10 million pixel olympus?

[tchatila]

Sure you can't walk up to a print and put your nose to it but from a proper viewing distance the E-500 (and E-1 for that matter) put out excellent prints. In the film days, 35mm was not considered second fiddle to medium format and large format and yet there were many photographers who did great with it. You should take a look at the work of Galen Rowell for instance. I have been in his gallery and seen his prints some at 4x6 feet and let me tell you they are spectacular. If you walk up to them they break up and the detail is just gone but stand a few feet back and you get the full effect.

Don't get lost looking at pixels...stand back and enjoy your pictures.

Let's see, the E-500 can yield an 8x11 inch print at 300dpi without
interpolation. Therefore, a 16x20 inch print at 300dpi requires
significant interpolation, which has to involve some degradation of
image quality. So, when you say that you are pleased with large
prints from this camera, are you really being critical?

--
Tarek

 

[Jon Ragnarsson]

--
http://www.4-3system.com
http://jonr.light.is

 

[Big Ga]

Let's see, the E-500 can yield an 8x11 inch print at 300dpi without
interpolation. Therefore, a 16x20 inch print at 300dpi requires
significant interpolation,

Define significant.

 

[shsdawg]

They are fine to me. That's all that really matters you know. IF you get about 3-4 inches away they might break up just a bit. They are fine at a foot or more. I hang them in my office and get lots of positive comments. I haven't had anyone put their nose to the prints yet though.

 

[Dave Oddie]

The OP specifically said 16x20.

I was assuming this was not a set in stone requirement.

Neither 18x12 nor 24x16 are
'standard' sizes.

Is there such thing as a standard size these days? Photobox who I use for prints has a range of sizes and from the smallest to the largest there is usually a 3:2 and 4:3 equivalent ratio.

If you don't want to crop your image to fit paper you don't have to whether you use 3:2 or 4:3.

Dave

 

[BJL]

Remember when the first "megapixel digicams" arrived? It was a significant milestone at least for marketing and perceptions (and to be fair, also was about enough to match the quality of minilab 4"x6" prints from film).

Double digit megapixels is clearly the next big psychological/marketing target, being rapidly reached in three DSLR sensors (D200, A-100/D80, 400D) all the way down to 1/1.8" and even 1/2.5" format compact digicams. With those tiny digicams doing it, it is bizarre to read predictions that DSLR formats like FourThirds and EF-S would not get to 10MP for a while, due to alleged noise problems or the claim that only high end pros need more than 8MP. (Yes, some people, including some Canon enthusiasts, were predicting that EF-S format would not get to 10MP for a while yet, and maybe never with Canon leaving higher pixel counts to 24x36mm format only --- before the 400D announcement obviously.)

I wonder if further increments from 10MP to 11MP, 12MP, 13MP will be far less enticing to marketing departments, so that resolution increases will only come in useful, substantial increments, like almost doubling pixel count, and only in cameras suited for use with lenses that are sharp enough to keep up.

 

[Tim the Grey]

Forget rumours, then you get the straight dope!

Be it 8, 10, or a 100MP sensor...

However, MP is NOT the be all and end all. I have nice DETAILED shots at 16x20 straight out of my 5MP E-1?

Try some test shots, and buy the camera that gives YOU what you need?

--

1. ######
2. ####_O Tim Yorath
3. #### />
4. #### @ UK.
5. ### \

http://catmangler.smugmug.com/

 

[Robgo2]

I do not mean to be negative, but I am simply asking what standards you have for judging large prints. I am not a digital camera user, but I have been lurking in this forum for some time in the hope that Olympus will eventually produce a camera that will suit my needs. Currently, I shoot with a Contax G2 loaded with Astia 100f. With this combination, I can scan at 5400ppi and make uninterpolated 13x19 inch prints that are serious competition for medium format, even when viewed from less than 12 inches.

So this is the level of quality that I am accustomed to. I believe that the main reason that many viewers prefer digitally captured images is that they are so much cleaner than those from film, even if they are less detailed. The signal to noise ratio is higher and this creates what many consider a "better" image. I'm not disagreeing, just trying to figure out what matters most to me.

 

[tchatila]

I had the same reservations as you about 11x14 (my preferred size) prints from the E-1. I compared my 11x14 prints from the E-1 to Velvia prints of the same subject made from a drum scanner and was delightfully surprised. You are right, not having the grain at iso 100 did make the digital print look a bit better. Up close there was a little extra detail to the film print but the trade off's in cost and ease made going all digital a no brainer for me. I feel that I have been able to grow more as a photographer by having instant feedback and not worrying about having/wasting film.

If you are really thinking of making the jump from film to digital I would suggest downloading some of the samples from the E-500 or whatever camera you are considering and printing them out.

--
Tarek

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

How quickly do you need to make your decision?

I would suggest waiting 2 weeks, just to see. The current lineup is ample, IMO, but if something capable of larger resolutions is 2 weeks away, I would find myself waiting unless its totally necessary to purchase a camera sooner rather than later.

... or maybe pick up an E1 or E300 cheap to get you by until whatever the new E-series cameras might be. You'll have a backup then, not a bad idea for someone looking to sell images.

--

 

[2005magnum]

Standard paper sizes such as 8.5x11.25, 11x14, 13x19 do not require crop with the oly 4:3. I am always cropping with my Canon equipment.
--
http://www.zenfolio.com/digitalphotonut

 

[Robgo2]

Let's see, the E-500 can yield an 8x11 inch print at 300dpi without
interpolation. Therefore, a 16x20 inch print at 300dpi requires
significant interpolation,

Define significant.

I don't have a strict definition. I only know that some detail must be lost in the interpolation process. Obviously, most of the users on this forum are satisfied with the enlargements that they get. In all likelihood, so would I, but Astia 100f, properly scanned, sets a very high standard.

 

[BJL]

I do not understand why people think that 300PPI is a requirement for good prints of any size. That number seems well suited to printing text n books and magazines, and for prints that can handle scrutiny at down to 10" range by people with sharper eyes than mine, but most prints larger than about 8"x10" are typically intended for viewing from a distance more comfortable for most eyes, with about 15" to 20" a typical comfortable viewing distance for large enough prints.

At 15", 200PPI is fine for larger prints, say 11x14 and up, and at 20", 150PPI is fine, and 16x20 prints are probably often viewed from that sort of distance. My middle aged eyes cannot resolve much beyond 200PPI, not matter how close I get.

With the E-500's 2448x3264,
200PPI gives 12.2"x16.3"
150PPI gives about 16.3"x21.8"

A step to 10MP makes a rather slight increase: for the 400D and its 2592x3888
200PPI gives 13"x10.4"
150PPI gives about 17.3"x25.9"

I still look forward to about 3000x4000=12MP in a high end Olympus E-system model in the not too distant future: that would give 15"x20" at 200PPI, going comfortably beyond my print size and detail needs.

 

[julius07]

And in Europe, A3 and A1 are basically 4:3. 42 x 30 cm and 84 x 60
cm. A3 is a respectable print, while A1 is poster-sized. so if
you're in europe, you're practically set with 4/3 system.

Except if you take A4 ;-) or the very popular A6 (10x15) which btw has become a rather "smallish" 10x13 now...

I love the 3:2 format and this brings me into conflict with Oly and the four 3ds system

 

[BJL]

The ISO A paper size are not closer to 4:3 or to 3:2. In particular, A6 is not 10x15cm, it is 10.51x14.87cm.

Instead, the A papers all have the same shape, aspect ratio sqrt(2)=1.414..., exactly midway between 4:3=1.333... and 3:2=1.5. Cropping from either 4:3 or 3:2 to fit any A paper size discards 5.7% of the pixels. Or if you fit all the image onto the page by leaving some of the paper blank, you waste 5.7% of the paper either way.

But it is not clear to me that the aesthetic choices of print shape are dictated by paper shapes designed for convenience in printing documents. I have more confidence in the classic shapes chosen for photographic printing papers, and which have survived a century or more as dominant choices: 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, etc. The first and smallest of these is midway between 4:3 and 3:2; the others are all far closer to 4:3.

 

[BJL]

Standard paper sizes such as 8.5x11.25, 11x14, 13x19 do not require crop with the oly 4:3.

A few corrections:

• 8.5x11.25 is not a standard paper size. Maybe you mean 8.5x11, in which case 4:3 requires a very slight 0.3" crop at the sides (8.5x11.3 would need no crop), while 3:2 requires a far larger 1.75" crop at the sides (8.5x12.75 would need no crop).
• 11x14 is similar to 8.5x11, requiring a far smaller crop from 4:3 (11x14.7 would need no crop) than from 3:2 (11x16.5 would need no crop).
• 13x19 is closer to 3:2, being a new format introduced to fit 3:2 format digital cameras. But I do not see how you can include it on a list of "standard" shapes while omitting 5x7 and 8x10, since I see far more of those two formats than of 13x19 in stores, both papers and in suitable frames, along with far more of 8.5x11.

 

[DaSonyGuy]

--
rose

HI There - I am new to this forum - but I wou ldlike your advice as
I intend to buy my first slr camera - and I would like it to be
Olympus -

However it seems that Olympus doesn't have one that is 10 million
pixel (to compete with the new Canon, Nikon and Sony) - shall I
wait for Olympus to bring one out? any news on this subject? or
shall I buy from a another manufacterer? (I have some olympus lens
from my now old film camera - would they fit the digital camera?)

No, not directly but they might fit with a OM to 4/3's adapter, assuming one is available of course?

Regards

DSG

--
http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/

 

[julius07]

You're right wrt A size, I was using the ISO paper sizes as approximation.
The classical sizes for analog photography are (in cm):
9x13 (1.44)
10x15
13x18 (1.38)
20x30
30x45
40x60
50x75

Does someone know where the "weird" formats 9x13 and 13x18 came from? I guess 9x13 is the classical (european) postcard size?

The ISO A paper size are not closer to 4:3 or to 3:2. In
particular, A6 is not 10x15cm, it is 10.51x14.87cm.

Instead, the A papers all have the same shape, aspect ratio
sqrt(2)=1.414..., exactly midway between 4:3=1.333... and 3:2=1.5.
Cropping from either 4:3 or 3:2 to fit any A paper size discards
5.7% of the pixels. Or if you fit all the image onto the page by
leaving some of the paper blank, you waste 5.7% of the paper either
way.

But it is not clear to me that the aesthetic choices of print shape
are dictated by paper shapes designed for convenience in printing
documents. I have more confidence in the classic shapes chosen for
photographic printing papers, and which have survived a century or
more as dominant choices: 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, etc. The first
and smallest of these is midway between 4:3 and 3:2; the others are
all far closer to 4:3.

 

[Jeff Tokayer]

That would be the output from my LX1's 16:9 format.

Jeff.
--

 

[BJL]

Does someone know where the "weird" formats 9x13 and 13x18 came from?

13x18cm is 5"x7": in fact when I bought Epson 13x18cm paper in Europe, I measures and eh actual dimensiotns are 5"x7", with 13x19cm only a rough conversion.

I have never come across 9x13, but will guess: it is half a sheet of 13x18, so is really half of 5"x7": the old 3.5"x5" format that used to be used for snapshot size prints (and postcards?) in my childhood, before they were upsized to 4"x6". I think that 3.5x5 originated by cutting 5x7 sheets in half.

I guess 9x13 is the classical (european) postcard size?

Me too.