this is why 20MP is not enough

Why do you need to go behind 1:1 on the screen? For 99% of photographic uses 20 mpx is more than enough.
personally I do really not understand all this madness about the 20 max resolution of the OM-1.
It looks like on this site that is all about specification all what it matter is the number of pixel. The camera is completly new but here once people read the magic number 20 mox just stop to read further and state that is just the same as previously camera. ... black bla
I have nothing against more megapixel but should not be the priority. I think they put focus on more important things that pixel number and the camera looks very promizing to me.
I use also camera with 5 time more pixel than the OM-1 ... and if a photo is nice and interesting and printed or viewed at the right size nobody in the real world care about which camera has been used and how many pixel it has.
 
When the statement can be seen as all encompassing, there lies some issues. But some of the responses are just plain wrong. If folks can see the times when 20MP is hardly enough, then they aren't on Planet Earth. I crop a ton, sometimes in an huge way.

7b78ddd72cbf4296a1bf7e6172f3603c.jpg

60dcedccc7cf4920a81fccec40fd4b94.jpg

You can only get so much focal length. These samples are just an rough sample of what I see in the real world. Getting the critical focus is hard enough, but if I had gotten it, more MP would have been wonderful for my objective, identifying the specific bird type with more certainty .
I would have quickly deleted these in camera and not bothered zooming in at all. More megapixels would not have helped these shots.

But ,,, you would have a winner if the animal in the second one was a Bigfoot.
 
Putting something like this on this subforum with OMS just releasing a new camera with the same resolution of 5 years ago is going to expose you to a lot of battering!
That's exactly why I made this post. Since 2016, the first 20mp m43 camera, the screen resolutions have drastically increased on both laptops and smartphones.
I expect you will be preordering the GH6 or moving format!
I'm reading all the angry comments from all the angry Olympus users, I included the EXIF to show it was shot on my em1-3. I use Olympus too you know....

I also learned if I improve my composition, suddenly the resolution of my camera will magically increase.

--
...
 
Last edited:
Putting something like this on this subforum with OMS just releasing a new camera with the same resolution of 5 years ago is going to expose you to a lot of battering!
That's exactly why I made this post. Since 2016, the first 20mp m43 camera, the screen resolutions have drastically increased on both laptops and smartphones.
OTOH your eye hardware has probably degraded.
I expect you will be preordering the GH6 or moving format!
I'm sure the 12% increase in linear resolution will be revolutionary, just as it was from 16->20 megapixels.
I'm reading all the angry comments from all the angry Olympus users, I included the EXIF to show it was shot on my em1-3. I use Olympus too you know....

I also learned if I improve my composition, suddenly the resolution of my camera will magically increase.
So how fast would HHHR have to be for you to use it - a shot like this seems like a perfect candidate, as long as it's not windy.
 
You said "Nobody cares about composition".

Valuing sharpness and resolution over content and composition is 90% of the problem with modern digital photography. I may not be much of a photographer, but I know that if a photo has poor content and composition, adding pixels will not help a bit.
 
Putting something like this on this subforum with OMS just releasing a new camera with the same resolution of 5 years ago is going to expose you to a lot of battering!
That's exactly why I made this post. Since 2016, the first 20mp m43 camera, the screen resolutions have drastically increased on both laptops and smartphones.
I expect you will be preordering the GH6 or moving format!
I'm reading all the angry comments from all the angry Olympus users, I included the EXIF to show it was shot on my em1-3. I use Olympus too you know....

I also learned if I improve my composition, suddenly the resolution of my camera will magically increase.
Exactly. One problem you have on your image is that you are shooting obliquely across the flower and this means that there is high demand on DOF especially with high magnification (subject important in the frame).
 
Putting something like this on this subforum with OMS just releasing a new camera with the same resolution of 5 years ago is going to expose you to a lot of battering!
That's exactly why I made this post. Since 2016, the first 20mp m43 camera, the screen resolutions have drastically increased on both laptops and smartphones.
But still well below 20MP.
I expect you will be preordering the GH6 or moving format!
I'm reading all the angry comments from all the angry Olympus users, I included the EXIF to show it was shot on my em1-3. I use Olympus too you know....
"20MP" was in the thread title, not "Olympus".
I also learned if I improve my composition, suddenly the resolution of my camera will magically increase.
Who said that? 8MP is plenty to get a photo of a sunflower sharp enough for monitor display - especially with the excellent 25mm f1.8.

Perhaps some became frustrated at by your reluctance to address the fundamental problem. If you took that same photo at the same ISO and exposure with the highest resolution medium format camera available it would look no better - maybe, with a shallower depth of field, even worse. Well-intentioned people are trying to help you with a potentially costly decision.

There are many good reasons to consider a larger format but photographing sunflowers is not one. What I humbly suggest you do is look into the subject a bit. Here is a video I found on the subject from Youtube:

And, sorry I'm a week late but Happy Valentine's Day!
 
Go back 14 years ago on the Olympus forum and there was a user who had his photos published as billboard ads even showed photos of the billboards. 5mp e1
The basics are - if a file makes a good 8x10 inch print, then that same file can be printed to any size as long as it is viewed at the"correct" distance. The distance usually quoted as the diagonal measure or 10 inches, whichever is longer.

A clean 4MP or 5MP file is all that is needed for an acceptable 8x10 inch print. 20MP is overkill for a billboard.

Once I wandered past guys assembling a roadside LED billboard near Sydney airport. The LEDs were spaced maybe 2 inches apart, yet later from the road the sign looked perfect. Up close it was a dotty horror.

Summary: Pixel peeping is bad for photography. :-)
 
There are people who needs higher MP. If this system is not working for you, there are other brands to look into that matches your need.

Besides FF from Sony, Nikon & Canon, Fuji offers medium format with 100MP. If you need only basic high resolution, the A7r.3 is at a very good price point now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dav
Is it that much worse than 24MP resolution (very common in FF)?
yes, because 24MP FF is in 3:2 and there's more room to zoom in. A 20mp M43 because of the 4:3 ratio gives the experience of zooming into an 18mp FF camera.
Look again; The vertical height difference between a 24mp 3:2 aspect ratio camera and a 20mp 4:3 camera is 112 pixels. That’s negligible. Do a quick comparison with DPR’s image comparison feature - you’ll see that things only appear fractionally larger in a 24mp 3:2 sensor. Unless you get to 30mp or more the size difference is meaningless.

--
NHT
 
Last edited:
You can upscale an image. There are some pretty good algorithms for it these days.

Or get a different camera with more megapixels if it's a show stopper for you. But also make sure that you get lenses that can take advantage of that resolution and make sure you shoot at high enough ISO to further eliminate motion blur.
 
@FunnyValentine - I think you've pretty well managed to convince everyone here that more megapixels are better, and 20 really is not enough. I know I'm completely convinced but I'm confused now.

How many megapixels exactly *is* enough?

I (and perhaps Olympus and Panasonic) are waiting desperately to know.

Please help. 🙏
 
The presence of HR and HHR on the latest cameras nullifies this argument, at least within the limitations of those features.

"I can't fit this big screen TV in the back of my hatchback which means my car is too small to carry such TVs."

"Did you fold the rear seat down?"

"No..."

Also, checking the various end uses my clients have for my photos, I can't find any who need to be able to zoom in on high resolution displays. I make sure I work within the limitations of my gear, as do most working photographers. ;-)
 
@FunnyValentine - I think you've pretty well managed to convince everyone here that more megapixels are better, and 20 really is not enough. I know I'm completely convinced but I'm confused now.

How many megapixels exactly *is* enough?

I (and perhaps Olympus and Panasonic) are waiting desperately to know.

Please help. 🙏
No, I don’t think you’re at all confused as I’m sure that you know there is no exact answer to your trick question.

The number varies with the application - why the image is being captured, how it will be viewed and by how much the user needs to crop it.

In that respect more is usually better than less.

Q: How much power and torque do it need in my car ?

A: depends on the steepness of the hills, how many passengers I will be carrying and what load I’m towing (among other factors)

Peter
 
Last edited:
[No message]
 
Or you could use focus stacking with that macro. Its always best to not use a unique function of your camera that might have nailed it then post it as as a deficiency.
 
Last edited:
So, like how many, then?
 
Last edited:
So, like how many, then?
Give me a photographic scenario including subject, focal length, range to subject, intended use, how the image will be viewed and or printed at what size and then I can tell you how many pixels * I * would probably be happy with

I shoot a lot of small birds and my focal length is limited to the largest lenses I can comfortably carry and use by hand. Under those circumstances I find the 20M m4/3 sensor to give me a lot more reach than my 30M FF - puts more pixels on the bird

However for larger and closer subjects the 30M FF sensor can put more pixels on my bird.

If I had a 50M FF camera I'd get even more pixels on the bird and the image would probably look better and/or I could crop deeper and get away with a smaller lighter lens

so like give me a scenario and I'll try to answer.
Otherwise I can tell you that having more pixels would give me more options in most circumstances, but more pixels generally cost more just like a car with more power and torque generally costs more to run but that power is there when I need it.

How much money do you need ?

Peter
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top