Hi, having recently switched from FF to Mu43 (OMD E-M1) one thing I've noticed is I may need to change my ways. Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems I have to be much more careful in getting the framing and composition right with the Mu43 camera, especially when taking pictures of subjects at further distances. With FF if I didn't have a long lens or was feeling lazy I could often crop to enlarge the subject later and it would remain sharp. Can't seem to do it to the same extent as before. I assume this is due to sensor size, and not the lens. For example I now use a 12-40 f2.8 pro and would use a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 FX ED lens before. Both good lenses. So, does this mean I need to invest in a zoom to get sharp subjects from a distance? Of course I mean within reason and am not trying to crop a spec in the distance. Thoughts? Peter
What Nikon model are you comparing against? The important thing is the number of pixels in the two images. The E-M1 has about 16 megapixels. If your Nikon has more than that, then, yes, it will have more detail in the same size crop (all other things the same). Hal
Perhaps you need to set it for a little more sharpening than on the D700. Whichever program you are using may need to be tweaked for the ORF files. The 12-40 lens is extremely sharp, but you still need to get the right amount of sharpening set in PP.
Are you comparing apples to apples or just random images? I often find myself thinking one particular lens or body is amazing, then I shoot the same scene with both and am always disappointed at how close they are. Even the cheapo kit zooms are sharp enough when used correctly.
Not my experience at all. I used to have the D700 + 24-70, and the E-M5 has notably more detail with the 12-40 (or 12-60). Of course if you shoot at higher ISOs, or use a RAW converter with poor sharpening and NR (e.g. Olympus Viewer), you may see different results.
Another way of looking at it is, when you can, taking the time to compose within the frame makes for way better photographs. I am convinced that, over time, our eyes, composition & focus all will sharpen. Cropping is a great tool which I use in 1 out of 20. But, then, I'm old (school). Landscapes. JD
I find I can do what you used to do with your Nikon w/o problem when I shoot with my Panny 20mm prime. I can still do it a bit with my kit zoom but the 20mm prime holds up noticeably better the more extreme you crop.
Thanks all. I agree correct framing and composition in the camera is the mark of a better photographer. My circumstance and excuse was/is that I don't (yet) have a long lens and couldn't get any closer as I was taking a picture of a boat, from shore. Also, I wasn't comparing shot (same location, scene, composition, etc.) comparison between the two. I use Lightroom 5.4 with the latest Camera Raw so imagine the raw conversion is ok. I am not trying to criticize Olympus or Mu43 and to be fair my initial "observations" are not scientific or directly comparative. Reading most of your Mu43 supportive remarks, I obviously need to figure out what I'm doing wrong. By the way I'm using factory presets for most of the vivid/sharpness/color etc. settings. Anyway, when I was using the D700 I did buy long glass (still have the lenses, but camera is sold) so will likely buy for my E-M1 as well.
Better glass always trumps IQ from cropping, so it is better to get the framing in camera as best as possible. That being said, I've not found the same issues as you when cropping, even to 50% in m43. Seems very usable to me.
Have you thought about buying an adaptor so you can use your legacy long lens on your E-M1? You'll have to shoot manually, but might be worth a try. Cheers!
Comparing 12 MP to 16 MP, I don't think your experience is a limitation of the µ4/3 image files. Some good suggestions above, but perhaps an example would be helpful to your helpers?
Truer words have never been typed on a keyboard! I am amazed at how little discussion there has been about how well (or poorly!) Some raw converters do with some raw formats while they perform quite differently with OTHER raw formats. For instance, I was always happy with my results from Lightroom and raw from my E30 , but when I moved from Lr to ACDSee Pro 6 (now Pro 7), I was amazed at how much better my results were. I found that CaptureOne did a better job than Lr as well with E30 ORF files. I guess now that I've moved to the E-M10, even though I'm happy with the results, I should do some additional testing to see if I can find something better than ACDSee Pro. I guess there is no reason to think that the raw format of the E30 and the E-M10 have the exact same characteristics. I really dislike the results I get with OV3, BTW. And the quality of the user's experience? Ugh!
Thanks again all. You are right that a picture would help. Will do soon when have a smidgen of time. Starting to think perhaps it's me. Not the first time though! Ha ha
