Interesting article concerning 4/3 Printing

Discussion in 'Printing' started by alans, Jan 24, 2012.

  1. alans

    alans Mu-43 Veteran

    340
    Feb 28, 2010
    • Like Like x 3
  2. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Interesting indeed.

    But he must be lying. "Everyone" knows you need FF, or at least APS-C to print that large. :wink:
     
  3. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I have printed B0 size posters of my little princess and its all good . MFT is the most underestimated format as APS-C is over estimated . People fail to tap its full potential and then blame it on small sensor .
    Cheers
     
  4. RichDesmond

    RichDesmond Mu-43 Veteran

    356
    Nov 18, 2011
    He makes a very good point about the shutter speed rule of thumb, one I hadn't really thought through before. I've been using 1/FL * CF, definitely going to try bumping up the shutter speed when possible.
     
  5. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    Yup!:wink:
     
  6. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 30, 2010
    Essex
    John
    Very interesting, thanks for posting. :smile:
     
  7. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    I agree with that article, and it also goes along with my results, and what I've seen and heard from my favorite posters here. m4/3 works, and it provides great results, but it doesn't have the latitude for any exposure or other technical "errors." It doesn't quite have the horsepower to pull you out of any sticky situations you might get yourself into. Which is not a bad thing for many situations. A famous race car driver, I don't remember which one, was advised by his mentor AGAINST daily driving a Corvette when not on the track, because it had so much power and torque that it would make him lazy about shifting. Therefore, he drove some smaller-engined manual-transmission car that you had to treat like an F1 car to get even modest power for the daily grind!

    It also highlights the need for proper equipment. A decent tripod will do as much to improve most people's images as buying a new lens or camera will, and if you haven't invested in stability yet, you're only using your current equipment to 80% of its capability. While OIS/IBIS helps in a pinch, it's no replacement for a stable surface and long shutter speed, if you really need that extra bit out of your photos.
     
  8. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    It's true... printing that big with micro four thirds is quite possible and can give fabulous results... it's just that you have to be a bit more careful because you don't have much margin for error. But the piece points out once again why micro four thirds may be the best overall compromise between quality, size and price. Other formats and systems may give you more or less in any of those categories, but micro four thirds provides a balance that's really hard to beat.
     
  9. bobbywise

    bobbywise Mu-43 Regular

    130
    Aug 23, 2011
    Nantes, France
    Interesting he says the following:

    This time I put the camera on a tripod and turned off the stabilization (Panasonic—and everyone else who offers some form of anti-shake--instructs us to turn it off when using a tripod). Bingo! As soon as I looked at the captures on screen, I could see they were crisper. On critical examination at 100% view, there was a surprising amount of variation, but the general level was a big improvement, and a lot more of them than before were just plain sharp!

    I've heard this quite a bit by other people too.
    Seems like image stabilization isn't all what it's cracked up to be.
     
  10. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    Many, many people who have invested lots of $ in photography gear are not tapping it's full potential. Sensor type or size hardly matters.
     
  11. adelorenzo

    adelorenzo Mu-43 Regular

    113
    Nov 9, 2011
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    That is consistent with my experience, I just got some 10x20 prints back and they look great.
     
  12. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    "Best" is highly subjective. NEX is smaller than our system and just as cheap, with sensor quality and size that currently trounces what we have available. Samsung has a good quality and size sensor, and some solid primes. Nikon 1, although smaller, has amazing sensor quality, and I would say that if you want a deeper depth of field while reducing noise and preserving resolution, that it's a superior choice to m4/3, for landscapes that's the sweet spot. Plus, DSLRs like the Nikon D3100 or Canon T3i for example, are relatively small, while being packed with the latest and greatest image quality. The T3i share's the 7D and 60D's sensor, and the D3100 uses a better sensor than anything in our lineup, even though it's Nikon's "worst" sensor in production. The D5100 has an articulating screen and has better image quality for the money and size than any of our cameras, giving the IQ of the Pentax K-5 or Nikon D7000 that are being ga-ga'ed over everywhere. I could just as easily say that because there is none of that error margin in our camera capability, it also doesn't have that last bit of quality that makes other camera system photos really pop.


    Image stabilization isn't all it's cracked up to be, but that isn't why. You turn off IS on a tripod because it tries to stabilize movement that isn't occurring, so it causes blurry photos. It's like if I tell you to compensate in a car that pulls left by holding the steering wheel to the right. If that car is messed up, you will fix the tracking of the car and go straight. However, if the car drives straight by itself, then your compensation ends up being the cause of the car sitting in a ditch.

    The reason that image stabilization isn't all that it's cracked up to be, is because to work, it moves either a lens element (Panasonic OIS) or the sensor itself (Olympus IBIS) to counteract the natural motion/shake of a human body holding a camera. It works to an extent, but it's not a substitute for just cementing the camera down to a steady base, like a tripod. Moving the lens element or camera sensor is never perfectly opposite to your body's movement, so it's akin to having a loose sensor or loose lens element when taking a photo, which robs sharpness. The most stable photo you can take is the camera on a tripod, with shutter delay enabled, image stabilization off, and self-timer to let the vibrations from you pressing the shutter die away.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. alans

    alans Mu-43 Veteran

    340
    Feb 28, 2010
    Good points above above from Shnitz.

    In my own experience for several decades of shooting whether I've shot for work or for pleasure, I would notice a problem with my shots not being as sharp as I liked and often not as sharp as people as I shot with. Turned out that I couldn't hold a camera as steady as I thought I was. It helps to be aware of when IS, higher shutter speeds or a tripod apply best to the shot.

    Anyway, Carl Weese does some nice work in many camera formats. One of his projects that I really like is his documentation of drive-in theatres, a part of the past for many of us.
     
  14. Pelao

    Pelao Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Feb 3, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    Some good points.

    It's an interesting article, not unlike this one from Reichman, concerning an even smaller sensor:

    Kidding

    I feel that the general point about technique is the most important part of the article.

    Overall, a great deal depends on your output, the subject matter and your standards. For much of my photography I am happy with M43 capabilities. For some things a more capable sensor would be welcome. I am certainly keeping my M43 stuff, but I suspect a Nex 7 or the new Fuji will be added in due course.
     
  15. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Regarding IS, no, it's not as good as a solid tripod. But it DOES offer a benefit when you have little choice but to shoot handheld. If you're a professional on a formal shoot, then you carry whatever gear you need. But for those of us who are hobbyists, or even pros who are just on vacation, a tripod isn't always a viable option. And even if a 1/8 second exposure with IS isn't a sharp as it would be with a tripod, it's a heck of a lot sharper than without IS. Often times, a 'good' photograph is far better than no photograph. Or, as we say in my profession, don't let perfection become the enemy of the possible.

    And I can't leave the comments about NEX and other systems unchallenged. There's a lot more to a camera "system" than the body and sensor. None of the other mirrorless systems mentioned have anywhere close to the native lens selection that m43 does. Sony's lenses, especially the zooms, are gargantuan, eliminating any advantage the small body offers. And most of them aren't very sharp from what I've seen.

    Comparing APS-C DSLRs, even the "small" ones, as if they were similar in size to m43 is just silly. Again, the lenses are much larger, so the size and weight of a complete kit, with body and several lenses, is much heavier. Even the bodies are significantly larger. Sure, if you ignore depth, and just look at a front view, the D5100 doesn't look much bigger than a GH2. But you're comparing the smallest DSLR to the largest m43, and even then the total volume of the body (because of the depth required by the mirror box) is significantly larger. Compare a mid-size m43 (like the G3) to the D5100 and the size advantage of m43 is obvious.

    The vaunted Nikon 1 has brilliant AF in bright light, but based on the DPR review it's terrible in dim light.

    Do larger sensor systems offer certain advantages? Of course they do. But not without trade-offs. And for probably 80 or 90% of what I do, the IQ of my GH2 is pretty much indistinguishable from APS-C photos. What I do doesn't include displaying images on my monitor at 100% or making 30x40 inch prints. It does include viewing complete photographs on monitors, and making prints up to 13x19. And for those purposes, I find the trade-offs of m43 to be better, for me, that the trade-offs of larger systems.

    If you prefer other systems, fine, just don't pretend those other systems don't entail trade-offs, too.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. woof

    woof Mu-43 Top Veteran

    511
    Oct 18, 2011
    The present.
    Heh... I shoot in Woodbury and Roxbury routinely... look at his "crows" shot here...

    6a00df351e888f88340162ffff22a8970d-800wi.

    I went and dug this up... this one's mine...

    p229517525-5.

    I know just where that is...

    woof!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. taran

    taran Mu-43 Regular

    90
    Oct 19, 2011
    You can get A1 from a 12mp Oly pen sensor. A lot of it is subject dependent, and using good upres algorithms, but I have never had a problem.
     
  18. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    So, you're just proving my point that it's completely subjective. I don't care about what lenses are theoretically available, only what lenses I need. I don't see any holes in the Samsung lens lineup for most users. Those competitor systems are younger, yet in some cases not far behind, especially where it counts. Look how long it took our system to get a portrait lens for example, while the new Fuji system will be released with one. Just goes to show how one man's "best" is another man's "unusable." The Sony lenses may make the system appear much larger, but look at the top-down view of the E-PL3 vs NEX-5n:
    http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex5n/images/topcompareepl3.jpg
    That's a wash, relative to size considerations. They work out to be nearly the same volume. As for lenses, Sony has dedicated to 6 lenses this year:
    sonyalpharumors | Blog | (SR5) A minimum of six NEX lenses will be announced this year!
    Including, as you will notice, a high performance standard zoom, which we STILL don't have, so not is all rosy over here in the gumdrop forest. I don't know where you saw that Sony lenses aren't sharp. There isn't very even performance across the frame, but the center sharpness of the kit lens, along with a metal build, are very nice. I don't see anything to be ashamed about: Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (Sony NEX) - Review / Lens Test Report - Analysis
    The center sharpness kills. The border-to-border sharpness isn't as good, but I wouldn't hesitate to use the lens. Feel free to click around there and compare it to our various 14-42 lenses. Plus, the NEX manual focus assist is light years ahead for those adapted lens users.

    And again, the DSLR vs m4/3 debate is subjective. For me, there are tiered sizes. While the D5100 is bigger, m4/3 cameras are still larger than my jeans pocket, so a bit more size here or there, given the handling advantages and greatly improved battery life mean that there isn't a clear winner in the comparison. I'd lump them into the same relative size of fitting in a small bag. Every person needs to evaluate their own needs. I love my m4/3 setup, and I have no plans to change it, but you can't make a blanket statement like "It's the best," because while I can make many arguments of why it is, I can make just as many arguments why it isn't.
     
  19. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Well said , there are many people on this forum who simply underestimate MFT and always overestimate APS-C size DSLR. Slam a fast prime in front of a current MFT body and U have a DLSR equivalent system with very very minimal shortcomings like shooting very fast moving subjects but that again depends on how much capable u are .I don't like NEX series though I do recommend it to people who simply want a Point and shoot kind of camera but don't want to add lenses . Recently my friend bought Sony a580 and I can't tell u that camera is just horrible in focusing in low light and IQ isn't significantly better than my EPL2 with 45mm 1.8 and yes he also uses 50 mm 1.8 Sony lens . I don't like the while balance and metering of Sony . APS C señsor size DSLRs are capable I don't disagree , they are needed for specific shoots I agree but a MFT will offer u inferior results? I strongly disagree.
    As an over all system MFT excels , plenty of bodies to choose from accrording to ur pocket , the shape and size u like from EPM1 to GH2. Plenty of fast primes and some are simply excellent . Whenever I use DSLR and I can't tell how much I appreciate my EPL2 . Oh yes I forgot to mention , I do have sony a33 which has failed to please me again and again but I have just kept it somehow .
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
     
  20. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    A1???I have printed BO size from my Olympus EPL2 and Olympus 45 mm 1.8 combo
    Cheers