-06705.jpg) | |
|
I have been happily photographing with Micro4/3 system cameras and lenses since 2012. I have literally made tens and tens of thousands of wonderful photographs with this gear. In many past posts, I’ve written about how well the gear has served me. But, there has been a time or two in which I was a bit disappointed in my images.
Recently, while my mind was wandering, a thought came out of the blue. As far as I can remember, there have only been two times when I felt my Micro4/3 gear did not serve me as well as I had expected. Both times were years ago with my Olympus E-M1 and its 16mp sensor. I wouldn't say the camera was primitive as compared to today's cameras, but the sensor and image processor was a lot less capable than the current crop of OM cameras as well as most cameras we now use. So, only being disappointed twice is really nothing to complain about.
The first time was when I was with a couple of photographer friends and we were out photographing birds and wildlife. There was a Bald Eagle's nest high up in a pine tree. It was pretty far distant. The scene was a directly backlit by the clear winter sun. When editing the file, I was unable to bring up the shadows and bring down the highlights and retain the high-level quality the system had always given me in the past. The image just fell apart. The highlights were good but the shadowy area was just mush. It was unusable and, of course, I was disappointed. Now, I'm not completely blaming the gear as my exposure probably could have been better. Maybe I could have even bracketed. Lessons learned.
-.jpg) |
| I’ve been spotted! Yikes! |
The second time is related to something in particular I like to do. As much as I write about not needing a lot of megapixels to achieve satisfactory results, I readily admit I really enjoy ‘punching’ way in to an image on my monitor and see those luscious fine details. To me, there is just something very satisfying about that—seeing details I most likely didn’t even see when I made the exposure. But that is just me. Your mileage may vary. Punching in to see fine details in distant objects is still one of the few advantages high resolution sensors have over lower resolution sensors, for the most part.
In this case, it was a beautiful fall scene full of distant trees bathed in a myriad of color. One of those iconic ‘New England in Autumn’ kind of scenes. I brought it up on my monitor, punched in and the 16mp sensor was just not enough to render the individual leaves on the trees in the distance. I really wanted to see the the character and varied colors of the individual leaves in the trees. Truth be known, I should have known that the detail was far too fine but still, I was disappointed. I now think it was unrealistic to think leaf details would be visible at the distance those trees were situated. But looking at that kind of fine detail rendering puts me right back out there enjoying the moment.
-06690.jpg) |
| Spotted again! I guess I need more 'stealth' practice! lol. |
Other than those two times, I cannot think of another instance when my Micro4/3 kit let me down. I still believe it is an excellent system in every way and I can’t imagine ever giving up mine.
Have you ever had any of your gear let you down?
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2026 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
Nice osprey images. I routinely convert my m43 RAW wildlife images at 33mp in Adobe. For most images, the resizing at conversion gives me a better image to work with than to resize after conversion or by cropping. I am not sure that 33mp is the optimum sizing but it is what I am using now.
ReplyDeleteI also find that resizing Nikon 24mp RAW files to the 8256x5500 of the Z7 renders a very good image for later cropping. I have Gigapixel but am having good luck staying in Adobe.
I think the resizing at conversion is the key.
Atmospheric haze and heat shimmer is the enemy of long lens and distant photography. This past week I was photographing folks on jet skis at a distance. Not a single image was usable because of heat shimmer. Years ago, when surveying during the construction of I-85 I found that 300' was the maximum distance that I could accurately read the vernier on the grade rod with the high magnification transit of that era. At that distance the heat shimmer blurred all details.
Thank you. Also, thank you for your comment. I’m not sure I entirely understand what ‘resize at conversion’ means? Is that in LR, PS or Camera Raw? Can you give us a bit more clarity as to what you mean? ~Dennis
DeleteI use Camera Raw but it is probably the same feature across the Adobe products. Open the image in Camera Raw. At the center bottom of the page is a line that gives the type and size of the image. Click there and the Workflow page opens. There is an opportunity to Resize or make other changes to the image prior to the RAW conversion. Choose the Resize and enter the size for the RAW conversion into PS. Note: the Resize box will stay checked until you un-check it. Then other conversions automatically are made at the default size.
ReplyDeleteI have become a skeptic about the manufacturers sizing and megapixel ratings. It appears the manufacturers standard is a sizing of the image at the printing size at 300 dpi. I use the lateral dimension at 300 dpi for my images. At the defaults, the OM is 17.28" in a lateral canvas size. The Nikon Z7 is 27.5" laterally. However, I can change the Image Size in the drop down menu in PS, and print from 200 DPI to 600 DPI and get the same level of detail in my print. The Canvas Size changes in relation to the DPI setting.
I do not fully understand what is going on "Under the hood" of Adobe. But, I am confident the image sizing, within limits, is a fluid number rather than something written in hard science by the manufacturers. The genesis of this came from a test comparing images from a Nikon D100 6mp crop sensor camera and a Nikon Z7 46mp full frame camera. What should have been 19" lateral prints that looked dramatically different in appearance turned out to be very similar. The common denominators were PS, Topaz, and my Canon printer.
Recently, in a Matt Kloskowski video, he said he printed at DPI levels from 180 DPI to 300 DPI , saying he could not see the difference. My assumption is that he reduced the DPI to enlarge the canvas size of his print, or as a means of cropping to adjust the subject size to his selected print size.
At any rate, give it a try. I may well be missing something, but I believe more in what I see than in the accepted standards published by the manufacturers.
Thank you for your clarification. ~Dennis
DeleteI have experimented a bit further. Super Resolution in LR or Camera RAW provides a similar result. However, it is limited to a doubling of the canvas size from 17.28" to 34.56". And this feature appears to have some level of noise reduction and sharpening that may not be desirable in all situations. Resizing at conversion allows for intermediate sizing. I find this more useful.
ReplyDeleteI may yet get the 50-200 f2.8 but the larger and much slower OM teles are no longer on my wish list.