have done that many times, I can tell you no one is printing 4MP to get gorgeous 30x40 prints. Besides, why do people need a D850 or EOS 5DSR?!? For that 45MP and 50MP to print beyond 40x60"!

The higher dynamic range from full frame is only significant when printing really really big. The difference will begin to show; guess what from 30x40 and up. Shows up and is noticeable at 40x60". Which is why professional galleries only accept 45-50MP full frame and medium format files! They also sell prints starting at $10,000 as well. I used to have a client who runs a gallery at Granville Island and sell those 40x60" and up and you can tell a difference between my 16MP E-P5 vs her Nikon D810 and if I am forced to print that big. But I don't.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to question the tech knowledge that you're writing here because that isn't something that I know (or care) too much about. The gallery though that doesn't take anything but full-frame and medium format files? Really? One of what is probably the greatest photography galleries is in my town and I've seen just about every kind of camera and process represented in shows there. One of the shows that I know that they were most proud of was of Robert Frank's work, which was all pretty large prints and was printed largely from old, grainy 35mm film. Even if I was using a large mpx camera, I'd probably skip showing my work at such a gallery because if they have to ask my what I shot the work with, they aren't doing a very good job of actually looking at the work.

I feel like a lot of this mpx stuff is just academic. Sure, if you're printing giant and you still expect people to walk up to the work so that they can see tiny details then I suppose that you do need to make the images with a camera that makes a giant file. So much of the time though, images aren't experienced in this way and having fine detail is really just an aesthetic decision not any kind of guarantee of the overall quality of the work. So much of painting isn't in a photo-realist style, so why does photography only get judged by measures of realism?
Aaron801 said:
Isn't A5 prints; like 5x8"? You don't need full frame for that. In fact,, I had once printed a 16x20" print taken with my E-P5 and shown to the store where they had a couple of professional photogs working there. All thought I shot it with a Nikon D800!

But sorry, your analysis is your personal opinion..
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Galleries are like car dealerships. In some cities, like where I live, there are a few Ferrari, Tesla, Lamborghini, Bugati, Lotus, Porsche and Maserati dealerships. One dealership in my town stocked 3 floors full of the latest Ferraris. But in some cities I had travelled into; some have none at all. So in a way, it depends which cities you live in and what the clientele wants. That's all, because why is it a Ferrari or a Bugati cost so much more than a Honda Civic? They all have 4 wheels.. Again, it's all about what a person is willing to pay for a product and in what quality is that product made to? And prints are products; luxury upscale or contemporary?
 
Last edited:
For some, mediocre technical quality doesn't detract from the image value as a whole. This is why you can still sell prints from 35mm film even though technically, they are pretty limited when printed large.
 
David said:
Aaron801 said:
David said:
Serguei Palto said:
petreluk said:
Just buy an FF camera and have done with it, if that floats your boat. It will do things an M43 camera cannot do. No amount of bizarre defensive techtalk will ever change that. I would not be in the least bit surprised if FF was the dominant format in five years’ time, with a couple of APS-C and 1” specials for the long-reach crowd and everyone else using very capable smartphones. I like M43 but Olympus versus rest of the world is a bit of a foregone conclusion, isn’t it.
Click to expand...
Buying FF does has a sense, but only after the FF will have the number of pixels 4 times more than m43, and the lenses will be as good as those for m43 in terms of the absolute resolution. Otherwise the two systems have their advantages and disadvantages with respect to each other depending on a task.

For example, the larger pixels density and exellent tele-lenses (like Oly 300 f/4) in case of the m43 make this system to be significantly better for the world-life photography than FF systems I know. Also the excellent pro lenses like OLY 17 mm f/1.2 allow for m43 to compeet with FF at low light. I do not know f/1.2 lens for FF that is perfectly sharp across the frame (Oly 17 f/1.2 is indeed increadebly sharp at f/1.2). Even at f/2.8 FF lenses are so-so according to my criteria.

The higher dynamic range of FF sensor is only significant if we are looking at an image at the1:1 size or capable to see all the resolved details. But in majority cases, if you are interested only in the full-frame view you can downsample the m43 image and increase the dynamic range. For example, the down-sampled m43 image from 16 Mpx to 4 Mpx will have the same dynamic range as 16 Mpx FF-image. From my experience 4Mpx images printed on the A5-size paper are hardly distinguished from the 16Mpx ones in terms of the visible detailes. The properly downsampled photo looks better if printed at proper size.

The proper downsampling can also be important in future, when FF-sensors with huge amount of pixels (~80 Mpx) will be typical.

I am sure that m43 system has the Future.
Click to expand...
Sorry; but what is this nonsense?!? Downsampling my 16MP to 4MP so I can print like a full frame. Show me a great 4MP image downsampled MFT file of a 30x40 or 40x60 print that will rival a full frame? You can not increase dynamic range and tonal range with downsampling. All you are doing is creating a physical illusion of extended dynamic range, because the image is small. When you print big; and I have done that many times, I can tell you no one is printing 4MP to get gorgeous 30x40 prints. Besides, why do people need a D850 or EOS 5DSR?!? For that 45MP and 50MP to print beyond 40x60"!

The higher dynamic range from full frame is only significant when printing really really big. The difference will begin to show; guess what from 30x40 and up. Shows up and is noticeable at 40x60". Which is why professional galleries only accept 45-50MP full frame and medium format files! They also sell prints starting at $10,000 as well. I used to have a client who runs a gallery at Granville Island and sell those 40x60" and up and you can tell a difference between my 16MP E-P5 vs her Nikon D810 and if I am forced to print that big. But I don't.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to question the tech knowledge that you're writing here because that isn't something that I know (or care) too much about. The gallery though that doesn't take anything but full-frame and medium format files? Really? One of what is probably the greatest photography galleries is in my town and I've seen just about every kind of camera and process represented in shows there. One of the shows that I know that they were most proud of was of Robert Frank's work, which was all pretty large prints and was printed largely from old, grainy 35mm film. Even if I was using a large mpx camera, I'd probably skip showing my work at such a gallery because if they have to ask my what I shot the work with, they aren't doing a very good job of actually looking at the work.

I feel like a lot of this mpx stuff is just academic. Sure, if you're printing giant and you still expect people to walk up to the work so that they can see tiny details then I suppose that you do need to make the images with a camera that makes a giant file. So much of the time though, images aren't experienced in this way and having fine detail is really just an aesthetic decision not any kind of guarantee of the overall quality of the work. So much of painting isn't in a photo-realist style, so why does photography only get judged by measures of realism?
Member said:
Isn't A5 prints; like 5x8"? You don't need full frame for that. In fact,, I had once printed a 16x20" print taken with my E-P5 and shown to the store where they had a couple of professional photogs working there. All thought I shot it with a Nikon D800!

But sorry, your analysis is your personal opinion..
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Galleries are like car dealerships. In some cities, like where I live, there are a few Ferrari, Tesla, Lamborghini, Bugati, Lotus, Porsche and Maserati dealerships. One dealership in my town stocked 3 floors full of the latest Ferraris. But in some cities I had travelled into; some have none at all. So in a way, it depends which cities you live in and what the clientele wants. That's all, because why is it a Ferrari or a Bugati cost so much more than a Honda Civic? They all have 4 wheels.. Again, it's all about what a person is willing to pay for a product and is that product made. And prints are products; luxury or common.
Click to expand...
I think you are impressing a lot of your thinking on the market.

The value of a print is in the demand, subject matter and rarity. You could have a rare and beautiful image in less than perfect condition with a great deal thanks to demand and scarcity. It is art, the value doesn't come from the camera.

In the commercial world there might be some weight to the highest resolution available but clients often don't need it and are unwilling to pay for it. So again, it is use dependant.

I think there are a lot of people here who assume a great deal.
 
Ab Latchin said:
David said:
Aaron801 said:
David said:
Serguei Palto said:
petreluk said:
Just buy an FF camera and have done with it, if that floats your boat. It will do things an M43 camera cannot do. No amount of bizarre defensive techtalk will ever change that. I would not be in the least bit surprised if FF was the dominant format in five years’ time, with a couple of APS-C and 1” specials for the long-reach crowd and everyone else using very capable smartphones. I like M43 but Olympus versus rest of the world is a bit of a foregone conclusion, isn’t it.
Click to expand...
Buying FF does has a sense, but only after the FF will have the number of pixels 4 times more than m43, and the lenses will be as good as those for m43 in terms of the absolute resolution. Otherwise the two systems have their advantages and disadvantages with respect to each other depending on a task.

For example, the larger pixels density and exellent tele-lenses (like Oly 300 f/4) in case of the m43 make this system to be significantly better for the world-life photography than FF systems I know. Also the excellent pro lenses like OLY 17 mm f/1.2 allow for m43 to compeet with FF at low light. I do not know f/1.2 lens for FF that is perfectly sharp across the frame (Oly 17 f/1.2 is indeed increadebly sharp at f/1.2). Even at f/2.8 FF lenses are so-so according to my criteria.

The higher dynamic range of FF sensor is only significant if we are looking at an image at the1:1 size or capable to see all the resolved details. But in majority cases, if you are interested only in the full-frame view you can downsample the m43 image and increase the dynamic range. For example, the down-sampled m43 image from 16 Mpx to 4 Mpx will have the same dynamic range as 16 Mpx FF-image. From my experience 4Mpx images printed on the A5-size paper are hardly distinguished from the 16Mpx ones in terms of the visible detailes. The properly downsampled photo looks better if printed at proper size.

The proper downsampling can also be important in future, when FF-sensors with huge amount of pixels (~80 Mpx) will be typical.

I am sure that m43 system has the Future.
Click to expand...
Sorry; but what is this nonsense?!? Downsampling my 16MP to 4MP so I can print like a full frame. Show me a great 4MP image downsampled MFT file of a 30x40 or 40x60 print that will rival a full frame? You can not increase dynamic range and tonal range with downsampling. All you are doing is creating a physical illusion of extended dynamic range, because the image is small. When you print big; and I have done that many times, I can tell you no one is printing 4MP to get gorgeous 30x40 prints. Besides, why do people need a D850 or EOS 5DSR?!? For that 45MP and 50MP to print beyond 40x60"!

The higher dynamic range from full frame is only significant when printing really really big. The difference will begin to show; guess what from 30x40 and up. Shows up and is noticeable at 40x60". Which is why professional galleries only accept 45-50MP full frame and medium format files! They also sell prints starting at $10,000 as well. I used to have a client who runs a gallery at Granville Island and sell those 40x60" and up and you can tell a difference between my 16MP E-P5 vs her Nikon D810 and if I am forced to print that big. But I don't.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to question the tech knowledge that you're writing here because that isn't something that I know (or care) too much about. The gallery though that doesn't take anything but full-frame and medium format files? Really? One of what is probably the greatest photography galleries is in my town and I've seen just about every kind of camera and process represented in shows there. One of the shows that I know that they were most proud of was of Robert Frank's work, which was all pretty large prints and was printed largely from old, grainy 35mm film. Even if I was using a large mpx camera, I'd probably skip showing my work at such a gallery because if they have to ask my what I shot the work with, they aren't doing a very good job of actually looking at the work.

I feel like a lot of this mpx stuff is just academic. Sure, if you're printing giant and you still expect people to walk up to the work so that they can see tiny details then I suppose that you do need to make the images with a camera that makes a giant file. So much of the time though, images aren't experienced in this way and having fine detail is really just an aesthetic decision not any kind of guarantee of the overall quality of the work. So much of painting isn't in a photo-realist style, so why does photography only get judged by measures of realism?
Ab Latchin said:
Isn't A5 prints; like 5x8"? You don't need full frame for that. In fact,, I had once printed a 16x20" print taken with my E-P5 and shown to the store where they had a couple of professional photogs working there. All thought I shot it with a Nikon D800!

But sorry, your analysis is your personal opinion..
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Galleries are like car dealerships. In some cities, like where I live, there are a few Ferrari, Tesla, Lamborghini, Bugati, Lotus, Porsche and Maserati dealerships. One dealership in my town stocked 3 floors full of the latest Ferraris. But in some cities I had travelled into; some have none at all. So in a way, it depends which cities you live in and what the clientele wants. That's all, because why is it a Ferrari or a Bugati cost so much more than a Honda Civic? They all have 4 wheels.. Again, it's all about what a person is willing to pay for a product and is that product made. And prints are products; luxury or common.
Click to expand...
I think you are impressing a lot of your thinking on the market.

The value of a print is in the demand, subject matter and rarity. You could have a rare and beautiful image in less than perfect condition with a great deal thanks to demand and scarcity. It is art, the value doesn't come from the camera.

In the commercial world there might be some weight to the highest resolution available but clients often don't need it and are unwilling to pay for it. So again, it is use dependant.

I think there are a lot of people here who assume a great deal.
Click to expand...
I have close to 30 years of photographic experience; industrial, printing, sales, technical repairs, support etc and have travelled to New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Brazil etc.. and have seen it all and had worked with a number of agencies. I am just sharing my experiences of what I had saw and learned. Like you, I was skeptical of this high end market until some clients invited me to these galleries and are selling these prints. Some are metal prints and personally, I don't give a S**T if you believe me or not and personally, I don't really need you to believe me. Why should I? But they do exist like Ferrari does selling cars. Obviously, some people want to buy them. I'm simply expressing that certain people do use top equipment to create top products and prints for a certain rich clientele. If you choose to ignore these markets; that's your prerogative.

Likewise, what's the point of making digital medium format if you don't need these big files to print big? Are Fuji, Hasselblad, Phase One and Pentax dumb and stupid? Are people who use medium format don't realize 16 or 20MP is enough? Are they stupid?
 
Last edited:
DiffractionLtd said:
For some, mediocre technical quality doesn't detract from the image value as a whole. This is why you can still sell prints from 35mm film even though technically, they are pretty limited when printed large.
Click to expand...
And so what you are trying to tell me is that; people who shoot digital medium format are all incapable artists, totally insecure about themselves, stupid that they don't know any better about MP and prints and are unaccomplished. And companies like Fuji, Hasselblad, Phase One and Pentax are stupid in making those digital medium format bodies and lenses. You know; your statement does not make any sense at all when these products exist for a specific reason!
 
David said:
DiffractionLtd said:
For some, mediocre technical quality doesn't detract from the image value as a whole. This is why you can still sell prints from 35mm film even though technically, they are pretty limited when printed large.
Click to expand...
And so what you are trying to tell me is that; people who shoot digital medium format are all incapable artists, totally insecure about themselves, stupid that they don't know any better about MP and prints and are unaccomplished. And companies like Fuji, Hasselblad, Phase One and Pentax are stupid in making those digital medium format bodies and lenses. You know; your statement does not make any sense at all when these products exist for a specific reason!
Click to expand...
If you got that from what I wrote, you need to lay-off the booze.
 
Great Bustard said:
David said:
It really does not matter how you slice and dice it and try to spin it. People buy what they feel they want; not by any logical means.
Click to expand...
For a fact. How logical is it to buy an Audi A5 for twice the price of a Camry? How logical is it to by a 25 / 1.2 over a 25 / 1.4 or 25 / 1.8? How logical is it to buy a camera at all when you don't make income from it?

We are all, first and foremost, emotional beings. Logic is simply a tool that aids or hinders our pursuit of emotional gratification.
Click to expand...
No one reacts rationally and with any logic without living experiences. Human beings are emotionally beings because they seek living experiences. It is through living experiences that we learn what works and does not work for us. It is also through living experiences is how we become more knowledgable about what those products can do for us in photography; be it with MFT, APS-C, full frame, medium and large format.

Devoid of living experiences, human beings go out and seek it. Why do we buy an Audi A5? Because we seek an experience owing and driving the Audi Why do we want to have sex? Because we seek to have that physical experience and the living consequences if you don't use protection! Most photographers have zero physical experience shooting with full frame. All their lives, they have been shooting with smaller sensors. So no, there is no logical explanation why they are all buying full frame. But one thing is for sure. They are all going to have that full frame experience! Now whether it serves their needs or not; that's up to them to decide. Some will keep the full frame; but some will abandon full frame after the initial and possibly last experience.

To make a logical decision is to have that living learned experience, so you won't have to make the same mistake again. For some people, they have to keep re-living the same experiences buying more full frames until they too learned enough and then move on to some other format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lokatz
Noise reduction: Is it worth it? How much improvement?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
6K
Breakfastographer
B
RichDitch
B&W comparisons #1
Replies
2
Views
332
ishwanu
I
lokatz
Noise Reduction: Comparing DxO and LRC
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Vince P
Vince P
Aoyagi
Detail rendering in the G9ii (vs G9) - image heavy
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Aoyagi
Aoyagi
H
Panasonic did something special with the Z6 III sensor
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
10K
Leonard Shepherd
L

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