Interesting video on large prints using M4/3's

[DtBB]

Firstly, full disclosure, I don't have any m4/3's gear, I have previously and used to own the camera used in this test - the original OMD EM5, which I thought was a very good camera. However, I do still have a soft spot for Olympus in particular and I thought the test was a good test and very fair in it's summation.

Steve O'nions (yes that is his real name) is an excellent photographer who often shoots medium format film, which is why I follow him, and yes, he really does know his onions, anyway, see what you think. No surprises for me personally, but should be of value to those who might not know. The video is only 14 minutes long and worth a watch IMHO.

And then in the end he says that FF will have better prints. Come on.

Well yes, he made the point because obviously someone watching it would probably call that out, that doesn't mean his demonstration was without merit.

Might not be without merit but it is sure clickbait title and makes the whole comparison meaningless.

It is like saying that MF is not useful because I can computationally enhance FF photos with the PC. It is true but only you employ a myriad of techniques.

Also, that was a static scene. Why not doing the same with dogs racing? Thats right. He can't.

I know I can print big from a cell phone if I stack images also. Heck even Apple had a billboard with an iPhone image.

Yes, well you can come on and make that kind of meaningless comment instead of doing what he did, and produce something of value to help others, it's easy to shout meaningless statements from the sidelines instead of being productive and informative, not very impressive though.

LOL!!!!

Or it can be that this video is doing what he intended: showcase to the gullible that FF is not necessary because I can stitch 50 images and stack 100 more of a static scene to achieve FF levels of ISO and sharpness.

I would dare to say that the fact YOU didnt know this impresses me. All of these techniques have been used since the dawn of Digital Image making.

I guess I can't expect much if you were impressed by this right?

Research some techniques on how to improve dynamic range and sharpness. Now THOSE are impressive.

 

[absquatulate]

Firstly, full disclosure, I don't have any m4/3's gear, I have previously and used to own the camera used in this test - the original OMD EM5, which I thought was a very good camera. However, I do still have a soft spot for Olympus in particular and I thought the test was a good test and very fair in it's summation.

Steve O'nions (yes that is his real name) is an excellent photographer who often shoots medium format film, which is why I follow him, and yes, he really does know his onions, anyway, see what you think. No surprises for me personally, but should be of value to those who might not know. The video is only 14 minutes long and worth a watch IMHO.

And then in the end he says that FF will have better prints. Come on.

Well yes, he made the point because obviously someone watching it would probably call that out, that doesn't mean his demonstration was without merit.

I see your point but some of the youtube photo channels do tend to contradict themselves. I once saw a video by a pro shooter telling everyone why THEY do not need FF { which is a perfectly fair point } unfortunately he had a Hassleblad MF digital camera sitting in front of him

I think he was pretty clear about the difference, whilst still demonstrating that you can make very large prints from a 16mp m4/3's camera. I take your point about the Hasselblad but Steve O'nions does actually shoot with m4/3's cameras as well, for landscape work. I've got no skin in the game with m4/3's, so it makes no odds to me, I just thought those obsessing about the next greatest thing might understand it's really not necessary for large prints. FWIW I still shoot with the original 12mp X100 and I don't worry at all about larger print sizes being good enough.

I know I can print big from a cell phone if I stack images also. Heck even Apple had a billboard with an iPhone image.

Yes, well you can come on and make that kind of meaningless comment instead of doing what he did, and produce something of value to help others, it's easy to shout meaningless statements from the sidelines instead of being productive and informative, not very impressive though.

 

[James Stirling]

Firstly, full disclosure, I don't have any m4/3's gear, I have previously and used to own the camera used in this test - the original OMD EM5, which I thought was a very good camera. However, I do still have a soft spot for Olympus in particular and I thought the test was a good test and very fair in it's summation.

Steve O'nions (yes that is his real name) is an excellent photographer who often shoots medium format film, which is why I follow him, and yes, he really does know his onions, anyway, see what you think. No surprises for me personally, but should be of value to those who might not know. The video is only 14 minutes long and worth a watch IMHO.

And then in the end he says that FF will have better prints. Come on.

Well yes, he made the point because obviously someone watching it would probably call that out, that doesn't mean his demonstration was without merit.

I see your point but some of the youtube photo channels do tend to contradict themselves. I once saw a video by a pro shooter telling everyone why THEY do not need FF { which is a perfectly fair point } unfortunately he had a Hassleblad MF digital camera sitting in front of him

I think he was pretty clear about the difference, whilst still demonstrating that you can make very large prints from a 16mp m4/3's camera. I take your point about the Hasselblad but Steve O'nions does actually shoot with m4/3's cameras as well, for landscape work. I've got no skin in the game with m4/3's, so it makes no odds to me, I just thought those obsessing about the next greatest thing might understand it's really not necessary for large prints. FWIW I still shoot with the original 12mp X100 and I don't worry at all about larger print sizes being good enough.

I have made 30x20 prints from my 12mp GF1 and at a suitable viewing distance they look good. However I think that depending on the subject a large print encourages folk to look closer. I have a 72" wide panoramic shot made from 6 stitched files from my A7rIII and everyone who looks invariably moves in closer to see the fine details

I have not come across Mr Onions before just making an observation about youtube photography channels in general

I know I can print big from a cell phone if I stack images also. Heck even Apple had a billboard with an iPhone image.

Yes, well you can come on and make that kind of meaningless comment instead of doing what he did, and produce something of value to help others, it's easy to shout meaningless statements from the sidelines instead of being productive and informative, not very impressive though.

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 

[absquatulate]

Firstly, full disclosure, I don't have any m4/3's gear, I have previously and used to own the camera used in this test - the original OMD EM5, which I thought was a very good camera. However, I do still have a soft spot for Olympus in particular and I thought the test was a good test and very fair in it's summation.

Steve O'nions (yes that is his real name) is an excellent photographer who often shoots medium format film, which is why I follow him, and yes, he really does know his onions, anyway, see what you think. No surprises for me personally, but should be of value to those who might not know. The video is only 14 minutes long and worth a watch IMHO.

And then in the end he says that FF will have better prints. Come on.

Well yes, he made the point because obviously someone watching it would probably call that out, that doesn't mean his demonstration was without merit.

I see your point but some of the youtube photo channels do tend to contradict themselves. I once saw a video by a pro shooter telling everyone why THEY do not need FF { which is a perfectly fair point } unfortunately he had a Hassleblad MF digital camera sitting in front of him

I think he was pretty clear about the difference, whilst still demonstrating that you can make very large prints from a 16mp m4/3's camera. I take your point about the Hasselblad but Steve O'nions does actually shoot with m4/3's cameras as well, for landscape work. I've got no skin in the game with m4/3's, so it makes no odds to me, I just thought those obsessing about the next greatest thing might understand it's really not necessary for large prints. FWIW I still shoot with the original 12mp X100 and I don't worry at all about larger print sizes being good enough.

I have made 30x20 prints from my 12mp GF1 and at a suitable viewing distance they look good. However I think that depending on the subject a large print encourages folk to look closer. I have a 72" wide panoramic shot made from 6 stitched files from my A7rIII and everyone who looks invariably moves in closer to see the fine details

I have not come across Mr Onions before just making an observation about youtube photography channels in general

Sure, I take the point, there are good and bad, I trust his opinion, he's knows his stuff, he seems to have made a good living from the profession.

I know I can print big from a cell phone if I stack images also. Heck even Apple had a billboard with an iPhone image.

Yes, well you can come on and make that kind of meaningless comment instead of doing what he did, and produce something of value to help others, it's easy to shout meaningless statements from the sidelines instead of being productive and informative, not very impressive though.

 

[James Stirling]

Firstly, full disclosure, I don't have any m4/3's gear, I have previously and used to own the camera used in this test - the original OMD EM5, which I thought was a very good camera. However, I do still have a soft spot for Olympus in particular and I thought the test was a good test and very fair in it's summation.

Steve O'nions (yes that is his real name) is an excellent photographer who often shoots medium format film, which is why I follow him, and yes, he really does know his onions, anyway, see what you think. No surprises for me personally, but should be of value to those who might not know. The video is only 14 minutes long and worth a watch IMHO.

And then in the end he says that FF will have better prints. Come on.

Well yes, he made the point because obviously someone watching it would probably call that out, that doesn't mean his demonstration was without merit.

I see your point but some of the youtube photo channels do tend to contradict themselves. I once saw a video by a pro shooter telling everyone why THEY do not need FF { which is a perfectly fair point } unfortunately he had a Hassleblad MF digital camera sitting in front of him

I think he was pretty clear about the difference, whilst still demonstrating that you can make very large prints from a 16mp m4/3's camera. I take your point about the Hasselblad but Steve O'nions does actually shoot with m4/3's cameras as well, for landscape work. I've got no skin in the game with m4/3's, so it makes no odds to me, I just thought those obsessing about the next greatest thing might understand it's really not necessary for large prints. FWIW I still shoot with the original 12mp X100 and I don't worry at all about larger print sizes being good enough.

I have made 30x20 prints from my 12mp GF1 and at a suitable viewing distance they look good. However I think that depending on the subject a large print encourages folk to look closer. I have a 72" wide panoramic shot made from 6 stitched files from my A7rIII and everyone who looks invariably moves in closer to see the fine details

I have not come across Mr Onions before just making an observation about youtube photography channels in general

Sure, I take the point, there are good and bad, I trust his opinion, he's knows his stuff, he seems to have made a good living from the profession.

I am a landscape guy myself so I will have a wee gander at some of his videos

I know I can print big from a cell phone if I stack images also. Heck even Apple had a billboard with an iPhone image.

Yes, well you can come on and make that kind of meaningless comment instead of doing what he did, and produce something of value to help others, it's easy to shout meaningless statements from the sidelines instead of being productive and informative, not very impressive though.

 

[Harry_Worth]

Fascinating, thank you for sharing.

 

[absquatulate]

Firstly, full disclosure, I don't have any m4/3's gear, I have previously and used to own the camera used in this test - the original OMD EM5, which I thought was a very good camera. However, I do still have a soft spot for Olympus in particular and I thought the test was a good test and very fair in it's summation.

Steve O'nions (yes that is his real name) is an excellent photographer who often shoots medium format film, which is why I follow him, and yes, he really does know his onions, anyway, see what you think. No surprises for me personally, but should be of value to those who might not know. The video is only 14 minutes long and worth a watch IMHO.

And then in the end he says that FF will have better prints. Come on.

Well yes, he made the point because obviously someone watching it would probably call that out, that doesn't mean his demonstration was without merit.

I see your point but some of the youtube photo channels do tend to contradict themselves. I once saw a video by a pro shooter telling everyone why THEY do not need FF { which is a perfectly fair point } unfortunately he had a Hassleblad MF digital camera sitting in front of him

I think he was pretty clear about the difference, whilst still demonstrating that you can make very large prints from a 16mp m4/3's camera. I take your point about the Hasselblad but Steve O'nions does actually shoot with m4/3's cameras as well, for landscape work. I've got no skin in the game with m4/3's, so it makes no odds to me, I just thought those obsessing about the next greatest thing might understand it's really not necessary for large prints. FWIW I still shoot with the original 12mp X100 and I don't worry at all about larger print sizes being good enough.

I have made 30x20 prints from my 12mp GF1 and at a suitable viewing distance they look good. However I think that depending on the subject a large print encourages folk to look closer. I have a 72" wide panoramic shot made from 6 stitched files from my A7rIII and everyone who looks invariably moves in closer to see the fine details

I have not come across Mr Onions before just making an observation about youtube photography channels in general

Sure, I take the point, there are good and bad, I trust his opinion, he's knows his stuff, he seems to have made a good living from the profession.

I am a landscape guy myself so I will have a wee gander at some of his videos

He shoots medium and large format film on some of them, but they're still worth a watch even if you only shoot digital ( i shoot both ).

I know I can print big from a cell phone if I stack images also. Heck even Apple had a billboard with an iPhone image.

Yes, well you can come on and make that kind of meaningless comment instead of doing what he did, and produce something of value to help others, it's easy to shout meaningless statements from the sidelines instead of being productive and informative, not very impressive though.

 

[Walt Palmer]

That seems a somewhat spurious argument. Referencing your own misconception to debunk it is a new logical fallacy that has gained popularity from the political realms.

The video, and this thread, do not put forth that a particular sensor or film size is "useless". The video is showing that the author is happy with his MFT gear producing 36x16" prints. The author uses various formats in his work. But he is showing that 6x6 is not required to make large prints.

So the argument that FF is useless is truly ridiculous, but you made that argument, no one else. A logical fallacy that might get added to the old Greek standards someday.

 

[absquatulate]

Firstly, full disclosure, I don't have any m4/3's gear, I have previously and used to own the camera used in this test - the original OMD EM5, which I thought was a very good camera. However, I do still have a soft spot for Olympus in particular and I thought the test was a good test and very fair in it's summation.

Steve O'nions (yes that is his real name) is an excellent photographer who often shoots medium format film, which is why I follow him, and yes, he really does know his onions, anyway, see what you think. No surprises for me personally, but should be of value to those who might not know. The video is only 14 minutes long and worth a watch IMHO.

And then in the end he says that FF will have better prints. Come on.

Well yes, he made the point because obviously someone watching it would probably call that out, that doesn't mean his demonstration was without merit.

Might not be without merit but it is sure clickbait title and makes the whole comparison meaningless.

"M4/3's is good enough for large prints" is a "clickbait title"? seriously? it describes exactly what he demonstrates.

It is like saying that MF is not useful because I can computationally enhance FF photos with the PC. It is true but only you employ a myriad of techniques.
Also, that was a static scene. Why not doing the same with dogs racing? Thats right. He can't.

Bizarre, he didn't compare it to anything else, he just demonstrated that you can make large prints with m4/3's cameras, are you sure you watched the same video? Did he make any claims reference "dog racing"? or anything else apart from shooting landscapes on a tripod?

I know I can print big from a cell phone if I stack images also. Heck even Apple had a billboard with an iPhone image.

Yes, well you can come on and make that kind of meaningless comment instead of doing what he did, and produce something of value to help others, it's easy to shout meaningless statements from the sidelines instead of being productive and informative, not very impressive though.

LOL!!!!
Or it can be that this video is doing what he intended: showcase to the gullible that FF is not necessary because I can stitch 50 images and stack 100 more of a static scene to achieve FF levels of ISO and sharpness.

More weirdness, he shot landscapes on tripod, he made no claims against FF, just that you can make large prints from m4/3's, which he clearly demonstrated you can, you can take your tinfoil hat off now.

I would dare to say that the fact YOU didnt know this impresses me.

Well actually I made the point in my OP that I was aware, or at least alluded to it, so more things you're making up.

All of these techniques have been used since the dawn of Digital Image making.
I guess I can't expect much if you were impressed by this right?

I didn't say I was impressed, I said it was an interesting video, I'm well aware that you can print large sizes with a relatively meagre pixel count, I've done it myself.

Research some techniques on how to improve dynamic range and sharpness. Now THOSE are impressive.

He didn't need to improve dynamic range and sharpness, he had plenty, because he was shooting on a tripod at base ISO. Thanks for the patronising narrative in which you somehow you surmised that 2+2=5, but FWIW, I've shot digital for years and shoot film up to large format, so trying to patronise me about things that were never claimed or demonstrated probably isn't going to work.

 

[cameralight]

Agreed.

Reading some comments here sometimes it's easy to forget that this forum has a rule number six.

 

[Albert Valentino]

Thanks for posting. I have watched several videos on this topic and the results always show how good the system is, contrary to what the FF bullies shout about

If one can get those results using 2012 technology and a consumer lens, then we know there is plenty of wiggle room if one is using the newer 20mp sensors and Pro grade lenses. Plus, if we get into the high resolution modes with better DR, even less noise, the capabilities of the system exceed 99% of most users needs.

--
If you don't get older and wiser, than you just get older.

 

[Alex Ethridge]

Interesting.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[junk1]

I think he said he used a graduated filter to help dynamic range (make the sky darker).

 

[absquatulate]

I think he said he used a graduated filter to help dynamic range (make the sky darker).

Yes, the same sort of filter that Landscape shooters who use FF would also use, or any format for that matter, because it's an essential piece of kit for any Landscape photographer. I've shot will all formats, none will cope with a bright sunrise (which inevitably causes deep shadows) without one.

 

[MyReality]

Some people do not listen when they watch videos. He admitted that FF would produce a better print with less noise, but he said he does not always need that, so he takes the lighter gear.

 

[George1958]

I’m not surprised , I have seen large prints from M4/3 cameras at my local club. Prints, especially large ones seem to be a minority interest v the proportion of images posted on line. However the point is well made, you can deliver large high quality prints using M4/3 gear.