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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I yet have to be convinced that a very expensive lens yields more resolution than the less expensive one. To have an idea: the Tokina 50-135 on my D7200 produces the same resolution as the 70-200 on my D750, but costs only 1/4th. The important thing is, that the 50-135 has edge sharpness all the way at f/2.8, but the 70-200 does not. Another important difference is that the Tokina has near to no vignetting. The 70-200 is not the best of the class there, but it is excellent in controlling flare and ghosting compared to the Tokina. I also use the 16-28 Tokina and it surpasses the Nikkor 14-24 in resolution. At least my copy compared to that of my friends' 14-24 does. Same story for the ghosting, however.
@@josgeusens4637 Quite right! It is about the quality of a lens, not the price tag! There are good quality lenses that don’t cost a fortune, and some very expensive ones can be disappointing.
I agree with the sentiment about “not always getting the best shot” happens more than most people admit I think. I don’t like editing much, changed from Nikon D7000 which I purchased when it released (16mp apps-c). Now that I’m retired I got into the Fujifilm X-T5 last month because I just wanted a lighter kit and frankly for the sims for SOOC. I still occasionally have to edit the RAW file to fix my boo-boo but not too often. (I do shoot JPEG & RAW just in case). Thanks for your content.
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.
Thanks for this very accurate analysis. It's easy to see the negative effect of 'pixel peeping' and chart reading from the comments on this video. My experience is that at any normal viewing distance, with m4/3's, there is virtually no visible softening of image details until you hit the f/14-16 aperture range. What many of these comments below seem to ignore is that the context of the image elements will dictate which aperture to use. For example in your wide angle shot of lake and mountains there is a foreground tree stump in the water that you would want to be sharp, as well as the mountains in the distance -- f/11 - f/14 would be a good choice. At f/8 the stump would be sharp, but the mountains would be soft -- diffraction be damned. P.S. You have a good eye, and some fantastic landscape images!
Please do another video on this camera set up using Hi-Rez mode & built in ND filter mode, I find I get the best results with Mike or lenses using max stop f/8 four best results, I find past f/8 image tends to soften round f/11 & f/16, try to use f/5.6 or f/8 instead, to prevent having problems with defraction, softening the photograph.
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
@@tomheim9516 Agree, it is a limitation if you want a very high resolution image which absolutely freezes movement. To be honest, I am normally not too bothered about some movement in leaves or grasses as it adds to the feeling I experienced when taking the photograph. I do a lot of woodland photography and I don't see this as a limitation. In any case, 20 megapixel in most situations is more than enough even if you print large.
@@danevarkevisser4670 Thanks for confirming (haven’t kept up with the technology and wasn’t sure if someone had figured out a way around this). Agreed on 20MP being enough for printing purposes, and some minor blur of moving objects is not a problem for me either.
I recently spent a few days working at a camera shop (As a security technician). One the things that i noticed was hardly any of the staff directed potential costomers to OM or Panasonic cameras, unless specifically asked. Both staff and customers seemed to be more concerned with the number of Megapixels before anything else. There were even a couple of people that specifically asked for a camera suitable for travel etc, but wanted a "Proper" camera and they were still shown Canon or Nicon first. I think this is down to the fact that most people that work in Camera shops are techies and really just want to sell their perferred brand. They are selling the sausage and not the sizzle! I am, I admit that I am an Oly fanboy and have been since the 80's but although I have looked other systems Olympus/OM just suits me.
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.
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.
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.
Yes and no. TVs have subpixels for the three primary colors (sometimes more) whereas camera sensors do not. If you make the leap and assume you can treat 3 color sub-pixels as separate, then in a sense a 4k TV has 24.8 megapixels. But it’s an apples to oranges comparison any way you slice it. The true equivalent resolution from a 4K TV to a camera sensor, if such a thing exists, is probably somewhere in the middle between 8 and 24
@@jonpaulpepen9470 if you are displaying 4k media on a 4k TV, the TV is reproducing imagery captured originally on a 8.3MP sensor. Agreed, the TV effectively interpolates the Bayer array to multiple subpixels but the underlying resolution is indeed 8.3MP. However, the point I originally made was to give an idea of how big one could print an 8.3MP image without pixelation. An 8.3MP image on a 65" 4k TV looks pretty damn good.
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.
I shoot Hasselblad, with 22MP, 39MP and 100MP. The 22MP has the greatest bit depth and renders dynamic range and colors so beautifully. The larger resolution cameras have smaller pixels with reduced bit depth. (a note about bit depth. A camera shooting a fraction over 15bit will still call itself 16bit solely because the 16th bit is required for a small set of the least significant bits) The 39MP has the same tech as the 22MP but smaller pixels and so it favors resolution and color palette. The 100MP has smaller pixels again, but thankfully technology improvements. It offers a slight increase in bit depth on the 39 (but much less than the 22) What makes this camera important to me is in printed work. (I print and exhibit large pieces) Without the need to print large format the 22 offers astounding quality but no real room to crop. The 39 is very close in quality and offers some flexibility. When it comes to printing, the H6D-100c is glorious. Though knowing the benefits of larger pixels, I would have been happier with lower resolution and higher performing pixels! These days, 16bit, pixels are still typically larger than 6µm for FSI pixels and 4.5µm for BSI pixels which in turn determine the resolution for any given sensor size.
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.
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
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.
Yes. They do! Today just for fun I took my Fuji MF 100s with the 45-100 and my 100-200 lens instead of my XH1 and my 50-140 and 100-400mm lens. I shot six soccer games and had a ball doing so! And it’s amazing how much you can crop into a photo from 102mp to say 20mp. It’s amazing and heck of a lot of fun!!!!
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.
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.
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.
Any "hardcore" enthusiast who think that cropping is "a crime", should go to actually look Masters of Photography produced contact prints. They did crop A LOT. The reason is very simple. Even they didn't know what they really wanted, and they didn't have the zoom to carefully frame the shot. The simple rules are: 1) Get your camera in the perspective that creates you the composition. That literally means that you need to move around and see the whole scene geometry and lighting to understand where you need your camera to be. Better you are seeing these, faster you are to find your wanted composition. 2) Timing. The second most important part is that you get your timing right. It can be the fraction of second when someone smiles that is the moment you need. Or it can be landscape shot that requires specific season and weather and then few second moments when the lighting is right. 3) Exposure You need to have in ballpark. You tweak and fix dodging and burning the photo later on as required. It doesn't mean at all "I fix it in post". It is literally same process as with film in darkroom, you need to know what you can do and what you can't do. You know how to improve something already great looking scene. Today's sensors are very flat. A 4/3" sensor can capture better side of 10 stops dynamic range, and about 1-0.6 stops less than best 35 mm sensors are both at base ISO, but on same ISO the difference is around 1/3 stops or less. To get the 2 stop difference, one needs to have a Medium Format. The Masters of Photography worked with under 8 stops of dynamic range. And that even was on large formats. Small and Medium Format shooters worked with 6-7 stops dynamic range. 4) Finally comes the framing. And that is simply something that one needs to "see" same time as seeing composition. To realize and notice that what is the interesting parts in the whole scene front of them. And nothing beats the zoom. The idea is never to frame as carefully as possible, to maximize resolution on the detail. Idea is to leave plenty of cropping space, so if required you can even do vertical framing instead. In reality we talk about 2-5 Mpix range for high quality work. Most viewed images are under 1 Mpix. Our magazines, newspapers, and websites are all full of < 1 Mpix images. And we enjoy looking those. They deliver the needed information and content. We watch movies at 2.1 Mpix at best, now some have started to demand 4K that is just 8.3 Mpix and usually it is even compressed so highly that content value is same as good Full HD video (2.1 Mpix). World best movies are below Full HD. It doesn't matter. 20 Mpix offers 50% crop. So half of the height and half of width.That makes the 20 Mpix image worth of 5 Mpix. That is the range when we can still produce a good A3 size prints. So full magazine double bleed. That 50% crop is same thing as using a 100 mm lens instead 50 mm lens. This is why the "holy trinity" was 24 / 50 / 100 lenses as you got 2x framing factor between, so if your imagined framing was below 50%, you swapped lens to longer focal length. If you didn't get scene inside 1:1 box in the frame, you swapped to shorter focal length. Zooms are great because you have that dynamic means to find your best perspective, then find your wanted framing with enough cropping space for optimal shot, and then just do rest. Something that one can't do with a fixed focal length lenses. You can't compromise perspective to move closer or further to fill scene, why zoom helps to optimize the resolution on the detail. For short timing restrictions one can manage take wide and tight shot quickly, or do panorama quickly.
Thanks for your detailed, well organized comment. I learned some important new things from you, even after some hundreds of hours viewing, reading, and taking photos to update my somewhat limited knowledge from decades ago.
I've been using Olympus MFT cameras and lenses for over five years and no complaints at all. I took a series of B&W shots with the original model, which was the OMD-EM5 and a 17mm f1.8 lens and they easily blew up to A5 size in Portrait mode. You are advised to take the shots at ISO200 for maximum sharpness and even hand held you will get great results. I challenge you to start taking hand held shots and see if I'm not correct. Also, I fell in the marshy grass by the River Wyre at Fleetwood with the OMD EM1 Mk2 and 12-100 pro lens. I had to go and buy new trousers, the camera which also got soaked and muddied required a splash of water and some kitchen roll and carried on working as if now't had happened. So rugged? you bet ya! And you're right about getting good glass. The pro lenses are best, followed by the F1.8 primes.
Gavin, I really enjoyed this video, and I was happy you mentioned upscaling, I damaged some of my Fuji gear and took out the old Nikon D90, 16 years old with a 40 mm macro lens, I focus stacked some images and upscaled them in Luminar Neo with stunning results, for someone on a budget I really appreciated that feedback. Cheers mate.
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.
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 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....
damm good advice, I went for lenses, changed my camera when my last one could not do the biz i.e. d300s to the d500 nuff for me for what I do, your a bloody good photographer so I understand your needs.
Yes. You can easily see the difference between 16 and 50mpix files printed on 70x50cm. Retouching is easier, cropping is better and final output is better. Of course, we have upscaling but it will not produce additional detail.
Well done. I shoot college sports on an R6 with the RF 100-300 2.8. During an event I will push a few files to the news outlet and when done, hundreds. Twenty megapixels is very manageable considering I don’t know how much bandwidth I will have at a given venue. The Hasselblad X2D is a very different animal and instead of shooting 12 fps I’m taking my time shooting landscapes one image at a time. With 100 megapixels, later I have the option of finding the composition within the composition. Sixteenth bit raws….magic. Is it a necessity? Absolutely not…but it sure is fun.
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)
Gavin, I have both the X2D and OM-1. Could not agree more. Use the OM-1 and 150-400 with wildlife. It is perfect for wildlife. Had not really thought about landscape. BTW. Use the X2D with the 135. You can get a 600mm equivalent crop and still have plenty of pixels. So when shooting with the X2D, any lens is a bit of a zoom. Yes, I know… you won’t get the compression. But still, not bad.
I have use Olympus/OM system, cameras digital and lenses for the last 10 years, In northern Newfoundland temperature as cold as -30c at times with no issues over the last 10 years, with the original E-M1.
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.
I do agree with the lens steer. If you have a great camera body, you can get great images with non premium lenses. But if you have the premium glass also, WOW. I am happy as a big bag of happy things with my Canon R5 and RF 24-70 f2.8L.....all I'll ever need.
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!
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.
I just bought a Canon 5D (13Mp approx). I wasn't looking for pixels, I was looking for the beautiful images it produces. I'll take beautiful images over pixel-count every time. The truth is that most of the best photos taken, between 2005 and 2008, were taken on a 5D mk1. I know it has limitations, but only when compared to more modern cameras. In 2005 it didn't have ANY limitations. Too many people buying expensive gear, hoping the new gear will help them compose an image properly. It pisses me off a bit when people praise my photos and add "What camera did you use?". I never ask artists "What brushes did you use?".
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 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.
The ending of this video earned my subscription 😂 I’ve got my Nikon Z7 for sale because I want to switch to Sony, if you can tell me another brand I should get, I’m more than grateful to hear your opinion but, in terms of Sony I’ve been looking at the Sony A7R V, what are your thoughts about that camera considering that I’m changing from a camera like the Nikon Z7. Hope to hear from you soon.
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 🤷♂️
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
Hello Gavin. The higher resolution is not only important for cropping, you forgot to mention that distorting a 20mpix image, drastically reduces its definition. Personally, I use the warp tool a lot to correct very wide focal lengths, or for more powerful compositions. More than 40 mpix is very important in these cases.
Have you done a video where a nice size wall print, say A2/17"X24" , is the goal viewable at 4 feet, using that wonderful X2D along with the top cameras in each sensor size? These videos by working pros help so many people in various stages of their photography journey.Thanks.
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 ...
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
Look at canon and Nikon, there older flagship DSLR's had £5k price tags, but were both only 20mp, pretty much every mirrorless camera on sale today has a minimum 24mp at least.
Getting it right in camera is not always possible. Even if you think you took the right lens for the job, you will still encounter situations where you either are too close or too far away without the possibility to change that. That is nothing new. Back in time when I (and many other people) processed photos in the darkroom, cropping and changing the aspect was nothing new. Why should it be now? Also, having a limited resolution does not mean you cannot crop. Also when using film, you could have used a sensitive film with lots of grain on a stage shoot, but that would not keep me from cropping the unnecessary or distracting parts away. No matter what resolution was left. That still goes today, but even a 24 megapixel camera delivers enough resolution to crop it to 1/4th of the initial area and be able to print it 100 cm wide and look at it in close proximity. Yes, resolution matters, but mostly not. We have to keep in mind that if we have camera shake of 1 pixel on a 50 mp sensor, the resulting resolution is equal to that of a 25 mp.
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.
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.
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.
Can you please do video about om1 mk2 autofocus, subject recognition and walkthrough menu? I want this system next year becuase I’m outdoor photographer and I need light weather sealed photo camera for rally cars photography .. tnx💪🏼
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.
@@oneeyedphotographer Sorry, this is factually wrong. DR is not a function of pixel size. The dependence between pixel size and DR depends very much on the design of the individual pixel - it's not straight forward, but the tendency is that for a given reference output resolution and sensor size the advantage goes to smaller pixels. A can go through all the technical reasons for this, as well as the test evidence that supports it, if you don't believe it. Canon R3 and R5 are much the same for DR, because the pixels are very similar design.
Order My Book: www.fototripper.com/stories-within-stories-landscape-photography-book/
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.
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.
Actually, the E-20 was 5 MP. I had two of them and shot a bunch of weddings with them -- never had a dissatisfied client.
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. I never go past f8, unless I desperately need wider depth of field (macro) on M43.
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.
Why would you use f/11 on a FT sensor? You would not use f/22 on a full frame for landscapes either, would you?
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 :)
Agreed. I prefer F/7 on Panasonic Lumix/Leica lenses compared to F/16 on Nikon full frame Nikkor lenses when photographing the same scene.
Agreed, if you use f11 on M43 you will have a softer image.
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.
Thanks for reminding us DPR team. The horrible diffraction softening is so bad that I could hardly see any OM-1 II details...
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.
This video was by far the best and most informative on that subject which has been covered by many others.
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.
The Nikon Z 600 f6.3 does exist though
Enjoy all your videos. Thanks for all the free content and educational details.
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.
That camera had a sensor that really produced wonderful, wonderful files, with lovely colours.
I yet have to be convinced that a very expensive lens yields more resolution than the less expensive one. To have an idea: the Tokina 50-135 on my D7200 produces the same resolution as the 70-200 on my D750, but costs only 1/4th. The important thing is, that the 50-135 has edge sharpness all the way at f/2.8, but the 70-200 does not. Another important difference is that the Tokina has near to no vignetting. The 70-200 is not the best of the class there, but it is excellent in controlling flare and ghosting compared to the Tokina.
I also use the 16-28 Tokina and it surpasses the Nikkor 14-24 in resolution. At least my copy compared to that of my friends' 14-24 does. Same story for the ghosting, however.
@@josgeusens4637 Quite right! It is about the quality of a lens, not the price tag! There are good quality lenses that don’t cost a fortune, and some very expensive ones can be disappointing.
I agree with the sentiment about “not always getting the best shot” happens more than most people admit I think. I don’t like editing much, changed from Nikon D7000 which I purchased when it released (16mp apps-c). Now that I’m retired I got into the Fujifilm X-T5 last month because I just wanted a lighter kit and frankly for the sims for SOOC. I still occasionally have to edit the RAW file to fix my boo-boo but not too often. (I do shoot JPEG & RAW just in case). Thanks for your content.
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.
Thanks for this very accurate analysis. It's easy to see the negative effect of 'pixel peeping' and chart reading from the comments on this video. My experience is that at any normal viewing distance, with m4/3's, there is virtually no visible softening of image details until you hit the f/14-16 aperture range. What many of these comments below seem to ignore is that the context of the image elements will dictate which aperture to use. For example in your wide angle shot of lake and mountains there is a foreground tree stump in the water that you would want to be sharp, as well as the mountains in the distance -- f/11 - f/14 would be a good choice. At f/8 the stump would be sharp, but the mountains would be soft -- diffraction be damned.
P.S. You have a good eye, and some fantastic landscape images!
Please do another video on this camera set up using Hi-Rez mode & built in ND filter mode,
I find I get the best results with Mike or lenses using max stop f/8 four best results, I find past f/8 image tends to soften round f/11 & f/16, try to use f/5.6 or f/8 instead, to prevent having problems with defraction, softening the photograph.
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
What about moving objects? Isn't high resolution mode severely limited if trees (with leaves) are in the frame?
@@tomheim9516 Agree, it is a limitation if you want a very high resolution image which absolutely freezes movement. To be honest, I am normally not too bothered about some movement in leaves or grasses as it adds to the feeling I experienced when taking the photograph. I do a lot of woodland photography and I don't see this as a limitation. In any case, 20 megapixel in most situations is more than enough even if you print large.
@@danevarkevisser4670 Thanks for confirming (haven’t kept up with the technology and wasn’t sure if someone had figured out a way around this). Agreed on 20MP being enough for printing purposes, and some minor blur of moving objects is not a problem for me either.
I recently spent a few days working at a camera shop (As a security technician). One the things that i noticed was hardly any of the staff directed potential costomers to OM or Panasonic cameras, unless specifically asked. Both staff and customers seemed to be more concerned with the number of Megapixels before anything else. There were even a couple of people that specifically asked for a camera suitable for travel etc, but wanted a "Proper" camera and they were still shown Canon or Nicon first. I think this is down to the fact that most people that work in Camera shops are techies and really just want to sell their perferred brand. They are selling the sausage and not the sizzle! I am, I admit that I am an Oly fanboy and have been since the 80's but although I have looked other systems Olympus/OM just suits me.
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.
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.
Lumix cameras keep a standard res photo additional to the high res image. If my E-M1x can't blend, I get nothing,
@@oneeyedphotographer really? I know I get an .ori file if it works , but never thought about if it failed I get nothing
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.
Yes and no. TVs have subpixels for the three primary colors (sometimes more) whereas camera sensors do not. If you make the leap and assume you can treat 3 color sub-pixels as separate, then in a sense a 4k TV has 24.8 megapixels.
But it’s an apples to oranges comparison any way you slice it. The true equivalent resolution from a 4K TV to a camera sensor, if such a thing exists, is probably somewhere in the middle between 8 and 24
@@jonpaulpepen9470 if you are displaying 4k media on a 4k TV, the TV is reproducing imagery captured originally on a 8.3MP sensor. Agreed, the TV effectively interpolates the Bayer array to multiple subpixels but the underlying resolution is indeed 8.3MP. However, the point I originally made was to give an idea of how big one could print an 8.3MP image without pixelation. An 8.3MP image on a 65" 4k TV looks pretty damn good.
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.
My walk around is a fuji x-e2 with only 16megapix and it does the job. Now for jobs. I shoot with a canon 5dmkiv and EVERY SO OFTEN I need them.
I shoot Hasselblad, with 22MP, 39MP and 100MP. The 22MP has the greatest bit depth and renders dynamic range and colors so beautifully. The larger resolution cameras have smaller pixels with reduced bit depth. (a note about bit depth. A camera shooting a fraction over 15bit will still call itself 16bit solely because the 16th bit is required for a small set of the least significant bits) The 39MP has the same tech as the 22MP but smaller pixels and so it favors resolution and color palette. The 100MP has smaller pixels again, but thankfully technology improvements. It offers a slight increase in bit depth on the 39 (but much less than the 22) What makes this camera important to me is in printed work. (I print and exhibit large pieces) Without the need to print large format the 22 offers astounding quality but no real room to crop. The 39 is very close in quality and offers some flexibility. When it comes to printing, the H6D-100c is glorious. Though knowing the benefits of larger pixels, I would have been happier with lower resolution and higher performing pixels! These days, 16bit, pixels are still typically larger than 6µm for FSI pixels and 4.5µm for BSI pixels which in turn determine the resolution for any given sensor size.
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.
Very informative and with practical application at all levels that makes it something everyone can relate to in one way or another. Thanks!
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
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.
This is an absolutely relevant and honest elaboration. High megapixel count will not mask your skill holes...
Wowzers. This is top tier education and content…as usual. Cheers 🙌 from a fellow Caper 👍
Yes. They do! Today just for fun I took my Fuji MF 100s with the 45-100 and my 100-200 lens instead of my XH1 and my 50-140 and 100-400mm lens. I shot six soccer games and had a ball doing so! And it’s amazing how much you can crop into a photo from 102mp to say 20mp. It’s amazing and heck of a lot of fun!!!!
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.
I have a Sony A1 you wants to see what Images can produce
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.
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.
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.
Good comparison video, many thanks. You are looking much better lately, marriage agrees with you. Enjoying your recent videos, a nice change of pace
it's just the lighting.
Any "hardcore" enthusiast who think that cropping is "a crime", should go to actually look Masters of Photography produced contact prints. They did crop A LOT. The reason is very simple.
Even they didn't know what they really wanted, and they didn't have the zoom to carefully frame the shot.
The simple rules are:
1) Get your camera in the perspective that creates you the composition. That literally means that you need to move around and see the whole scene geometry and lighting to understand where you need your camera to be. Better you are seeing these, faster you are to find your wanted composition.
2) Timing. The second most important part is that you get your timing right. It can be the fraction of second when someone smiles that is the moment you need. Or it can be landscape shot that requires specific season and weather and then few second moments when the lighting is right.
3) Exposure You need to have in ballpark. You tweak and fix dodging and burning the photo later on as required. It doesn't mean at all "I fix it in post". It is literally same process as with film in darkroom, you need to know what you can do and what you can't do. You know how to improve something already great looking scene. Today's sensors are very flat. A 4/3" sensor can capture better side of 10 stops dynamic range, and about 1-0.6 stops less than best 35 mm sensors are both at base ISO, but on same ISO the difference is around 1/3 stops or less. To get the 2 stop difference, one needs to have a Medium Format. The Masters of Photography worked with under 8 stops of dynamic range. And that even was on large formats. Small and Medium Format shooters worked with 6-7 stops dynamic range.
4) Finally comes the framing. And that is simply something that one needs to "see" same time as seeing composition. To realize and notice that what is the interesting parts in the whole scene front of them. And nothing beats the zoom. The idea is never to frame as carefully as possible, to maximize resolution on the detail. Idea is to leave plenty of cropping space, so if required you can even do vertical framing instead.
In reality we talk about 2-5 Mpix range for high quality work. Most viewed images are under 1 Mpix. Our magazines, newspapers, and websites are all full of < 1 Mpix images. And we enjoy looking those. They deliver the needed information and content. We watch movies at 2.1 Mpix at best, now some have started to demand 4K that is just 8.3 Mpix and usually it is even compressed so highly that content value is same as good Full HD video (2.1 Mpix).
World best movies are below Full HD. It doesn't matter.
20 Mpix offers 50% crop. So half of the height and half of width.That makes the 20 Mpix image worth of 5 Mpix.
That is the range when we can still produce a good A3 size prints. So full magazine double bleed.
That 50% crop is same thing as using a 100 mm lens instead 50 mm lens.
This is why the "holy trinity" was 24 / 50 / 100 lenses as you got 2x framing factor between, so if your imagined framing was below 50%, you swapped lens to longer focal length. If you didn't get scene inside 1:1 box in the frame, you swapped to shorter focal length.
Zooms are great because you have that dynamic means to find your best perspective, then find your wanted framing with enough cropping space for optimal shot, and then just do rest. Something that one can't do with a fixed focal length lenses. You can't compromise perspective to move closer or further to fill scene, why zoom helps to optimize the resolution on the detail. For short timing restrictions one can manage take wide and tight shot quickly, or do panorama quickly.
Thanks for your detailed, well organized comment. I learned some important new things from you, even after some hundreds of hours viewing, reading, and taking photos to update my somewhat limited knowledge from decades ago.
I've been using Olympus MFT cameras and lenses for over five years and no complaints at all. I took a series of B&W shots with the original model, which was the OMD-EM5 and a 17mm f1.8 lens and they easily blew up to A5 size in Portrait mode. You are advised to take the shots at ISO200 for maximum sharpness and even hand held you will get great results. I challenge you to start taking hand held shots and see if I'm not correct. Also, I fell in the marshy grass by the River Wyre at Fleetwood with the OMD EM1 Mk2 and 12-100 pro lens. I had to go and buy new trousers, the camera which also got soaked and muddied required a splash of water and some kitchen roll and carried on working as if now't had happened. So rugged? you bet ya! And you're right about getting good glass. The pro lenses are best, followed by the F1.8 primes.
Gavin, I really enjoyed this video, and I was happy you mentioned upscaling, I damaged some of my Fuji gear and took out the old Nikon D90, 16 years old with a 40 mm macro lens, I focus stacked some images and upscaled them in Luminar Neo with stunning results, for someone on a budget I really appreciated that feedback. Cheers mate.
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.
True words and after using 20mp canon cameras for years now I'm more than happy to.put them down for my X2D.
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 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....
damm good advice, I went for lenses, changed my camera when my last one could not do the biz i.e. d300s to the d500 nuff for me for what I do, your a bloody good photographer so I understand your needs.
Yes. You can easily see the difference between 16 and 50mpix files printed on 70x50cm. Retouching is easier, cropping is better and final output is better. Of course, we have upscaling but it will not produce additional detail.
Well done. I shoot college sports on an R6 with the RF 100-300 2.8. During an event I will push a few files to the news outlet and when done, hundreds. Twenty megapixels is very manageable considering I don’t know how much bandwidth I will have at a given venue. The Hasselblad X2D is a very different animal and instead of shooting 12 fps I’m taking my time shooting landscapes one image at a time. With 100 megapixels, later I have the option of finding the composition within the composition. Sixteenth bit raws….magic. Is it a necessity? Absolutely not…but it sure is fun.
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)
Gavin, I have both the X2D and OM-1. Could not agree more. Use the OM-1 and 150-400 with wildlife. It is perfect for wildlife. Had not really thought about landscape. BTW. Use the X2D with the 135. You can get a 600mm equivalent crop and still have plenty of pixels. So when shooting with the X2D, any lens is a bit of a zoom. Yes, I know… you won’t get the compression. But still, not bad.
Great video Gavin, certainly opened my eyes .
Thanks for the tip about using Topaz on the RAW file. I haven't been doing that (until now).
I have use Olympus/OM system, cameras digital and lenses for the last 10 years, In northern Newfoundland temperature as cold as -30c at times with no issues over the last 10 years, with the original E-M1.
doesn't the OM1 have a high res mode with 80mpx or something like that?
Yeah but it can’t be used in every situation. Can’t have anything moving in the image, for instance.
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.
Pixel shift, 50 mp handheld, 80 mp 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.
Think om1 an execlant modern camera
I do agree with the lens steer. If you have a great camera body, you can get great images with non premium lenses. But if you have the premium glass also, WOW. I am happy as a big bag of happy things with my Canon R5 and RF 24-70 f2.8L.....all I'll ever need.
This vidro was ace. Very ingormative, and would have szved me tonnes of cash, if it had been made a few years back. Superb, relevant content. 👍
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!
❤love the video and agree with you i have the om system camera you do need the pro lens for the sharpness
The best POV ever. Thank you.
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.
Oh, and f5.6 to f8 are the sweetspot for sharpness on micro 4/3. At f11 ypu are getting a bit soft.
Nice video. Thanks
I just bought a Canon 5D (13Mp approx). I wasn't looking for pixels, I was looking for the beautiful images it produces. I'll take beautiful images over pixel-count every time.
The truth is that most of the best photos taken, between 2005 and 2008, were taken on a 5D mk1. I know it has limitations, but only when compared to more modern cameras. In 2005 it didn't have ANY limitations. Too many people buying expensive gear, hoping the new gear will help them compose an image properly.
It pisses me off a bit when people praise my photos and add "What camera did you use?". I never ask artists "What brushes did you use?".
The first 1:40 seconds answers the question perfectly.
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 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.
The ending of this video earned my subscription 😂
I’ve got my Nikon Z7 for sale because I want to switch to Sony, if you can tell me another brand I should get, I’m more than grateful to hear your opinion but, in terms of Sony I’ve been looking at the Sony A7R V, what are your thoughts about that camera considering that I’m changing from a camera like the Nikon Z7.
Hope to hear from you soon.
The R4 produces brilliant images. If you can get a deal go for it.
@@fototripperstudio is there an R4? 😂 all I see is R3, R5, R76 and R7.
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 🤷♂️
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.
informative, thnx for sharing
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 :)
Do agree with what you are saying Gavin 100%. Great video thank you.......Colin Devon uk
Another channel ! Thank you Gavin..... 😃
Haha...Like what you did there with the subliminal message. Compositions within compositions. Crops within crops. Ah ha.. Stories within stories. 😂
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.
@@youphototube I think the IBIS can be adjusted.
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.
Well spoken Gavin.
Of all the camera systems I've tried, nothing tops the star trails I get out of the Olympus/OM Systems live composite feature.
Why isn't youtube recommending your channels? Much better than Thomas!
Hello Gavin. The higher resolution is not only important for cropping, you forgot to mention that distorting a 20mpix image, drastically reduces its definition. Personally, I use the warp tool a lot to correct very wide focal lengths, or for more powerful compositions. More than 40 mpix is very important in these cases.
Gavin, where did you get those dynamic range figures from? 13 stops sounds like a 14bit FF figure and not a 12bit OM-1 figure.
Have you done a video where a nice size wall print, say A2/17"X24" , is the goal viewable at 4 feet, using that wonderful X2D along with the top cameras in each sensor size? These videos by working pros help so many people in various stages of their photography journey.Thanks.
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 ...
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
Not yet.
Just curious if you ever tried the high res mode on the OM-1 and if so what was your take away?
Look at canon and Nikon, there older flagship DSLR's had £5k price tags, but were both only 20mp, pretty much every mirrorless camera on sale today has a minimum 24mp at least.
Well done. Well said.
If you're going to go high-megapixel, premium glass is critical. The sensor will magnify any faults a consumer-level lens has, like CA or softness.
Peak advice, cheers
Wonder if people realize that not every lens is capable of resolving down to the high resolution that the more expensive cameras have.
Getting it right in camera is not always possible. Even if you think you took the right lens for the job, you will still encounter situations where you either are too close or too far away without the possibility to change that. That is nothing new. Back in time when I (and many other people) processed photos in the darkroom, cropping and changing the aspect was nothing new. Why should it be now?
Also, having a limited resolution does not mean you cannot crop. Also when using film, you could have used a sensitive film with lots of grain on a stage shoot, but that would not keep me from cropping the unnecessary or distracting parts away. No matter what resolution was left. That still goes today, but even a 24 megapixel camera delivers enough resolution to crop it to 1/4th of the initial area and be able to print it 100 cm wide and look at it in close proximity. Yes, resolution matters, but mostly not.
We have to keep in mind that if we have camera shake of 1 pixel on a 50 mp sensor, the resulting resolution is equal to that of a 25 mp.
We in the M43 Community often refer to that lens as "Gandalf, The Great White Wizard."
Whit the OM1II you can crop with the lens!
Both OM-1s, pixel shift, 50 mp handheld, 80 mp on a tripod. The Olympus E-M1 Mk 3 already had it.
Load of pish, the OM1 is a professional camera system, it's not "good enough for Instagram"
Plus when you shoot highres you get about 1 stop more of DR.
I constantly forget you can upscale with Topaz.
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.
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.
👍
Hello Sir! Would you share your camera settings used for landscape photography in depth, please? That would be a tremendous help.
You can see them in almost every video I make over my Fototripper channel.
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.
Can you please do video about om1 mk2 autofocus, subject recognition and walkthrough menu? I want this system next year becuase I’m outdoor photographer and I need light weather sealed photo camera for rally cars photography .. tnx💪🏼
It's the sensor that is important
Topaz Upscaling? Good old Shannon (aka upsampling) and sharpening does wonders. And it's for free.
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.
@@oneeyedphotographer Sorry, this is factually wrong. DR is not a function of pixel size. The dependence between pixel size and DR depends very much on the design of the individual pixel - it's not straight forward, but the tendency is that for a given reference output resolution and sensor size the advantage goes to smaller pixels. A can go through all the technical reasons for this, as well as the test evidence that supports it, if you don't believe it. Canon R3 and R5 are much the same for DR, because the pixels are very similar design.