New to m4/3, little dissapointed

I believe in the goodness of people and that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, even if their opinions and the way they express themselves set of alarm bells inside me.

But you sound like a one post troll!

hindesite wrote:

...what on earth is wrong with people round here?

1. username, check
2. number of posts, check
3. exaggerated claims, check
4. lack of information,check
5. dissing on m4/3, check

Yet, despite all that, almost all the replies in the thread are serious?

6. Starts thread then makes no further contribution (has places to go, other folks to troll)

Having much fun?

You know how to pull a leg about pixel peepers and gear heads incapabilities to handle common photography...

Bravo!

Photo Pete wrote:

I wish that people replying to this sort of thread would change the title of their post. I don't know if the OP is a troll or not, but if they are then they have successfully multiplied the chances of a search engine finding hits which indicate disatisfaction with the camera format due to the fact that the title is repeated in each response.

They say "There is no bad publicity"...

I actually think we should take seriously the OP and break down the problem. As the problem isn't in the OP, the problem is actually on the responders not getting few basic things about common photography.

Ulric wrote:

You need to print much, much larger.

You bring up the exact point about common photography requirements and real world limitations.

When looking the OP image, you can see there is nothing wrong in it, contrary it is very sharp and detailed that would definitely be capable to be printed up to 40" with fine details, or then just jump to huge prints like behind your link, where it doesn't anymore matter what megapixel race there is going on.

Martin.au wrote:

800%?

I think you need to stop doing photography. Perhaps take up testing callipers as a hobby.

I think you are one of the few who noticed about that. A 800% enlargement with pixels clearly visible and talking about pixel peeping

And then some say that the kit lenses are soft, while I don't know what kind a details do others here even consider to be expected to be results when looking at those 800% ones where your details are down to single pixel size! You can't go sharper than that!

But pixel peeping, like gear headiness is a serious illness and it is difficult to be cured from it. Like look the OP post, says that the prints looks great but then the digital image looks soft. That is because two totally different mediums, different outputs, different ways to use the photographs etc. A pixel peeped digital image can show serious differences, but huge prints can show no noticeable difference (negligent difference) that puts every compared photo to be identical, or so close to such that it doesn't matter.

800% and those details in the flowers or the stick and seems that the lady has had stockings, and people say that 4/3" can't deliver details for large prints?

But if the illness of pixel peeping is so advanced, it requires more common photography to be done. And for that a E-M5 with a kit lens (what lens?) will still today perform great what comes about sensor. But I wouldn't buy a E-M5 used, if used a too little or too much, so you can see it is "driven in" and "not weared out" either.

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I blew up one of my images shot at ISO 12000, Aperture F22 and when blown up to billboard size when looked at with a 15 power loupe, it is not perfectly sharp!

Did you calibrate your printer heads? Sounds like they are knocked off....

Add a small amount of diamond dust to the sensor to sharpen the image.

Tommi K1 wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

I wish that people replying to this sort of thread would change the title of their post. I don't know if the OP is a troll or not, but if they are then they have successfully multiplied the chances of a search engine finding hits which indicate disatisfaction with the camera format due to the fact that the title is repeated in each response.

They say "There is no bad publicity"...

They also used to say the world was flat

I actually think we should take seriously the OP and break down the problem. As the problem isn't in the OP, the problem is actually on the responders not getting few basic things about common photography.

Yes. The OP should be advised with responses which are informative and respectful... each posted under a suitable new post title which reflects the response, rather than just a reiteration of the original title. Changing the post title is good posting etiquette anyway.

But, hey, it's a forum and people are free to post how they want as long as it doesn't contravene the dpreview forum rules.

Photo Pete wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

I actually think we should take seriously the OP and break down the problem. As the problem isn't in the OP, the problem is actually on the responders not getting few basic things about common photography.

Yes. The OP should be advised with responses which are informative and respectful... each posted under a suitable new post title which reflects the response, rather than just a reiteration of the original title. Changing the post title is good posting etiquette anyway.

But, hey, it's a forum and people are free to post how they want as long as it doesn't contravene the dpreview forum rules.

Perhaps you might have noticed that the OP, which 'should be taken seriously', has only 1 post - this one - done 22 hours ago?  Which means that they aren't even serious enough to reply to their only post after almost 1 day?

Yes, the post may be an honest one but the signs are not promising.

hindesite wrote:

...what on earth is wrong with people round here?

1. username, check
2. number of posts, check
3. exaggerated claims, check
4. lack of information,check
5. dissing on m4/3, check

Yet, despite all that, almost all the replies in the thread are serious?

... can we lock this thread please?