lightweight camera and system needed.

<p>Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. A Porsche can be driven at or under the speed limit, although I've never actually seen one doing it.</p>

<p>The difference over the last three years is now you can have it all, interchangeable lenses and medium format quality, in a package 30% smaller and lighter than a DSLR and 70% smaller than a medium format camera. Even the new Hasselblad X1D is barely larger than a Leica SL.</p>

<p>I've been having 18 x 24" prints from a 16mp that look great. I consider them big if not "huge". However submitting to a publishing house at 300 dpi you certainly get a lot leeway with a 42 or 36mp camera and its not really overkill, but then again a 24mp camera is not really underkill either.</p>

<p>I agree that 24 MP is ample. I was good with 18 MP in the M9. My main issues with that camera are the limited range of lenses and the difficulty of achieving critical focus at 90 mm, or even 50 mm wide open. However not all legacy lenses will deliver pixel-sharpness at 24 MP. If the pixels are 30% smaller, the problem is compounded. We have seen a revolution in lens quality in the last 5 years, largely driven by higher resolution and mirrorless cameras.</p>

<p>It is considered good practice to move closer and/or isolate your principal subject in 35 mm photography. If the key elements are proportionately larger, resolution of details is less an issue, and you can achieve visual impact in smaller prints.</p>

<p>Medium and large format photography lends itself to larger prints include a broader scope and more visual detail. Even on a smaller scale, commercial photography for example, medium format preserves a sense of texture you don't get at lower resolution. Better lenses and higher resolution in mirrorless cameras have bridged this gap. When I'm shooting landscapes, for example, I'm inclined to compose more along medium format lines than I would with a Nikon or Leica.</p>

<p>If your main priorities are size and weight, resolution probably doesn't matter. For discrete photography, candids and street for example, you probably don't want to use zoom lenses either. Mirrorless cameras with electronic finders are perfect for use with small, prime lenses, including manual focus. To reiterate, you can have it both ways.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have been reading this thread with interest and some skepticism. Truthfully, how many of you have printed a picture this year that was bigger than 15"x20"? If you answer that you have, perhaps you NEED a 36 MP camera. If you answer no, then, well, you don't. This is called MPenvy, like seeing a red Porsche in the parking lot and dreaming of zero-to-60 in 3 seconds.</p>

<p>My story is very similar to the originator of this thread. Canon guy, 5Dii with a load of L lenses. Getting older, arthritic neck. Why am I carrying this stuff? So, I start thinking about downsizing. At that time I was quite impressed with a series of photos published by Michael Reichmann using the Olympus E-M1. I thought, nah that camera has only 16MP. But then I thought that is more than the 'great' Canon 5D classic with 13MP that start the FF revolution. Reichmann touted the lenses available for the m43 system, so I thought why not give it a try? As a Canon guy for more than 30 years, I was shocked by what I found. I started with the E-m1 and the 12-40 mm zoom lens. This lens is roughly equivalent to the Canon 24-70 L f2.8. First, the E-m1 body has much better build quality than the Canon 5Dii; Olympus calls it splash proof and there are numerous videos showing it submerged or drenched in the shower. The E-m1 has many features that the Canon 5Dii (and 5Diii, too) does not have, such as fully functional touch screen, focus bracketing, live bulb, and in body image stabilization that provides about 4 stops improvement. There is an excellent electronic view finder that simulates your exposure, including a live-time histogram and levels and the viewfinder supports many focusing aids, including 14x magnification and zebras. Second, the 12-40 zoom is a gem, sharp wide open, corner to corner. Much lighter than the Canon equivalent. There are a full complement of excellent M43 lenses from Olympus and Panasonic covering from 14-600 mm FF equivalent; many are exemplary, as good as it gets. The primes are really small and light. I print on a 17 inch Epson printer and the prints I can make with the Olympus are better than i achieved with my Canon up to a size at least 16x24." I haven't done it but I am sure I can make excellent prints up to 30x40 inches.</p>

<p>There is no denying that a high MP camera, can make higher quality big prints. But those are really, really big. I have large canvas prints from my old Canon 20D that still look great. But I have to tell you that for landscape work the E-m1 more than holds its own. The E-m5ii, which I also own, includes a high resolution mode useful in some landscape and product photography. The high res mode provides the equivalent of a 36MP camera, with very high image quality that supports very big enlargements.</p>

<p>A major m43 advantage that has not been discussed in this thread is travel. One can select a set of lenses that will cover virtually any landscape or nature assignment and put it in a small carry-on size bag. It will not break your back to carry or lift it. Try that with a full frame system.</p>

<p>Let's talk about the noise. In most cases, I am getting better IQ than the 5Dii ever got. I can shoot at ISO 1600 and expect very good quality with minimal noise reduction. ISO 3200 starts to show some issues but definitely usable if you expose properly. If you need to shoot at ISO 6400 or higher M43 is not for you.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I print on a 17 inch Epson printer and the prints I can make with the Olympus are better than i achieved with my Canon up to a size at least 16x24.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>All I can say is there must have been something wrong with your Canon photography then. One can make great prints with the m4/3, but there is really no need to make a claim of superiority when it comes to image quality as I really do not think there is any hard data to support this. I have an APS-C Canon and a FF Canon and there is no way the APS-C files are as good. You can usually get them pretty well to the same point after processing, which I think is what you are saying. I also don't think there is any extra secret sauce in m4/3 that makes them better than APS-C either.</p>

<p>Most of my prints last year were 18 x 24 on a 16mp M 4/3 format camera. This year switching to a 24mp, I will try some 20 x 30 which should be quite doable at 200 dpi on a large format inkjet.</p>

<p>I'm thinking the 30X40 printer belongs to the top 1% in our country. The top 1% can afford big houses with big walls! Are full frame sensors relegated to the top 1%? So what came first, big walls? Or full frame camera's?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm thinking the 30X40 printer belongs to the top 1% in our country.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> That's (pun intended) rich. Well was the Sistine Chapel built for Michelangelo's Fresco or?</p>

<p>Robin Smith wrote: "All I can say is there must have been something wrong with your Canon photography then. One can make great prints with the m4/3, but there is really no need to make a claim of superiority when it comes to image quality as I really do not think there is any hard data to support this. I have an APS-C Canon and a FF Canon and there is no way the APS-C files are as good. You can usually get them pretty well to the same point after processing, which I think is what you are saying. I also don't think there is any extra secret sauce in m4/3 that makes them better than APS-C either."<br>

Hi Robin, I can see that my writing was a little tough to follow. Let me stipulate that I was not claiming that M43 is better than APS-C or FF. I was comparing the results I got with the Canon 5Dii and my L lenses, mostly zooms versus the Olympus M43 equivalents, arguing that the Olympuss was more than good enough to produce moderately large prints. In claiming superiority of the Olympus E-m1 with, say the 12-40 zoom versus my 5dii and the 24-105 L, I was not attributing the differences to the number of pixels for prints up to 16x24 inches. 16x24 is not very large. There are other factors at play: The 12-40 zoom turns out to have higher contrast and better microcontrast, and it is sharper into the corners than the Canon counterpart. I am claiming that the intrinsic pixel level quality of my M43 gear yielded noticeably better prints, not that it could make bigger prints. Keep in mind that the 5Dii was released in 2009; whereas, the e-m1 was introduced toward the end of 2013. Many of us thought the 5Dii was a real advance. It was and is a great camera, and I made many fine prints with it, but it did have limitations like highlight clipping that made printing some files challenging.<br>

If we did the same comparison with the 5D3 and a well selected lens, I might well prefer the Canon. However, that obscures the story, which is that M43 gear can be significantly lighter than FF while providing roughly similar image quality in a wide range of imaging situations. Inevitably, the FF camera will be able to make better really large prints. Most of do not make prints that large. There is a psychology afoot like the explicit belittling of minivans versus SUVs. Not everybody needs to haul around a FF camera with the attendant heavy lenses. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>to the top 1% in our country</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. Most of the 1% of photographers who need to print this large will (very sensibly) get a commercial company to print these prints for them too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. Most of the 1% of photographers who need to print this large will (very sensibly) get a commercial company to print these prints for them too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is pretty funny. A lot more people print at those sizes then you would think. Do you think the people who participate in this forum are the 99% of photographers? Anyone here who obsessively talks about the best camera, best lens and seems to buy the latest and greatest can absolutely afford a large print now and again. Why else buy all that crap?</p>

<p>Barry: How many people do you know who own a printer capable of printing 30 inch wide prints? Everyone I know who prints pics like this sends them out.</p>

<p>Who really prints large? None of us really know. None of us know how many people have really large printers. We ASSUME that because large printers are expensive, ink and paper costs are as well and, perhaps most important, that we have limited wall space, only a few print large. Unless someone has data, I'm not sure where this is going, and I'm guilty of participating in starting it, oops. Anyway the OP was trying to decide on a camera and lenses, he did not mention print size, as I recall... 6 pages ago :-)</p>

<p>Robin, not one I know of, I'm saying what you are saying, people have them made. There's a ton of places that will make those prints. Did you think I was saying a lot of photographers have large format printers? Didn't mean to make that impression. I thought it was obvious from my post that said in part<br>

"Anyone here who obsessively talks about the best camera, best lens and seems to buy the latest and greatest can absolutely afford a large print now and again.<br>

Sorry if I made that impression.</p>

<p>Perhaps my sarcasm earlier was a bit much, sorry, but certainly affording a large print now and then is fine, but what wall to hang it on? That's what I meant regarding the 1%, they have big walls and a lot of them, I don't unfortunately. I guess those big prints of mine are bugging me as they sit in the plastic sleeves viewed by no one.</p>

<p>Any normal room wall. You don't need a mansion to put up 24" or 30" print Don. But even if you don't hang em, I do about 10 or so a year now and keep them as a portfolio. In my view, printing is really important and there is a certain circulation of creative energy in making a print that is to me different and in some ways better than just web viewing. You store them and they are part of your photographic library.</p>

<p>Barry, I agree. It is important to print and when I'm in the field with camera, I see a scene and think of it on the wall. One doesn't need a mansion, I have 24X30s also on my walls but it takes up space that could have been reserved for smaller versions. I hope I'm not wearing out a redundant point but, if others have the same impulse I do, there is a kind of obsession to print big for both the love and celebration of the scene and also to explore the technical possibilities and push the limits of our equipment to see what its got, Also for the purposes of learning. My thinking today is being careful of print sizing for the logical viewing distance point. When I think of my impression, response to the museum exhibits attended in the past and how I was moved viewing those huge prints, I'm reminded how effective the large print immerses the viewer in the scene. So large prints are very effective in evoking emotion, but those huge walls in galleries and museums are reserved for others.</p>

<p>"Presence of an anti-aliasing filter is likely to degrade the image more for APS-C, since greater enlargement is required for display".</p>

<p>Likely, where did you get the "likely information from"?</p>

<p>"I would like to know how a lens (e.g., Sony 50/1.8) affects whether highlights are blown. I would not equate lack of detail (resolution) in highlights with overexposure".</p>

<p>Simple really, Edward.</p>

<p>When the Sony 55mm to 70mm zoom lens is set to the same aperture, same focal length, it does not blow highlights. There may be many explanations for this but the bottom line it does.</p>

<p>The real point I was making is the importance of editing software. The original photo was awful...if you want me post to it I will.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Any normal room wall. You don't need a mansion to put up 24" or 30" print Don". Barry.</p>

<p>Indeed, however, from a reasonable viewing distance, you would have no idea what format was used. Of course, if you purchased the Sony 50x magnifying glass, you might see those small insignificant textures which are dependant on the correct exposure and the quality of the lens used. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>In the real world....nobody cares what camera/format was used..</p>

<p>They look at the photo and what it communicates....</p>

<p>I agree Allen, it doesn't mean a thing. I just believe in printing, and to fill out the topic a little and make it even more off topic, I will say for me it depends on what I choose to print. Some photos I look at and say, that photo should be as big as I can make it, others I may go, those would be great as a series of 4 x 6's. Format doesn't mean a thing. But I will more easier get a good print at 30" with a 24mp camera than a 16 mp, it just horses for courses. Perhaps when people are making gear choices it's useful to know what they want to use the gear to do.</p>

<p>We are in agreement Barry!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Presence of an anti-aliasing filter is likely to degrade the image more for APS-C, since greater enlargement is required for display".</p>

<p>Allen - Likely, where did you get the "likely information from"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite simple, really, from a basic understanding of physics and optics. An AA filter is a low pass filter based on frequency. The principle and hardware are basically the same regardless of format. The same detail on a smaller format will constitute an higher frequency. Since high frequency detail is reduced by the filter, the greater the enlargement the greater the effect.</p>

<p>Your explanation of the difference between the 50/1.4 and 55/1.8 makes no sense whatsoever. It is circular logic to say it is what it is. Whether the highlights are blown or not can be determined from a histogram of the raw image. The results may be in limit but appear featureless if details in the T-shirt cannot be resolved due to low contrast or camera shake. Featureless highlights are not equivalent to "blown".</p>

<p>Your repeated assertions to this effect for a variety of subjects suggests that the brightness and contrast of your monitor are out of adjustment.</p>

<p>If detail makes no difference, why did Adams drag an 8x10 view camera into the wilderness on mule back. He made fequent use of smaller cameras, but Yosemite was special.</p>

<p>So Edward, what if the APS-C camera doesn't have an AA filter?</p>

<p>Most do but all. The question was how would an AA filter behave differently on a smaller sensor. Even so a combination of low contrast, camera shake and focus may render the T-shirt fabric featureless. It doesn't sound reasonable that one lens would blow highlights but not another, unless the diaphragm is sticking or out of calibration. In that case, one lens would tend to overexpose, which should be fairly easy to distinguish.</p>

<p>It is not hard to (mis) adjust a monitor so that the top stop or so are flat-lined, hence "blown" even if the image is okay. The first step in the calibration process is to get the upper and lower ends of the scale in bounds, using the brightness and contrast controls.</p>