The G1 has inascapable noise straight from base ISO, even under good lighting. this photo seems on par with my experience. Having said that, the said noise seems more pronounced on a monitor than a print, so if printing it your final output, the image comes out surprisingly clearer.
kahren wrote:
i took your picture and magnified it 3x
look at the red color blotches, that is noise which is then jpg compressed.
your images is 1.3MB which shouldn't be that heavily compressed. considering out of camera jpg is about 5MB at the highest setting. and your image is only 1MP
i dont know if you just have not a very good jpg converter or there really was that much noise in the image. its not my monitor either, i have a calibrated monitor and i know when i see noise and when i don't.
Miserere wrote:
Interesting you should mention the DR, Steve. I'm reviewing the E-PL1 at the moment, and one of the first things I noticed when looking at pictures from it was the DR. The strange thing is, in the DxO Mark data recently published, the E-PL1 has 1 whole stop less DR than my current DSLR. I'm befuddled here
I'm at odds with the reviewers as well. I think they might be testing these MFT cameras under really extreme high contrast situations, in which case not even my 1Ds II tests 100% well. But so far, I trust my own experience with the G1 more than any reviewer's experience. To date, I've had only one or two occasions when I'd wished the DR was better. I have many, many shots now that would have been taxing for ANY camera ... but the G1 came through quite nicely.
How many of you here buy a micro 4/3 camera to shoot ads that span the side of buildings? These photogs are crazy.
Even the best of present digital cameras is no match to a 35mm or medium format film camera. Canon and Nikon technical staff knew about it. Photographers who shoot wall ads knew about it (I do), except those who said present digital sensors have over resolute the best of film and lenses, a total joke. Let them see a 200 to 400 Mpixel camera shooting with a lens no bigger than a 35mm format 50mm lens. Yes, these cameras are already in use for a couple of years now.
Most photogs buy a micro 4/3 as an ever ready backup for their DSLR to shoot those shots they would have missed if not for its light weight, small size and easy portability.
Most of these shots will not be printed larger than A3 and never blow up to over 100%. Even Canon once told me they do not do it. Only guys like us working with sensor manufacturers do that to evaluate the defects.
Oly & Paney Micro 4/3 and Samsung NX 10 using an APS-C sensor has changed my perception of small sensor not able to produce IQ similar to those "D"SLR a couple of years back. Technology has moved fast these couple of years and sure is good for everyone.
Something for those sensor researchers, the larger the Mpixel and the smaller the size of the pixel can produce extremely low noise picture. Go figure that out! I had done experiments on it and the end results proved my theory right. But there are tricks in it. So lets see who are the lucky researchers saw these info hidden here.
hans98ko wrote:
Let them see a 200 to 400 Mpixel camera shooting with a lens no bigger than a 35mm format 50mm lens. Yes, these cameras are already in use for a couple of years now.
Sorry, you lost me here. What are you talking about?
The problem for me was that I could clearly see the things that disturbed me even in small prints, and on normal sized web photos too (yes, in a blind test too). Since I don't do pixel peeping I thought it'd be OK for light traveling, but unfortunately it didn't work out like I had hoped so I sold my µ4/3 stuff. The system has great potential though and maybe I'll try again later some time.
HelenaN wrote:
The problem for me was that I could clearly see the things that disturbed me even in small prints, and on normal sized web photos too.....
Like? .....
How about some examples of what you're seeing that turned you off to 4/3. Or just tell us in your own words .....
Spyro P. wrote:
Sorry, you lost me here. What are you talking about?
What I meant is that there are digital camera with 200 to 400 Mpixel sensors in use for a couple of years already. The lens mounted on the camera is about the size of a 50mm from a 35mm format or a 80mm from a medium format.
The only thing is that there are very few users able to get their hands on one, and those who are using it kept a very low profile until very recently.
These cameras are not sold to consumers, but are supplied by the manufacturers directly to specific users, so don't waste time trying to get one from any camera outlets.
And also don't think of hand holding one because it must be mounted on a tripod at lease for the time being. At lease this proves that producing a 300 Mpixel sensor is possible, which researchers from a couple of film companies predicted/projected that will closely resemble that of a 35mm film format resolution. Remember, grain size are irregular not like FujiFilm sensor with only 2 sizes and do not sit on top of each other on the different layers of emulsion like pixels do on the RGB as in the Foveon.
Sorry, I can't go any further than that..have digital fun!
hans98ko wrote:
What I meant is that there are digital camera with 200 to 400 Mpixel sensors in use for a couple of years already. The lens mounted on the camera is about the size of a 50mm from a 35mm format or a 80mm from a medium format.
The only thing is that there are very few users able to get their hands on one, and those who are using it kept a very low profile until very recently.
These cameras are not sold to consumers, but are supplied by the manufacturers directly to specific users, so don't waste time trying to get one from any camera outlets.
And also don't think of hand holding one because it must be mounted on a tripod at lease for the time being. At lease this proves that producing a 300 Mpixel sensor is possible, which researchers from a couple of film companies predicted/projected that will closely resemble that of a 35mm film format resolution. Remember, grain size are irregular not like FujiFilm sensor with only 2 sizes and do not sit on top of each other on the different layers of emulsion like pixels do on the RGB as in the Foveon.
Sorry, I can't go any further than that..have digital fun! ...Show more →
Whaaaa? This is secret alien technology, I take it...
Bearing in mind the Military is always further along than what we think, these satellites can probably read license plates (even if they need to use special algorithms to do that) from that distance, so they probably have higher resolution even than an APS-C 300MP sensor (and I'm sure they're not using APS-C sensors).
Miserere wrote:
Do you think Military spy satellites use 12MP sensors? Even 50MP sensors? They need to resolve at 5 inches from some 200 miles up, so you do the math
There's no question we'll be seeing 50-60MP cameras, 35mm format, from Canon & Nikon much sooner than anyone thinks. And by 2015 we'll have 100MP cameras the size of today's Canon T2i. Large sensor MF cameras will deliver at least 200MP by that time ....
Ok, there's some military hardware that's doing this at the moment, but photographic equipment which is being used for commercial purposes (all the size of small 35mm cameras!)? This sounds to me like NASA loaning Kubrick their superfast primes in exchange for shooting the moon landing...
except those who said present digital sensors have over resolute the best of film and lenses, a total joke.
Forgive me for being dense, but the resolution of my digital camera seems clearly higher than the film set up I am used to. I use Tri-x 400 film in Leica M6's and a Canon 5DII, and while I prefer Tri-x for some situations, it is not because it outresolves the 5DII. Far from it, at 19x13 I get superb prints from Tri-x - very sharp with good acutance, but with the 5DII, they are noticeably sharper still. In the resolution race, at least at 400 ISO, digital seems to have won.
Are you talking about very slow B&W films having the potential to giving better resolution than the best of digital?
wolfloid wrote:
Forgive me for being dense, but the resolution of my digital camera seems clearly higher than the film set up I am used to. I use Tri-x 400 film in Leica M6's and a Canon 5DII, and while I prefer Tri-x for some situations, it is not because it outresolves the 5DII. Far from it, at 19x13 I get superb prints from Tri-x - very sharp with good acutance, but with the 5DII, they are noticeably sharper still. In the resolution race, at least at 400 ISO, digital seems to have won.
Are you talking about very slow B&W films having the potential to giving better resolution than the best of digital?...Show more →
Maybe you're not scanning at a high enough resolution?
At the end of the day, it's all about the resolution you get at the print size you need, and having near infinite resolution is useless if you print no larger than 8x12in.
Olympus have announced a new E-PL1 "Enhanced" Kit which features a re-designed version of the 14-42mm kit lens, which features internal focusing and is smaller and lighter then the current version. The new kit will only be available in Japan, but the new lens is expected to go on sale worldwide in the near future.
