savingspaces wrote:
Jman - let's say I am shooting the Grand Canyon in hires mode. Nothing moves. Are you saying that there is no advantage of having more mp?
Depends on your desired viewing medium and size
That said, I'd love to have max MP just so I could downscale it to my non-existent iMac 5K resolution and use as a background
(Unsure if you can go native with the iMac, but I use SwitchResX for my MBP Retina and full-resolution images are amazing).
And here's a 100% crop. Is it perfectly pixel sharp? No, not really, but it's pretty darn good overall, and I can tell you that the holes in the grate aren't visible in the 40MP JPEG (and wouldn't even be recognizable as a grate in 16MP image). I just can't believe from over a mile away I can see the flipping 1/2" holes in a 10"x24" grate. That's simply insane to me. If anyone wants to look at the full image, you can click here to get it (8.4MB). If you look at the very top you can see some of the diagonal artifacts from the antenna waving in the wind (it was really, really windy this morning).
I'm really liking your examples even at the web-size here in the thread. They are very crisp without having any sharpening artifacts. I think that while it is technically true that the 16Mpx image could have the same amount of detail as the 64Mpx image when both are downsized to this resolution, the sharpening and downsizing work done on the 16Mpx version would have to be perfect, which probably means adjusting it specifically for each image, and possibly for every region of the image as well.
Putting it more subjectively, the picture of the tower above (the regular picture, not the 100% crop) is just stunning. I have very rarely seen a pic on the web that appears to have so much detail, and yet no sharpening artifacts.
Thanks. The 64/40MP images yield more detail and sharpness at reduced file sizes as well, as you'd expect. Reducing the High Res to 16MP yields a dramatically sharper and more detailed 16MP image than the native 16MP capture. Frankly, it almost makes sense to use the 64MP files to generate simply spectacular 24MP final files.
Very interesting. Not sure I would want to deal with the practicality implications, but it's a very promising improvement in a market sorely lacking them lately.
Here's a shot from this morning. Long exposures make it so that there's the diagonal artifacts in the sky and the water here, but they are small. Still works really nicely, as I simply was able to duplicate the layer, do a 1px gaussian blur, which eliminates the artifacts, and then mask the top layer to only have that 1px blur on the water and sky. Since those are blurred by motion anyway, there's no detail lost, and I've got a nice very high resolution image here.
Very interesting stuff on the high res mode. One complaint about m43 is that is shows more noise at base ISO compared to larger sensor competitors from, say, Fuji and Sony. What is your impression of a high res image downsized to 16 ~ 24 MP vs native Fuji, Sony outputs?
I'm also curious to see a comparison of high res mode vs stacked super-resolution (Photoacute or any other similar method).
Nice test, nice images and surprisingly good results from the 40 MP mode.
Once higher resolution becomes available, we appreciate it even though we didn't think we wanted it some time long ago
My conclusion is that for anything other than macro/still life or architecture where you want higher resolution, it's a lot easier and more practical to use a Sigma DP Merrill. I just picked up the DPM 1 and 3, the resolution is outstanding and the color, while different than from Bayer sensors, is beautiful.
httivals wrote:
My conclusion is that for anything other than macro/still life or architecture where you want higher resolution, it's a lot easier and more practical to use a Sigma DP Merrill. I just picked up the DPM 1 and 3, the resolution is outstanding and the color, while different than from Bayer sensors, is beautiful.
Great contribution to the thread! So should we all pick up some DPM1s and DPM3s?
Because what "I" love about M4/3 (EM-1) is the fun factor. For this very reason I do now want to use the Merrills. Same with heavy DSLRs. For me, it isn't fun. And trust me, I can lift.
Until now I have printed 30" wide and I can see no loss of quality. With highres, imagine how large one will be able to print if needed. m2c
savingspaces wrote:
Can I ask you when is the noise at base ISO an issue? Thanks
Speaking for myself, I actually don't consider this to be an issue. That complaint isn't mine, but one I've seen expressed frequently in the big forums; I should clarify that although I have no complaints about it, I do agree that m43 shows higher base ISO noise vs the Fuji X-T1 or Sony A7. If there's a way to reduce it while maintaining great detail, then that's a nice (but not essential) plus.
Iliang wrote:
Speaking for myself, I actually don't consider this to be an issue. That complaint isn't mine, but one I've seen expressed frequently in the big forums; I should clarify that although I have no complaints about it, I do agree that m43 shows higher base ISO noise vs the Fuji X-T1 or Sony A7. If there's a way to reduce it while maintaining great detail, then that's a nice (but not essential) plus.
My question is... besides peeping, does anyone see the noise? Like in prints? At what size? If not, what difference does it make? If it isn't visible when a picture is posted on the net or if you can't see it when printed, does it really matter?
This type of complaint always reminds me of Ming Thein's blog from a while back. He had a gallery show his pictures and he decided to print really big from his EM-1. He had pictures from his D800 and some other camera, not sure what else, but it was APS-C I think. He would over hear visitors ohhh and ahhh about all the fine detail in those big prints from the (D800) - not knowing that the shots in fact came from the EM1.
savingspaces wrote:
My question is... besides peeping, does anyone see the noise? Like in prints? At what size? If not, what difference does it make? If it isn't visible when a picture is posted on the net or if you can't see it when printed, does it really matter?
This type of complaint always reminds me of Ming Thein's blog from a while back. He had a gallery show his pictures and he decided to print really big from his EM-1. He had pictures from his D800 and some other camera, not sure what else, but it was APS-C I think. He would over hear visitors ohhh and ahhh about all the fine detail in those big prints from the (D800) - not knowing that the shots in fact came from the EM1. ...Show more →
Many who now finds the 40 MP mode interesting, was seriously questioning those of us who wanted 36 MP two years ago. Why would we ever need that kind of resolution? It wouldn't be visible in print.
The same will happen when the base ISO image quality is improved from where it is now in micro four thirds. People now denying potential improvement, will think it is interesting and a good thing to have once it becomes available.
savingspaces wrote:
Can I ask you when is the noise at base ISO an issue? Thanks
Noise in sky is a common complaint. I don't consider a big issue, but I have come up against it in my m43 landscape shooting from time to time. Especially a hassle when doing B&W conversions with strong channel mixing. You can mitigate it with localized noise and sharpening settings, but it would just be easier to have a less noisy base ISO RAW file.
kwalsh wrote:
Noise in sky is a common complaint. I don't consider a big issue, but I have come up against it in my m43 landscape shooting from time to time. Especially a hassle when doing B&W conversions with strong channel mixing. You can mitigate it with localized noise and sharpening settings, but it would just be easier to have a less noisy base ISO RAW file.
Yeah noisy skies suck, but virtually disappears on output, and easy enough to rid with a quick touch of post.
I do agree with B&W conversions getting a bit hairy, but that's my experience with almost any camera, when I start really getting into channels. Half the time I just leave the noise in, as long as it's not posterized.
Thanks for sharing your testing testing Jordan!! Time and bad weather have prevented me from doing my own testing, but hopefully soon!
Quick question. Do you have a sense of how much the lens matter in those high resolution shots("pro" vs "non--pro" lenses)? Does focal length matter (wide vs tele)?
Thanks!
Fred
Wide vs tele doesn't seem to matter, but lens certainly does. The 12-40 has been really good with it. Surprisingly, the 75-300 has been as well, especially at 200mm and shorter (really, really good). The Panny 14/2.5, on the other hand, doesn't show too much of an increase. I don't have many m4/3 lenses any more. I wish I still had my 75/1.8 for this review.
