1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

proof for the naysayers...

Discussion in 'Street, Documentary, and Portrait' started by Lisandra, Apr 10, 2014.

  1. Lisandra

    Lisandra Mu-43 Veteran

    234
    Nov 16, 2010
    chances are that if you hang around forums or other people who own cameras, youre no doubt bound to run into a "person" who will inform you, unsolicitedly of course, of what you can and cant do with m4/3s. If youre blessed enough to never having experienced this, go on and take a trip to dpreview or a few fredmiranda posts and that'll change real fast. Its gonna be either, or mix even, of "not enough detail" and 'too much noise" for anything bigger than 8x10 prints and web viewing. You might even be so lucky and witness the third "too much DOF" argument. Some of these all knowing gurus can be re-educated, but others will choose, because its a choice, to remain stupid.
    So in an effort to aid you in one of these encounters, this is a 24 feet long print from a single ISO 1250 file. At 150dpi.

    13765230215_23146ba464_o.
     
    • Like Like x 43
  2. Blotzphoto

    Blotzphoto Mu-43 Regular

    109
    May 25, 2012
    Cincinnati
    Lou Doench
    Bad Ass!!!
     
  3. Lisandra

    Lisandra Mu-43 Veteran

    234
    Nov 16, 2010
    Thanks! Thats the now mayor of the city, but in 1999 he made his way in the double a league hall of fame, and that was the first time in 15 years he was in uniform and on the bat. There were plenty of nikon D3s and canon 1dmk4s, 5dmk2s, mk3s, one 1dmk3 and a sony a850 on that day, yet they decided to hang my "dinky" 43s sized sensored em1 photo on the side of the stadium, plus another shot was bought for the paper the next day. And thats by choice too! because i also have a 1dmk4, a bunch of sonys, and a newly acquired a7 i could've used. Thats why when anyone tells me theyve hit a wall with their camera, I tell em the camera has nothing to do with it. unless its a cell phone...
     
    • Like Like x 6
  4. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    That's too big ... for my wall!
     
  5. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    content always rules. That's why iPhone remains the best camera ever made. As for m43, when E-M5 came out, it was a game changer. I see much fewer threads about ISO noise and DR since then. It became irrelevant. I can't care less if there are any additional IQ improvements in future models. It's all about usability now: fast on-sensor PDAF for effective sports photography, global shutter for unlimited flash sync speed, improvements in video, etc.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Lisandra

    Lisandra Mu-43 Veteran

    234
    Nov 16, 2010
    Indeed, content is what pays the bills is what I say. To be honest I was actually surprised to get the call amidst all that competition, and even more surprised at the outcome. I figured the hugely blown up file would suffer from a number of artifacts, noise, jaggies and whatnot. lo and behold nothing of the sort, either it was a really good file or CS has really gotten better at resizing. But I left noise as it was, I figured nobody was gonna be within 30 feet of the print to actually see it, and even sharpened it a bit. I turned out great to me
     
  7. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I totally agree, people tend to sneer at m4/3 (as they did at 4/3), because they don't know what you can actually get out of the system. More often than not, they see poor results taken by inexperienced users and assume the quality, or lack of, is due to the camera, rather than the user.
     
  8. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    IMO, 4/3 was never a great system for general use. It was no smaller than larger sensor DSLRs with significantly lower IQ (serious noise at base ISO). In some cases, lenses were bigger than full frame or APS-c and they were more expensive. 4/3 almost destroyed Oly reputation as a viable photo company. I don't think it's fair to compare 4/3 with m43. They are entirely different philosophies and designs.
     
  9. fortwodriver

    fortwodriver Mu-43 Top Veteran

    956
    Nov 15, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Frank
    150 dpi? That's a nice res for something that huge. Some of the stuff out there is closer to 20dpi at that size! The displays we did for a trade show had to be converted from vector graphics to 120dpi and those are only about 10 feet high (rolled up at the bottom and held up with a pole...)
     
  10. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Well, I did pretty well using E system cameras (starting with the E-1) covering news and sport for a newspaper. The paper didn't care what you used, as long as you delivered and I never had a complaint. The thing with 4/3 was that the bodies and lenses were fully waterproof and the lenses were faster and more flexible than what many Nikon/Canon users had. My 90-250mm lens, with or without extender, enabled me to cover entire football games, whether players were near or far, and that gave me a huge advantage over the Nikon/Canon shooter with their 500mm lens. That's probably why they had so much time available for chimping.

    Also, there were many ordinary situations where the 4/3 system did just as well as the others, with nothing all that greatly changed even now with m4/3, it just depends on the user. There is nothing wrong with comparing 4/3 with m4/3, the sensor size is exactly the same and even the bodies of the OM-D series are close to the smaller bodies of the 4/3 series, like the E-400 etc. The lenses are certainly smaller, but the 4/3 lenses still shine. Sensor quality is what has improved over the years and comparing today's sensor with yesterday's sensor is hardy fair. When I compare my E-1 with my E-M1, they are about the same width, the E-1 is about 10mm taller and it is definitely much deeper (twice as deep if not counting the grips).

    Olympus' reputation was not harmed by their 4/3s venture, there were many aspects of the system that were praised by professionals, and I'm not talking about professional forum members on DPR who still mostly don't know the proverbial from clay. Olympus came into digital at possibly the wrong time, when sensor technology started to ramp up significantly so that costs began to fall. I suspect that Olympus had mirrorless technology in mind well before they left 4/3s, but the technology wasn't there ie LiveMOS sensors and adequate EVFs, so they were stuck in the SLR form factor longer than they wanted.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. tosvus

    tosvus Mu-43 Top Veteran

    632
    Jan 4, 2014
    Hey, on a good day, my Lumia 1020 with 41MP sensor can actually provide some pretty astonishing pictures. :)
     
  12. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    Massachusetts
    Herbert
    There was an E-M1 in 1999? Sorry, i'm confused.


    Sent from my iPhone
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    1999 + 15 years = 2014.
     
  14. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    No, she means the guy was in the proper baseball league in 1999, now he's Mayor ... hence the 24 foot banner I guess.
     
  15. Lisandra

    Lisandra Mu-43 Veteran

    234
    Nov 16, 2010
    I did 2 versions and the resampled 150 dpi stood out so I figured what the heck
     
  16. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    Good for you! Nice to see what can be done with :43:. :thumbup:
     
  17. zlatko-photo

    zlatko-photo Mu-43 Veteran

    228
    Jan 8, 2014
    "Not enough detail", "too much noise", "too much DOF", etc. are relative, not absolute, so whether they are true or not depends on the specific task. For this task, M43 obviously meets the required criteria. But a cell phone would too. So why be a naysayer against cell phones — is a cell phone too "dinky"? One can make a 24-foot print (or 1,000-foot) print from a cell phone image to "disprove" that notion too.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    But Zlatko it would be expensive to take a cellphone photo of yourself holding a baseball bat and get it printed to 24' ... although proving your point in that way would impart heavy kudos ... go for it!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    I firmly believe that if anyone .. yes anyone .. who believes that good photography requires certain types of equipment are not and can never be a photographer. That becomes obvious to me with such a mentality. However they might be someone who likes to take pictures or even may incorrectly call themselves a photographer. But a true photographer is an artist and art can be created with what ever tool is available. There is a saying amongst photographers, "the best camera, is the one you have with you".
    Anne Leibovitts released a photography book recently with photos taken only with an iPhone, because like so many people in this country that's the camera she has with he most of the time.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I agree that the camera does not make the photographer; however, the correct equipment will ensure that the photographer can achieve their end goal. Annie Leibovitz, or anyone else, isn't going to photograph the Superbowl with her iPhone, nor do I think she did her Disney Dream Portraits with an iPhone. What does she actually use? - http://equipboard.com/pros/annie-leibovitz.