I was going to suggest discussing the upscaling and agree with your assessment. Doubling the dimensions of my R6 ii files renders an equivalent 96mp file, but I have a site detailing dimensions to MP and upscale accordingly.
Great comparison! Just one thing to note regarding ideal aperture range on m43 cameras. Photographing at F11 is equivalent to shooting F22 on full frame when considering how much diffraction will occur when stopping down a lens. To get the sharpest results with a m43 lens you should be shooting between F4 to F8 in general. If you ever borrow m43 gear again, try giving that a try if you want sharper results. Most OM/Olympus Pro lens are well regarded for their sharpness, but if shooting at F11, you are going to run into diffraction issues. Furthermore, if you are worried about not having enough depth of field as the reason you are stopping the lens down so far, remember that on m43 lenses you have approximately twice the depth of field at a given aperture if comparing an equivalent field of view between m43 and full frame cameras. I hope that is helpful :)
If you're really concerned about the best sharpness f/8 is way too small for m43. It give the same diffraction blur as f/16 on FF, and no-one would say that's where the 'sharpest results' are. I'd say that the 'sharpest' range is f/4-f/8 on FF and thus f/2-f/4 on m43. The m43manufactures know that you need to use lower f-numbers on their cameras and design them so that in general they are at their sharpest stopped down one stop or so
@@BobN54 Detailed centre sharpness is different than sharpness across the frame. Almost all full frame lenses are at their best performance in terms of image sharpness at centre at around f/5.6. They just need stopping down to increase depth of field but actual sharpness does not increase. The same with 4/3rds, just that the f/stop is a little wider.
My first digital camera was an Olympus E-20, 6 mpx. I sold a bunch of 16x20 prints from that little camera and I'm still getting orders for some of them today. A friend of mine shot an advertising billboard image with it 8 ft x 12 ft. Worked just fine looking at it through the windshield from the road. Viewing distance is the key. Another friend did an entire gallery show of prints 4ft x 5ft and the resolution was good enough to show her young daughter's fingerprints as she was presenting her mother with an earthworm she had picked up. Those little cameras can work amazingly well if you take the time to learn their pros and cons and how to make them work.
Excellent video! I have the OM System OM1 and the 7-14 mm Pro, and this lens is phenomenal in terms of resolution. F11 is not the best choice, so you are entering in the diffraction zone, and I always try the F5.6 or F8 aperture. For landscapes is also useful the high resolution mode, that offers up to 80 Mpixels on a tripod. Give it a try and let us know how the experience has been!
Exactly. f11 is a waste of 30-50% resolution compared to f2-5.6. I did tests of old gf1(12mpx) om-1(20mpx) and 17mm 1.2 using iso12233 chart image. The image from gf1 at f2.0 was sharper in the center of the frame than the image from om-1 at f11.
In 2005 I got my hands on a Canon 1Ds MkII. At the time, that camera was lauded as the first full frame dslr that could actually replace a medium format film camera for professional work, and was the model that convinced many pro's to finally make the leap from film to digital. I clearly remembered the day I picked it up that the Canon rep was saying that they would never produce a higher resolution camera because the sensor was already collecting more detail than any FF lens could resolve. I had photos from that camera blown up to massive A0 and A1 prints for a public display event. That camera has 18 MP! Now I hear so many photographers stressing over whether 24MP is enough. Your message about the quality of glass we choose to put in front of today's amazing sensors in completely true. You will get much better images from a $4000 lens and $400 camera than you will ever get from a $400 lens on a $4000 camera.
I also had one, around the same time, mainly for wedding and portrait use. I think it was actually 16.7MP if memory serves me correctly. I used to make huge canvases and it was more than double the resolution of the 'sports' camera I had - the 1DN. People are obsessed with resolution, and you hit the nail on the head, the lens is what made the difference - comments to the contrary are usually posted by people who were still at school while you and I were making a living using the 1Ds mkII!
Thats simply not true, Put a Viltrox Lens on a Fuji X-H2 and you will get crispy 40mp-160mp images. But under $400 camera you are maxing out 24mp and will get worse results Source: I own a Viltrox 13mm f1.4 and a Fuji X-H2 that I've taking some of my best and sharpest pics with, and I've been looking to pull the trigger on a Canon 1DS Mark ii for vintage reasons.
Hey Gav, I shoot two systems Z8 and Z glass (wiledlife landscape) and OM-1 and Panasonic glass (Travel, macro, wildlife, landscape, street). I picked up a used 12-40mm f2.8 for less than £300 and it is tack sharp. The 300mm f4 you have to be careful when you pick it up or you will cut your hand it is so sharp. The point is you don't have to spend fortunes on micro 4/3 glass to get super sharp immages. Oh, and if you want a Nikon Z600mm f4 it will cost £14 000. That is quite a lot Canadian.
Three months ago I traded my R5 in on a Fuji GFX 100 II, yesterday I traded the Fuji in on a R5 II. I compared shots from the 102mp Fuji to my 24mp R3 shots and the difference wasn't that great and it wasn't worth running two systems. I didn't see a big difference in the R3 and R5 that's why I traded the R5 in expecting to see more from 102mp but it just wasn't there. I agree spending money on lenses instead of megapixels is a better choice.
Gavin, I thought this was a fair and balanced review of the OM System camera and lenses. Well done. The only point I would disagree on a little is the higher dynamic range of the Hasselblad means less mucking around in post processing. In terms of exposure this is partly true. However, switching to one of the high resolution modes in the OM system camera pretty much negates the higher dynamic range advantage of the best full frame and medium sensor cameras. It should also be noted that Micro Four Thirds cameras have a considerable advantage when it comes to depth field meaning that you are far less likely to have to focus stack images to achieve the same front to back sharpness. Perhaps the biggest advantage of larger sensor cameras is the ability to crop more without unduly affecting the image quality. But again the high resolution modes of the OM System cameras more or less negate this advantage. I think a lot of people greatly underestimate the MFT system. I should point out there are some very good landscape photographers who almost solely use MFT cameras for their work - notably Len Metcalf who in my opinion is one of the best in the world.
Absolutelly on point!!! Using LiveND128 you have more dynamic range than any FF in the marlet right now... and you can increase 2 stops the ISO and still you are on top. For landscape photography, it is a blessing
Yes 80mp in tripod mode and 50mp handheld. In addition, the high res mode will expand the dynamic range and dramatically reduce any noise. As an added benefit, the handheld mode will track stars when shooting Astro on a tripod.
@@veronikagundersen9334 If you are making longish exposures,subject movement can be find. For example, blurring water. Shoot moving cars near the camera, and you can get multiple cars. I'd be inclined to try to make it work for me.
A 4k TV has 8.3MP. That should give you an idea of how big you can realistically print with the resolution of your image. So IMO, megapixels don't matter. Thanks for all the great content Gavin.
Great video Gavin. I was surprised you used Topaz to uprez the 20mp image to 80mp when the OM1 offers a high rez mode which uses pixel shift to achieve 80mp and when that mode increases the dynamic range, color depth, and reduces noise. It would be interesting for you to take a 20mp shot and an 80mp shot of the same frame then uprez the 20mp with Topaz and compare the two. Yes, the high rez merges multiple images so could be affected by movement, but you were very positive about the ND mode which also merges multiple images to achieve it's results. Also, on the OM1.2 the live ND offers a graduated filter mode - might be fun to see what you can do with that. Anyway, I enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work.
Some of the softness of the ultrawide could be diffraction (shot was f11). It shows up sooner on many M43 lenses than on full frame. I typically wouldn't go past f8 on my OM lenses.
Well done as usual. I’ve shot both Olympus /OM AND SONY for 10 years so am familiar with limitations and strengths of both. I get the “look” often from the full frame die hards, but unless you understand the micro systems and its capabilities you’re blowing in the wind. I use it primarily as my hiking companion for weight and size. It’s viable performer and can take a beating from bumps and water where my Sony gear actually shuts down. Thanks for another entertaining and accurate photo experience.
I work as an advertising photographer. Often the photographs I take even when working with an art director and to a cllear brief end up being cropped to serve different needs.
Thank you for this video comparison. I'm old and got tired of carrying heavy telephotos so I sold them. I'm not a professional, and don't print huge. I was just looking at new cameras and coming to the same conclusions you made. So thank you for the validation.
I used to sling cameras for a living. My store had a yuuuuuge print from Skye taken on a nikon Df on the wall (16mp). It was proper big, like 2m vertical and whatever wide. Up close it looked like a steaming pile of garage, but at a reasonable viewing distance it looked fairly good. I loved this, as I often got people worrying that the camera they were considering didn't have enough megapickles. Especially as someone (nokia?) had just released a 100 megapickle or so phone. I would take them over to the image and have them guess, while viewing from a reasonable distance. Suffice to say, very few guessed the, even for then lowish 16 hyper-pickles. I sold a lot of cameras thanks to that photo provided and paid for by Nikon....
I have a Sony ZV-E1 with a 12MP sensor like the A7S3, and I also have the A7R5 with a 61MP sensor. Somehow the photos from the ZV-E1 are more film-like quality than the A7R5. It's just my feeling. The A7R5 is grainy even at the base ISO of 100 and it looks "digital", while the ZV-E1 photos are more "smooth" thanks to the high sensitivity sensor maybe.
Coz shit image always brings to mind film. The sharper the image is, the more artificial it looks. Thats what editing software is made for. Im starting to see grain after 6400 ISO on A7RV or huge zoom.
The perfect argument for zooms! Been using them for 40 years. No changing lenses. Can quickly take multiple pics and various zoom settings. ie take a series of cropped images at full pixels count! I predict mirrorless will see better and cheaper zooms. Eg Canon RF 24-240! Regardless, just note that a 20mp camera will produce about a 5mp jpeg.
I mostly shoot my M43 cameras at F4-F5.6, focus where I want you to look and don't worry about front to back sharpness. Like F1.2 on FF cameras, focus depth is a tool to be used. Often recently I have being doing one or more of the following: Focussing at a metre or two and photographing something relatively far away. Using live ND to get longer, blurred photographs. Zooming the lens. Twisting the camera. For these actives, sharp lenses add nothing.
I have A Sony A1 and A7R5, with all the GM lenses but one, (I didn't need the 50GM 1.4 if I have the 1.2). But the point of all this equipment bragging is that I also have the OM-1 mark I and a number of their pro lenses. When I have a several month trip to Europe this is the camera system I take and I leave all those Sony Pixels behind. The freedom of travel photography with the M43 system can not be overstated. I find DxO Photolab squeezes out great detail, and as you say, Gigapixel upress works wonders if needed for really large prints. So M43 is for convenience and flexibility, not for just a budget. I get travel pictures I likely would not if I took the Sony. I can take more lenses. I have greater endurance to seek out images. I can also get depth of field at f5.6 that f11 would be needed on full frame; that's like 2 stops less ISO towards image quality! I could go on. And good video!
I'm pretty sure that I can make photos with my N43 gear that you cannot with any Sony camera. I'm not counting megapixels as different. All of them can do 80 mpx in camera.
Never commented to anyone before but, when I had a Nikon D 50 - 6MP's and entered club competitions. I used Raw skies blended with Large Jpeg. foregrounds, I never told anyone and did very well in comps at the time and this was 16 x 12 Prints. (Kit lenses)
Great video Gavin. I have to agree with the other comments regarding shooting at f/11. With m43, some diffraction will set in by f/11. The 7-14mm f2.8 pro is also one of their first pro lenses, so nearly 10 years old now. Most of the m43 lenses peak in sharpness in the f/5.6 to f/8 region. After f/8, diffraction starts to creep in. But of course, DoF, continues to increase at the smaller apertures so there's a tradeoff if the diffraction can be overcome in post. BTW, the weather sealing on the Olympus cameras and pro lenses is awesome. My EM5Mk3 and the 40-150mm f/4 pro lens took a bath in a canoe this past summer. Submerged for about 10 seconds. I used both the camera and the lens extensively on a recent trip since, and the camera on some street photography with no issues. In fact, there was no leaking into either the camera or lens and they only had to be wiped down with a towel. A bag of rice was not needed. One other thing, you will find the camera and a couple lenses easier to hike around with up and down mountains.
As a non-photographer, I never realized how much messing with images photographers do today. I really wish that people would just take pictures and leave them alone. Also, your comparison between the wide angle and the telephoto shots, is not a good comparison, to me. If you want to WOW me with the difference a $10,000 lens makes vs a $1400 lens, then it better be an apples to apples comparison. And then, on top of that, modifying the picture with sharpness, noise reduction, etc., all take away from the comparison. Take a shot with one lens, then take the same shot with the other lens, and compare the two side by side. Both shots should be approximately the same framing, or the comparison is invalid. Otherwise, you are comparing the performance of a top fuel dragster running the quarter mile to a Chevy Cruze going to the grocery store. You can't compare the two because they were meant for different things. Adding insult to injury, "editing" either image is only a test of the computer's power and the technical prowess of the person doing the editing, not the camera or lens.
Photography is art, and like a brush is a tool for a painter, a camera is a tool for a photographer. You don't have to like my art, but you have to right to tell me to do it differently, or that photographs I make with purpose are bad.
I have this combo, and it shines when you’re in the top of a 4x4 bumping around Borneo forests without needing a tripod and using the 1.4x multiplier to get a shot of an orangutan far away in a 30m tall tree… or same forest in a boat constantly moving shooting hornbills. I was wondering how you can do the same photo with a much heavier equipment without the phenomenal stabilization that this combo has.
I shoot two systems OM-1 and have the 300mm plus tele converters and Nikon Z8 including the 600mm PF with telecomverters. The Nikon is in a different class when it comes to stabilisation comparing the OM-1, 300mm and 1.4 TC with the Nikon 600mm with 1.4 TC. The stabilisation is always on the Nikon and the image is completely stable. On my OM-1 the stabilisation only engages when I half press the shutter and even then it is nowhere near as stable as my Z8. On paper the OM-1 has 2 more stops of stabilisation than the Nikon. In reality the Nikon feels like it has two more stops than the OM-1 and that stabilisation is always engaged on the Nikon. What a pleasure when Birding. Much better than the OM-1. I love Malaysian Borneo and Indonesian Kalimantan. Fantastic for wildlife and macro. That is where the OM-1 shines for me. That and the size. The Panasonic 300mm f4 may actually weigh more than my Z600mm PF f6.3. So, no weight saving there.
@@youphototube You are confusion viewfinder stabilization with image stabilization. This is the same difference as subject detection and autofocus. All different things.
Gavin, useful discussion to have in this day and age of camera/lens technology. I am primarily a sports photog and live by the words of Steve Fine, Photo Editor, Sports Illustrated "any sports photo can be improved by cropping closer". For sure, Steve lived in the days of film but his basic principle still applies. I find this even more true today since the improvement in technology gives us the ability to see into sports action with inedible acuity. I get a lot of positive feedback from my customers and so yes, cropping maters. On the other hand, I also own the Hasselblad X2D with a variety of lenses that I use for almost everything except sports or action. Although it's not as important, I still find myself cropping in post (and happy to have so much range available). When shooting a landscape scene I may elect to shoot 3x2 (native sensor ratio) and when I get home I'll noodle about the image and sometimes I think this would look better in 16x9 or maybe XPAN (love XPAN ratio). Other times I know there's a good image there but can't quite seem to find it. So, I'll shoot loose and crop tight and with 102 MP you have a lot of latitude. so yes, cropping maters. Love your work and becoming a regular viewer - even subscribed.
When I moved to the OM1 I made the same mistake with the aperture, you need to almost half what you would usually use to get the same DOF. Also if you are using the pro lenses then you can use them fully open and have little to no softening. It has already been commented that there is high resolution modes on this camera, 50 megapixel for hand held shots and 80 megapixel on a tripod. It does stack multiple images so not good for a windy day but can be used creatively with waterfalls for example. I will just add 50 frames a second with continuous autofocus and 120 frames a second without. Finally the stabilisation is incredible, you could shoot hand held with your 150 - 400 1.25x at 500mm at around 1/125 second and still get consistent sharp photos, with the 7mm you could probably do up to 2 seconds if you were leaning against something.
We've never had it so good, that's for damn sure. My little D-Lux 8 has shown me that 17MP is more than enough when captured through a quality lens and onto a sensor with good DR and color science. But I'm with you on the X2D - it's not the 100MP sensor that steals the show. It's the ergonomics, the dynamic range, the IBIS, and the gorgeous natural colors that come out of it. And it's just so beautiful to look at. It's a keeper.
The choice between high quality lenses and 'more megapixels' is a false dichotomy, because they do the same thing - increase resolution and acutance. Increasing the megapixel count increases the resolution you get from every lens you own. It's just that for the poor lenses the improvement might be marginal whilst for the best ones it is clearly visible. Put it this way, if you like high quality lenses and you want them to perform at their best you need a high MP camera. Much of the discussion on this topic is marred by false ideas that are common on the internet, originating from a few supposedly authoritative web sites that get it very wrong. As for how much resolution and quality you actually need, that's a personal choice, as well as being driven by how you present your photos. As for 'dynamic range', for most usage dynamic range is sufficient on almost every modern camera for normal work. In the end, high MP cameras tend to gibe more DR, so this is another false dichotomy.
DR is a function of pixels size. Bigger sensors allow more big pixels. I would be more than a little surprised if Canon's R5 II has more dynamic range than the R3 or R1. Still, I would choose an OM-1 II or Lumix G9 II over anything from Canon. Canon's advantages are mostly pretty marginal, and the M43 cameras can do things the Canon cameras cannot. And, for things those cannot do, I use a Lumix S1R and an adaptor for Canon's TS-E lenses. For my photography, Canon and Nikon don't have anything as good as my Lumix S1R, and Sony never will.
5 yrs of rolling with a little canon 200d, have shot a night concert(with the 55-250mm) night street(30mm), milkyway nightscapes(with the 14-20mm and have printed A2), and Wednesday will be shooting an opening ribbon cutting event of a government official and the only lenses i have are the 2 kit lenses 18-55mm and 55-250mm, a 30mm f1.4 and a 14-20mm f2 🤷♂️
My two sharpest Olympus lenses: 35mm f1.2 pro, 8mm fisheye pro: sharpest lenses I have ever used (and I have Sony FF and APS-C too). I hear the Olympus 75mm f1.8 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. My Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 pro and 12-100mm f4 pro are super sharp too. I got into MFT for use for photogrammetry (I am a 3D artist, photography is my hobby), and the extra depth of field and industry leading IBIS is a bonus for getting subject matter all in focus and tac sharp. After using it for my work and some shutter therapy sessions, I was having so much fun using my Olympus EM1 mark III that I went all in on MFT. I now have a GH6 too...which IMO has better video than my Sony a7r3. I think the High Res mode on the Lumix cameras is better than my Olympus (results are sharper, but not artificially sharp), however, the OM1 mark II now has 14bit color depth, so I am interested in trying it out and comparing it to my GH6.
The reason why not all systems include LiveND is because of the shuter speed. The LiveND shoots and composes as many phots as the number in the ND (for example 32 photos in ND32 or 128 photos in LiveND128). the speed of the OMsystem OM1 Mark2 is 120 photos per second... and this is unachievable for almost any camera on the market. On top of this, you need a processor capable to stack all these images real time. The Dynamic Range reason than you mention is totally wrong... the fact that you are stacking images (like when you do it for stars photography, but in camera and real time) increase dramatically the Dynamic Range. Actually it gets higher than any FF in the market One more thing, about the IP53... I clean the camera under the faucet. Just for you to know
I have a friend who is a professional photographer, and has done well for himself since 1975, and has used a Hassy for many many years, but when he goes on safari he brings an OS camera and has made amazing very large prints with them.
You hit the exact reason I got a Sony a7R III. My 3 lenses are far apart in focal length: 10mm, 28mm shift, and 65mm macro. The Sony's resolution, in effect, gives me additional 15, 20, 50, 85, 100 and 135!
I have first used the A7SM1/2/3 also graduated to the A7RM2 then A7RM5 doing landscapes and Astro Milky Ways the only different things are the capture settings using PhotoPills. Now as far a sharping, denoise and upsizing is with Topaz is the upsizing to point of each. I love going back to OLD images and reediting with the newer programs. Example I did some Milky Ways some nights with the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 that had several problems like a mustache curl to the left that had no corrections then two years later Lrc (only) had the correction and also it was 2015 and no info on how to do so I did some Bracketing 3 at +/- 1EV which unknowingly the camera NR is turned off when longer than 1 second so I had hot and dead pixels to boot in all images. Go forward to say 2018 or so Lrc blended and hot and dead pixels were gone and sending through Lrc denoise was also great and 12MP image but upsized to the A7RM5 size with Topaz. Not really needed for I got a poster size print with the 12MP image that someone wanted and was great. Ever get a poster size print with a old Point and Shoot 8MP image yes it can be done and will come out great. Try the Pixel Shift Multi Shoot for the ultra MP image why just because you can!
Great review, but m43 suffers from visible diffraction at apertures smaller than f/8, which approximates the full frame limit of f/16, so any review on sharpness should consider it.
Hey Gavin, this is a bit off topic, but how is that renovation coming along? Curious to see what you and Amanda came up with on the old church building
On ultra wide, i rarely go above F5.6 with M43 sensor (I use the 8-18 leica & G9ii, but it's nearly the same has the OM). Thank for giving hope for us lower budget friendly user :)
great video nice to see someone do a decent try out, my thoughts are much the same coming from and still owning nikon apsc and full frame cameras, in your situation where you are hiking miles in some of the nastiest weather a fully weather sealed light setup, (not needing to take the big bazooka along as nice as it is its a tad on pricey side) but a light kit when you are clambering of icey rocks would be an advantage, plus no glass filters to loose in the rivers, the greater depth of field a bonus for landscapes, plus some of the built in focus bracketing stuff a good light back up system
When considering the OM- system, if the Bazooka price is scary, for 1/3 the cost, the 300/4 is just as sharp, if not sharper, and takes the 1.4 extender quite well.
Scrutinizing images at extreme zoom levels (pixel peeping) is a disease that only affects some photographers. Most of us focus on the overall visual impact + story rather than getting bogged down in minute, irrelevant details 😋 None of my clients has ever, at any time asked for more (or even been aware its an issue).
Another great video... thank you Mr. Hardcastle. By any chance did you have the opportunity to try the in-camera focus bracketing & stacking feature? Does it work as advertised? Cheers
well, and if resolution is the case, and your scene is such static, you can do 80Mpix HR shot, which after correct sharpering gives you better resolution than 60Mpix FF sensor ...
I watched the Canadian Rockies video before this one and I am guessing you didn't try out the OM live GND? Not judgin, I haven't either. My skies have been too boring to bother with, but I'm wanting to see someone use it
Megapixels matter only in so much as the photographer wants them to matter. Almost any shot can be obtained with a decent camera regardless of the megapixels. But photographers have come to rely on megapixels and therefore they have made them important to the way they shoot.
Very great intro into the OM system. It has quite some interesting features like included ND and gnd filter. He Gav, can you show its usage in your next video's?
I think this is probably the time where people ARENT competing on pixel counts - 10/15 years ago it was a thing - but when they got to 24mp, people accepted its more than enough
You failed to mention the internal high resolution of the E-M1 II. I recently bought an OM-5 and 12-45 F4. With essential accessories it as less than $AU2,000. If fits easily into the pockets of my puffer jacket. It's a better camera, but that might not matter to you. I nee to check, I think it can do 50 Mpx in hand. Certainly 80 on legs. I bought this because I have AML Leukemia, and I'm seriously weaker than a year ago when I was cancer-free. Carrying a 6 Kg camera bag is seriously wearing.
If you want incredible results get a hold of the APO Summicron M F2 35mm ASPH. This lens is supper sharp and has a Cinematic look when shot at F/2. I have used many lenses in my 50 years of photographing and this lens is by far the best I have used. Expensive it is but worth the money.
I think I'm going to side with the Micro 4/3ers on this one Gavin and say you stopped the WA lens down too much on the OM1. As for me, having now got 40Mp, what I really need is a camera that's bleddy simple to operate and doesn't keep popping up random menus when I'm shooting. Grrr😡 Now, on a different subject my friend John D. Moneycounter has nudged my elbow saying something about 'an undeclared income stream...'😉
We never had all this crap with film , you just accepted what film did and made a choice based on the lens quality and body features. 15mp v 60mp . 15mp equals Bigger pixels , greater sensitivity or SNR . Less read noise , less HD space , quicker processing, less cost same result. 60mp equals oversampling or falling for marketing hype.
Hey hey. Hi hope all is well. Your video is just awesome. I have a tremendous question to ask. So, a while back I traded my newer OM-1 and all Olympus lenses for the new Z6iii. I have to say, I miss the OM camera. I miss the inbody stacking and I miss the inbody ND filters. So I’m back on the fence again. I shoot landscape and I do shoot birds/wildlife with the occasional macro or astro. (I don’t do video) and well, what about picture print out size? I might print up to a 36x48. (It’s only been 24x32’s I believe) My biggest question here is image quality. In your most professional opinion, will I actually see a difference in image quality with a 20mp vs 24mp? Like; what will I be giving up on here. Obviously I won’t be able to crop in much with a m4/3, but I don’t really crop much anyway. Just looking for an honest answer and i am just having such a hard time deciding. The biggest thing is i don’t want to give up an image quality. What do you think?
I had Nikon full frame (Z6II/Z7II) and now have an OM1II. I don`t miss my Nikons. If it weren`t for the different aspect ratio I wouldn`t see any differences in my photos.
@@briancarlisle2534 That`s funny! I tested the Z6III for a week because I wanted to switch back at some point. Now I`m glad I didn`t buy the Z6III. TO your question: I don`t edit my photos much (denoise, sharpen, exposure compensation). If you don`t walk through the forest at night and photograph owls the OM1II is clearly the better camera for ME.P.S.: I also take 40/60cm prints and I don`t see any differences to my older ff prints. But that`s just my opinion. Others may see it differently.
f11 remains f11 mft or fullframe only the look and the outcome is different. mft is a real handheld sensor and if you compare that with full frame then you quickly go to MFT with the results also for wilf life photography a lighter lens and body make it easier to get into situations where you still have a fairly large lens with you with a full frame 600+mm. the 150-400 is of course an exception but there are enough cheaper options from lumix, leica and olympus. megapixels can help with cropping but if you frame a photo well then you don't have to crop away much, or not at all of course, and then with a good tripod and time and good settings you can get a similar photo and then the question is, with a large print how close are you to the photo and then megapixels only count if you are going to take a part of the photo.
1st thing to look for in a camera is ... your own knowledge! Only when you have acquired knowledge and skills will you be able to get the best out of the "best" gear (As you do so well! 👍🙂👍) . Otherwise, gear won't make much difference... And I haven't got to discussing postprocessing yet ... 😉
They are not "modest money" so far as I am concerned. No doubt they are wonderful cameras. But for screen only output modest money cameras with decent lenses, if used properly, will be an excellent choice. Maybe use the money saved for a few trips to new locations.
Totally agree with the assessment. The Olympus M4/3 sensor has difficulty resolving small details at distance. The small sensor also shows a loss of color depth. You do have the HR mode, which definitely does help but... And of course the 10k lens is pretty awesome but no one is going to buy that. Its pretty much for birders and I know birding is a genre, and having tried it sparingly, its pretty much as boring as it gets. I would sooner photograph real birds the ones that wear perfume and look nice. Sadly the OM crowd kept banging on about birding, and pretty much stuffed the brand. They should instead of promoted travel photography and the Olympus system is fantastic for that. I carry 2 cameras, primes on one side and the 40-150 Pro on the other. OM is still using the 20mp sensor and although it may be a fraction better in IQ, take note that you can buy a new EM1mk2 for 600USD, and the bevy of primes are so cheap. The system allows you to be as creative as you want. Sadly Olympus missed the boat with the eye auto focus, they did get the face detect which does work because of the depth of field of the M4/3 sensor. I also have the Sony A7R3 with 42mp and true eye auto and the images that come from that are simply gorgeous. With good pp you can get the absolute best out of the M/3 sensor and I have printed A3 sized prints at home and they look fantastic. Olympus has its place definitely!!
This comment nails the downsides of MFT for landscape photography - a visible limit to resolving power in some situations, which can for example turn distant vegetation into mush, and, compared to Hasselblad (which is quite a leap), some limitations in colour resolution and especially gradation. However… in a lot of circumstances, the upsides to MFT will completely trounce the Hasselblad. And I speak as a long term owner of both systems. And both are equally fun and rewarding to use.
Can’t believe you think he’s comparing focal lengths. I don’t know much about photography, but I can tell which lens is sharper. It’s pretty obvious, even to a noob. The wide angle is soft and has no contrast ( Which I believe is a major factor of sharpness ). You clearly know less about lenses than me.
@@elevationmoto6208One doesn’t know much about sharpness one would think. The comparison makes perfect sense to me, I can clearly see which lens is shaper. 🤷🏼♂️
@@oldman2324 Because 'I don’t know much about photography' you also don't understand the real world comparisons. First, 1500$ is already on the pro level price for a lens, another clue is the wide aperture, so that's not a junk lens. The 10k tele has a ton more glass and that's why it's so expensive, it is not better glass than the small lens. To compare the sharpness you need to fill the frame with a subject in the same way for both lenses
It appears I and many others understand real world comparisons more than you. You just admitted you wanted a controlled comparison. “To compare the sharpness you need to fill the frame with a subject IN THE SAME WAY for both lenses”. That’s not a real world comparison. That’s a controlled comparison 🤡
4:26 If you hadn't pushed the lens into diffraction territory by stopping down to f8 and even f11 - FOR CRYING OUT LOUD - you'd gotten sharp images equal to anything else out there. User error, not the lens. f8 on Micro Four Thirds is already losing sharpness, if you want the sharpest images possible, stick to wide open on the pro lenses, f4 or f5.6 and not much higher. Remember, f4 on Micro Four Thirds gives you equivalent DOF to full frame at f8.
f11 on m43 is a waste of at least one third of the resolution compared to f2-f 5.6. Old panasonic gf1(12mpx) on f2-2.8 gives similar iq as f11 on om-1(20mpx). btw. You don't need to use high aperture if you want to smooth water/sky. Om-1 has live nd. Live nd by the way will give you 2 stops more DR. Plus you have high res mode and hanheld highres mode.
