mfogiel
Mentor
I've just read this article, (http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...ormat-film-we-have-the-definitive-answer.html) claiming that Micro 4/3 cameras have "outperformed" medium format film already 6 years ago. I have no grounds arguing against this particular opinion, issued by an acknowledged high end printer.
Byt hey ! Isn't Micro 4/3 just a fraction of the regular "full frame" available today in digital Leicas?
So how do you - the digital M users, feel having in your hands the wonder tool, which can combine the niftiness of HCB's M3, the resolution of Ansel Adam's 8x10 cameras plus the high ISO capabilities neither of these two gentlemen could dream about, and above all, why on earth do you still complain about "image quality issues", chromatic aberrations, color shifts and similar nonsense.... You should be producing abundant HCB masterpieces with on top the Ansel Adams technical quality, even at night !
Feel free to comment...
Byt hey ! Isn't Micro 4/3 just a fraction of the regular "full frame" available today in digital Leicas?
So how do you - the digital M users, feel having in your hands the wonder tool, which can combine the niftiness of HCB's M3, the resolution of Ansel Adam's 8x10 cameras plus the high ISO capabilities neither of these two gentlemen could dream about, and above all, why on earth do you still complain about "image quality issues", chromatic aberrations, color shifts and similar nonsense.... You should be producing abundant HCB masterpieces with on top the Ansel Adams technical quality, even at night !
Feel free to comment...
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I'm not an experienced printer, but the article is basically quoting Ctein as saying that the results he gets from m-4/3 to inkjet print are equivalent to somewhere between medium format and 4x5. Given the man's lengthy experience and obvious skill, I have no way of refuting that.
I do think it goes a long way toward supporting the notion that camera gear today is plenty sufficient for most people's needs, that the excess is just pixel-peeping obsessives. Of course, this is judging the image as a finished print, not as an image on a monitor screen, which might be more stringent of a format, quality-wise.
~Joe
PS: Another point is that skilled printmaking is a whole 'nother genre from aiming a camera and pushing a button.
I do think it goes a long way toward supporting the notion that camera gear today is plenty sufficient for most people's needs, that the excess is just pixel-peeping obsessives. Of course, this is judging the image as a finished print, not as an image on a monitor screen, which might be more stringent of a format, quality-wise.
~Joe
PS: Another point is that skilled printmaking is a whole 'nother genre from aiming a camera and pushing a button.
Hatchetman
Well-known
I don't know. People claim 4/3 is as good as full frame, which makes no sense to me but I don't know. I print film in the dark room and 6x7 could be printed huge without loss of image quality...much bigger than I am capable of with my setup.
rscheffler
Well-known
I had the chance to see a portfolio presentation by a guy who is a superb printer (and photographer). All of the inkjet prints were in the 16x20 range (or whatever inkjet paper size is closest). Some were shot on 4/3 sensors and looked really great. But I think part of it was a careful combination of matching the subject to the sensor's capabilities, combined with expert software and printing skills. Other images in the portfolio were shot on Pentax 645D at ISO 1600, which apparently is considered an unusable ISO for that CCD sensor. But those too looked great. Something definitely happens when pixels hit paper in the form of ink droplets that bleed and blend slightly to offset the digitalness of the source files.
I recall the transition I experienced going from a higher end CRT to LCD display for image editing. The CRT IMO was akin to printing an image. The pixels on the screen were slightly blended like on a print. The LCD's transitions of 1% density changes were stark and very noticeable. When I look at m4/3 images now, I tend to see a lot of digitalness in the files, particularly the amount of noise at low ISOs. But of course all of these images I view on LCD displays rather than as prints.
Also consider that m4/3 lenses have to resolve an absurd amount of information onto a very small sensor area. Vintage medium and large format lenses have much lower resolving power in the same crop area as m4/3. Imagine the detail in images made by a digitally optimized large format lens that could provide 80% at 50lp/mm over a 4x5" sensor area!
I recall the transition I experienced going from a higher end CRT to LCD display for image editing. The CRT IMO was akin to printing an image. The pixels on the screen were slightly blended like on a print. The LCD's transitions of 1% density changes were stark and very noticeable. When I look at m4/3 images now, I tend to see a lot of digitalness in the files, particularly the amount of noise at low ISOs. But of course all of these images I view on LCD displays rather than as prints.
Also consider that m4/3 lenses have to resolve an absurd amount of information onto a very small sensor area. Vintage medium and large format lenses have much lower resolving power in the same crop area as m4/3. Imagine the detail in images made by a digitally optimized large format lens that could provide 80% at 50lp/mm over a 4x5" sensor area!
gnome chompski
Member
Cameras today are absolutely capable of producing top notch results. Anyone complaining needs a reality check. That said, since digital has made it so easy to get results in a rapid fashion, and the Internet brings so many people together, it seems that nitpicking lens corner sharpness at 200% magnification is the end result. It's easy to fall into this trap, hell I do from time to time. But it's pretty refreshing to take a breather and just do your best with what you have and not worry about the gear rat race.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
If you look at large prints from the distance it is fine for the format mentioned by OP.
Or from the distance at the image on computer screen. But if you start to look at details on the picture full sized on the 21'' screen the "modern" 4/3 is nowhere near to old Canon 5D FF introduced well ahead of Leica FF.
Or from the distance at the image on computer screen. But if you start to look at details on the picture full sized on the 21'' screen the "modern" 4/3 is nowhere near to old Canon 5D FF introduced well ahead of Leica FF.