rvaubel
Well-known
Trius said:
That's what many of us hope, and will probable be true. I found my RD1 with Leica glass to be roughly equivelent to my 20D with Canon glass. Each image had its plusses and minusess, but generally the Leica glass and the less aggressive noise reduction pf the Epson, enabled me to move the RD1 up a notch to the 20D level despite having a megapixel disadvantage. However, you can't work miracles... megapixels be megapixels and noise be noise. I don't believe a 5 megapixel Olympus with its tiny sensor sites can ever produce images as good as the 20D.
But remember the M8 is a 10 megapixel camera. That a big jump up from the RD1's 6MP. With the excellent prime glass available, no anti-alaising filters, and intelligent noise reduction firmware, it wouldn't surprise me if the M8 approaches or equals the likes of the Canon 5D. Even if it didn't quite reach the 5D image quality, I would be happy.
I certainly wouldn't be holding my breath for the M9 or the 139megapixel M13 as so many of the "obsoletist" seem to think we ought to.
Rex
Mark Norton
Well-known
A 10Mp sensor actually only offers a 30% increase in linear resolution. So, take a 30 * 20 R-D1 print and increase the size to 39 * 26 from an M8 and the resolution is the same.
I fully expect the M8 to comfortably out-perform the EOS 5D. An M8 with a 21mm Elmarit or an EOS 5D with whatever 28mm lens Canon will sell you. I know which I'd choose.
I fully expect the M8 to comfortably out-perform the EOS 5D. An M8 with a 21mm Elmarit or an EOS 5D with whatever 28mm lens Canon will sell you. I know which I'd choose.
Bob Ross
Well-known
Rex,rvaubel said:
You might need to recheck your logic
The 5MP Oly E-1 has 6.8µm pixels and the 20D has 6.4µm pixels, so it is the 20D that has the (reletively) tiny sensor sites Also keep in mind that if the M8 uses a derivative of the Kodak KAF-10010 sensor it will also have those 6.8µm sensor sites that can't produce images as good as the 20D:bang:
What you may see after you get finished admiring the resolution is that the Kodak sensor tends to have very nice tonal and color gradients. This may be because the photosites have larger areas due to the FFT structure. They also have high Saturation Signals of 40k electrons, though Canon doesn't publish their specs for comparisons.
The 6MP Sony sensor in your RD-1 and (my KM5D) has 7.8µm sensor sites. Nice images, lower noise at high ISOs, but harsher (for my KM5D) tonal and color gradients than the E-1 (the Sony look=slightly video).
All in fun.
Bob
rvaubel
Well-known
Bob Ross said:Rex,
You might need to recheck your logic
All in fun.
Bob
Bob
Perhaps what I should have said is the 5MP vs 8MP handicap of the Oly is just too much for the optical/everything else advantage the Oly may have. Granted, megapixels arent everything but down at these realitively low levels they do have a practical impact on image quality. At the 10MP level of the M8, I wouldn't get too excited about more pixels. Quality, not quantity becomes more determinative.
You make some very good points, however. Makes me happy the M8 will have a Kodak sensor.
Rex
Bob Ross
Well-known
Hi Rex,rvaubel said:
I would say your statement hold true, if there is cropping involved and a very discerning viewer of the prints or if large prints are made. If we call a 300dpi print from the original whole frame a native print, then the 8MP will yield a 7.8" X 11.6" print and the 5MP (4:3) will yield a 6.8" X 8.5" print. If we adjust the dpi on the 5MP image to get 7.8" on the short side, you get 246dpi. An HP paper on printing rez said that the average person couldn't see an improvement after 240dpi. I think you might notice some fine detail gain if you looked closely. Start cropping (and who doesn't crop) and it is a new game where the 10MP will come in very handy. The native print for 10MP is 8.6" X 12.9". Not bad when they used to say that the best quality from a miniature camera (AKA 35mm) was in a 5" X 7" print.....
Bob
ampguy
Veteran
this is correct
this is correct
most viewers cannot discern more than 240 - 300 dpi/ppi @ 10", and ~ 2 dpi/ppi at billboard distances.
There are advantages to actually reducing your file yourself, rather than giving your lab or printer a huger file than it can deal with, namely the ability to control sharpness.
this is correct
most viewers cannot discern more than 240 - 300 dpi/ppi @ 10", and ~ 2 dpi/ppi at billboard distances.
There are advantages to actually reducing your file yourself, rather than giving your lab or printer a huger file than it can deal with, namely the ability to control sharpness.
Bob Ross said:Hi Rex,
I would say your statement hold true, if there is cropping involved and a very discerning viewer of the prints or if large prints are made. If we call a 300dpi print from the original whole frame a native print, then the 8MP will yield a 7.8" X 11.6" print and the 5MP (4:3) will yield a 6.8" X 8.5" print. If we adjust the dpi on the 5MP image to get 7.8" on the short side, you get 246dpi. An HP paper on printing rez said that the average person couldn't see an improvement after 240dpi. I think you might notice some fine detail gain if you looked closely. Start cropping (and who doesn't crop) and it is a new game where the 10MP will come in very handy. The native print for 10MP is 8.6" X 12.9". Not bad when they used to say that the best quality from a miniature camera (AKA 35mm) was in a 5" X 7" print.....
Bob
black_box
aesthetic engineer.
I noticed obsolete is only being used in terms as in 'obsolete value'... though, performance unthouched
artur5
Member
Mark Norton said:
Ah, but you can put an Elmarit-R 28 ( or a Zeiss Distagon) on the 5D..
That's what I do ( well, not a Elmarit-28 but a Contax 21/2.8 ).
Anyway I hope and expect that the M8 will outperform, but not much, a 5D - at least from ISO 200 to 800.
BTW I have seen Sean Reid's review and what it amazes me is not the noise on the M8 at high ISOs, but the absolute lack of it on the 5D 100% crops.
I seldom use settings above 400 ISO with the Canon, but when I tried 3200 I got way, way more noise that you can see on the review, it's on a pair with the M8 at 2500 but uglier -patchy, filamentous.
I'm wondering if I have a defective unit or it's Adobe Camera Raw so bad..?
Regards
Arturo