Micro 4/3 is now beating several cameras with larger sensors

[Allen Herbert]

"Allen, i think you are confusing pixel count issues with sensor size issues.

Yes, you can tell without having things blown up to Empire State Building proportions. If you can't... well... you said something about, what was it? "Sad lot"?" Q.C

 

Those silly manufactures confusing pixel count with size issues. Thankfully, you are there to correct them. What would they do without you!

 

Probable being a sad lot;)

[Allen Herbert]

12×18, 14×22, 16×20 and 20×30. Print sizes.

 

You would nor tell difference between formats. This has been proved time and time again..

 

Yes, cropping, low light performance. And obviously there's the Leica glow on any print size;)

[q.g._de_bakker]

Those silly manufactures confusing pixel count with size issues. Thankfully, you are there to correct them. What would they do without you!

 

Probable being a sad lot;)

What manufacturers?

No, Allen. You. You still do.

 

And yes, you can tell 22 MP from a m43 and 22 MP from a MF sensor apart. On prints you can hold in your hand.

[Allen Herbert]

"And yes, you can tell 22 MP from a m43 and 22 MP from a MF sensor apart. On prints you can hold in your hand" Q.G.

 

Unless you are sitting on a toadstool in fairy land, with one of those long pipes of happiness, you won' t . Maybe you have;)

 

In the real world you cannot on screen or print. I would link you to examples, but it would be pointless...when you are in the fairy land of make believe. Or, should I say, the make believe world of marketing.

 

Be happy, with your so called full frame. Believe it is the best, if it makes you happy.;)

[Allen Herbert]

What sensor size was used?

 

 

 

[Allen Herbert]

And far far far beyond sensor size is what the images portrays and communicates.

[q.g._de_bakker]

What sensor size was used?

 

[ATTACH=full]1419986[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=full]1419987[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=full]1419988[/ATTACH]

Aw shucks! You got me there bad!

Tiny pictures (2.5" prints) are too difficult for me.

 

Allen, i regularly use digital formats from extremely tiny m43, through too small still DX, and FX. And from 'FX-Square' (36.9 x 36.9) to 40 x 54 mm, and upto about 4x the area, 80 x 100 mm.

You can believe me that there is a quite visible difference, that is not due to pixel count, but to pixel size. If you do not, fine.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Here's a couple of 4/3s. I tend to agree with Q.G., that sensor size does matter, especially when you start looking at Medium Format, but you can get decent prints with 4/3 up to 18 or 20" in some cases. These 2 were printed at that size and looked good, at least I thought.

18671368-orig.jpg

Edited March 14, 2022 by http://www.photo.net/barryfisher

[Gary Naka]

If the resolution of the print is finer than what your eye can see, it does not matter. You can't see the pixels.

 

YEARS ago I did a company group pic with a 6MP camera, and printed a 16x20 for display.

If you did not stick your nose up to the print, and looked at it from about 5 feet away, it was just fine.

 

This is similar to half tone printing in newspapers and magazines.

They only print BLACK ink, grey is created by using smaller dots of black on white paper, so that your eye thinks grey.

Look at a magazine picture with a magnifying glass, and you can see the dots.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Gary said "If the resolution of the print is finer than what your eye can see, it does not matter. You can't see the pixels."

Of course, and this comes into play when you start to print larger then your camera's/lens resolution can capture. But the other factor is not only resolution, but pixel size and that matters also in terms of noise, color and capturing light.

[Robin Smith]

but pixel size and that matters also in terms of noise, color and capturing light.

 

Very commonly stated, but I am not sure this is correct. I would rather say it is largely due to sensor design and the degree of miniaturisation rather than just the pixels. I agree with Gary though. Of course, once a print gets very large then resolution of lack thereof will begin to tell. How much it will matter will depend on the observer's views/prejudices, the strength of the image, and the image content. Anyway, how many people actually print anything and how many who do routinely print more than one "very large" print in a year?

[Allen Herbert]

"Aw shucks! You got me there bad!

Tiny pictures (2.5" prints) are too difficult for me." Q.G.

 

"And yes, you can tell 22 MP from a m43 and 22 MP from a MF sensor apart. On prints you can hold in your hand" Q.G.

 

Pray do tell what size prints can you hold in your hand? I'll try to accommodate;)

 

"You can believe me that there is a quite visible difference, that is not due to pixel count, but to pixel size. If you do not, fine" Q.G.

 

The visible difference is due to the familiarity with your cameras and their signature. Try getting your friends to do a blind test.

 

A while back ,Luminous landscapes did a blind test on a Canon P/S ,and a Hasselblad Phase digital back. Suffice to say 50% thought the Canon P/S was the Hasselblad....they were all professional photographers!. There are other examples.

 

And of course technology is always on the move to miniaturize. Bigger does not mean better, in the electronic world. Film, yes, electronics....a different story altogether.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Allen Herbert

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Very commonly stated, but I am not sure this is correct. I would rather say it is largely due to sensor design and the degree of miniaturisation rather than just the pixels.

I agree with Gary though. Of course, once a print gets very large then resolution of lack thereof will begin to tell. How much it will matter will depend on the observer's views/prejudices, the strength of the image, and the image content. Anyway, how many people actually print anything and how many who do routinely print more than one "very large" print in a year?

 

No argument here except to say I think design, includes the size, efficiency and quality of the pixels and all the other amazing things that are being done.

 

I don't print large often due to expense, but when I do, it's usually several big prints, and at that point, all these factors do count.

[dmanthree]

Cherry-picking a few metrics doesn't tell the whole story, not even close. For example, I can state with complete confidence that the Canon R5 destroys any m4/3 in 8K video quality.

 

See how that works?

[Karim Ghantous]

Cherry-picking a few metrics doesn't tell the whole story, not even close. For example, I can state with complete confidence that the Canon R5 destroys any m4/3 in 8K video quality.

 

See how that works?

In my original post, I wrote, "Cameras like the SL-2, A1, Z7, R5 all have something that the MFT cameras don't have." And, further, because we all should know this stuff, save for people who just discovered photography yesterday, I didn't even need to write that.

[dmanthree]

In my original post, I wrote, "Cameras like the SL-2, A1, Z7, R5 all have something that the MFT cameras don't have." And, further, because we all should know this stuff, save for people who just discovered photography yesterday, I didn't even need to write that.

 

Shoot, if "we all know this stuff" I guess there was no need to post it in the first place?

 

;-)

 

Don't get me wrong; I really like m4/3. But I guess these comparisons are wearing a little thing. All cameras have strengths and weaknesses, so we just use the tools to the best of their and our ability.

[Karim Ghantous]

Shoot, if "we all know this stuff" I guess there was no need to post it in the first place?

When you are proposing an argument, it's accepted practice to list at least one argument contra your position. It's perhaps more of an academic formality, but it is common practice.