On 1/1/2017 4:31 PM, Moose wrote:
On 12/30/2016 2:33 PM, bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Brief response; Moose wrote;
3. My own experience is that at least µ4/3 lenses out
resolve the sensors. I expect this to be true of top line 4/3 lenses, as
well. I have taken otherwise identical test shots with the E-M5 II at
both the normal resolution and with the ~50 MP HR Mode. The considerably
greater detail in the HR images is proof that the limit @ 16 MP is in
the sensor, not the lenses.
By using the 10 MP E-3, with roughly 25%
less resolution than your E-M5, you further limit the performance you
experience.
4. I've said it before, and will probably do so again,
shooting JPEGs further limits resolution compared to optimal Raw shots
properly converted. I've gone into the details before.
In comparisons of images taken with the E M5
and my E-3, if I'm careful with the photography,there's little
observable difference in resolution.
This is so inconsistent with actual samples that you must be doing something very wrong in capturing, processing and/or
viewing.
I already know there's something wrong with your viewing:
"Viewing the images large on Zone10
(and where very large moving them around the screen using the keyboard
arrow keys) has yielded more information than I can get from the images
on my computer, even on my new big screen."
I know you use FastStone. Are you not aware of the ability to view two images side by side - @ 100%? That should show
you everything that's there.
Now to some meat. I've taken studio shots from dpreview, Raw and JPEG, E-3 and E-M5 and superimposed them.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/E-3/E-3_E-M5rez.htm>
If you can't see the difference between the first and last, forget worrying
about how sharp you lenses are.
E-3, JPEG - Notice the red sections of the flags. On the left, there isn't even a hint of the fold details, and almost
none on the right.
E-3, Raw, converted only - This is where a lot of people get lost/confused about Raw files. This looks less clear than
the JPEG. That's because the JPEG has been processed according to the in-camera settings, whereas this image has been
converted only. But notice how there are subtle fold lines in the red, and how the large, white on red type has much
cleaner edges than the funny looking ones in the JPEG.
E-3, Raw & FocusMagic - Now, there are clear fold lines in the red and all the
text is more readable than in the JPEG.
--- This is why I say that JPEGs lose resolution that's there in Raw files.
--- Now on to "comparisons of images taken with the E-M5 and my E-3"
E-M5, JPEG - Yes, the image is larger. But that's not some sort of cheating. The same subject, framed the same, with the
same FL, yields a larger digital file - with more fine subject detail. Far more detail, everywhere, than the best that
can be done with the E-3 image.
E-M5, Raw, converted only - Again, the Raw image, before processing, looks soft.
E-M5, Raw & FocusMagic - And once again, the processed Raw image has more, clearer, detail than the JPEG. Notice the
slight halos around the strokes in the script, lower center in the JPEG and the clean edged in this version.
Note: on the E-3 samples that DPR has shot the JPEG with in-camera sharpening at 0, whereas you have your E-3 set at
+2. This means you are getting more rather primitive sharpening, which tends to halo, from the now ancient E-3 processor.
. . .
A major reason for using the E-3 instead
of the M5, with manual focus lenses, is that the real mirror of the E-3
makes eyeball focussing heaps easier.
As with FastStone, are you not aware of the capabilities of you tools? The E-M5 allows you to magnify the screen and VF
images for manual focus (10x? 14x?). This will allow more precise focus than with the E-3.
By using jpegs versus anything else, and not fiddling with the images myself, I
reduced the
experimental variability. Each test image was given the same treatment, by my
criteria.
But you actually are "fiddling with the images", by your settings of the JPEG parameters in the camera menu. The
processor in the camera converts the Raw image taken to a JPEG with settings of NR, sharpening, saturation, WB, etc.
So yes, you are being consistent, but not optimal. It's equally easy to be
consistent when processing Raw images.
I don't have a RAW converter yet. But exposure
features such as colour intensity, brightness etc were not under test.
For the purposes of the trial I ignored them.
As above, resolution is affected by JPEG vs. Raw.
As before, brightness and contrast affect human perception of sharpness. For this kind of test, they don't need to be
identical, but should be similar.
Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|