Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Resolution limits of MFT sensors ?
#11
How can I know what I need?

How can I extrapolate the available MP today which don't show "all details" I'm looking for and at the same time extrapolate my photographic skills in a way to deal with stability? Stability becomes very crucial the higher you go with MP (the better you can see the lack of skill on 100% pixelpeeping level.

So, what I gain with extra portion of MP can very easily be lost or become part of a kind of motion blur. Going higher with ISO also costs resolution. In general I want as much pixel I still can handle.

In theory, with smaller cameras the masses of moving parts also become smaller and lighter - but at the same time the sensitivity towards micro movement increases as the scale of reproduction increases, too, togetehr with the influence of noise. On a MF sensor's acceptable noise can become detracting if the sensor is so much smaller that I need to enlarge more.

To me, I thought the 36 MP are pretty enough for a long time. Until I compared these Bayer sensor files to much more detailed 16 MP × 3 Foveon files which showed more and better details at base ISO than even the D800 or D810 with an Otus lens in front could show. The D850's 46 MP are not "better" as a pure number. Nikon did so much in sensor design like to different gain levels  for base and high ISO that the technology becomes less comparable. They also did a lot with AF (and they have to, 36 MP already pushed the AF to unknown limits, 46 even more so). And the inbuilt focus stacking now finally offers me depth of fields at will and at best aperture. 46 MP is the less important part of that package to me.

If you just offer me more MP, I'll pass. I can do everything and much more than I'm capable by skills wit the D850's MP.

If you offer me more MP in a mirrorless body with decent AF and a couple of handling features I just miss today, I will start to become tempted - but not by MP only.
#12
As for now I have two cameras, one MFT (20MP) and one Fuji (24MP), but I don´t think so much about those MP. I sometimes print a bit larger than A3 and some of those prints are cropped.

Other things are more important for me, the handling of the camera and which lenses to use etc. But that is just me, some other people believe in MP.

#13
I sometimes made prints in A1 from the Fuji. No monstrous posters, but if I compare them to the D850 (even with a slight crop), the Fuji's look good in colours and sharpness. Yet not as detailed as the FF counterpart.

MP as well as sensor size do matter - but don't save the photog's a** when suffering of lack of ideas. I rather enjoy looking at Fuji-files or µ 4/3 when the idea is convincing and the technique fits to it, then care for MF/FF when the idea of the picture already's weak.
#14
Some interesting thoughts 

 

http://www.superinfocus.com/from-medium-...-micro-43/

#15
(01-22-2018, 09:04 PM)goran h Wrote: Some interesting thoughts 

 

http://www.superinfocus.com/from-medium-...-micro-43/
The thoughts are certainly interesting.

However, the results are even more interesting.

Even on low-resolution screens (I write this in March 2019 on a 2560 X 1440), it is very clear and visible that the medium format image in the comparison is superior to that of the MFT system. So if the author intended to show that the MFT system is equal or that the difference is photographically insignificant, he instead documented the opposite.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
#16
(03-13-2019, 09:35 AM)Per Inge Oestmoen Wrote:
(01-22-2018, 09:04 PM)goran h Wrote: Some interesting thoughts 

 

http://www.superinfocus.com/from-medium-...-micro-43/
The thoughts are certainly interesting.

However, the results are even more interesting.

Even on low-resolution screens (I write this in March 2019 on a 2560 X 1440), it is very clear and visible that the medium format image in the comparison is superior to that of the MFT system. So if the author intended to show that the MFT system is equal or that the difference is photographically insignificant, he instead documented the opposite.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
Interesting bias from you? There is just one (black and white) image per fomat shown, which look virtually indistinguishable from eachother. Both low resolution. 
Also the small 100% crops look virtually identical. Yet you claim that on a "low resolution screen" the CMF image is superior to the MFT image.

Why mention the rather high resolution "low resolution screen" when the images are waaay more low resolution? To hide your odd bias?

Care to point out the "superior" differences of this low res. CMF image?
#17
(03-13-2019, 11:23 AM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(03-13-2019, 09:35 AM)Per Inge Oestmoen Wrote:
(01-22-2018, 09:04 PM)goran h Wrote: Some interesting thoughts 

 

http://www.superinfocus.com/from-medium-...-micro-43/
The thoughts are certainly interesting.

However, the results are even more interesting.

Even on low-resolution screens (I write this in March 2019 on a 2560 X 1440), it is very clear and visible that the medium format image in the comparison is superior to that of the MFT system. So if the author intended to show that the MFT system is equal or that the difference is photographically insignificant, he instead documented the opposite.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
Interesting bias from you? There is just one (black and white) image per fomat shown, which look virtually indistinguishable from eachother. Both low resolution. 
Also the small 100% crops look virtually identical. Yet you claim that on a "low resolution screen" the CMF image is superior to the MFT image.

Why mention the rather high resolution "low resolution screen" when the images are waaay more low resolution? To hide your odd bias?

Care to point out the "superior" differences of this low res. CMF image?

Feel free to explain what exactly is meant by expressions like these two:

"Interesting bias from you?"

"Why mention the rather high resolution "low resolution screen" when the images are waaay more low resolution? To hide your odd bias?"

If it is difficult to relate to the fact that the aforementioned differences in detail are visible even on a low-resolution screen such as a 2650 x 1440, this picture might be helpful:

http://www.superinfocus.com/wp-content/u...arison.jpg 

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
25 Guest(s)