View Full Version : So which camera is the resolution king?

Four Thirds User
31st March 2011, 10:20 PM
Four Thirds User (Fourthirds-user.com (http://fourthirds-user.com)) is a sibling site to the e-group.

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 has 16 megapixels to play with, 25% more than all its Micro Four Thirds or Four Thirds stablemates. But the Olympus E-5 has its now famed super-sharp 12 megapixel sensor. So which is king? We compare the GH2, E-5, and throw in the E-30 and E-3 for good measure.

More... (http://fourthirds-user.com/2011/03/so_which_camera_is_the_resolution_king.php)

31st March 2011, 10:54 PM
Interesting results. Trouble is, now I want an E-5 more than ever! :mad:

The graph also shows that I would do well to trade my E-3 for an E-30, at least in terms of resolution, but I'm not going to!

Two questions I have, Ian. Would the extra resolution of the E-5 (over the E-3) be noticable in prints of all sizes? If not, at approximately what print size would it become noticable?

Thanks. :)

31st March 2011, 11:11 PM
Glad I got the E30*chr

1st April 2011, 06:40 AM
Glad i am getting the E30 as well and yet so many others were advising me to go for the E3:)

1st April 2011, 08:39 AM
Glad i am getting the E30 as well and yet so many others were advising me to go for the E3:)

Fair comment in terms of pure resolution. It's got more pixels and a later sensor and processor so it should be better. However, the E-3 has other qualities and using it just seems to arm you with a confidence that comes through in your pictures.

The question is how much resolution do you need? It's a bit like buying a car, do you get the 1.6 litre or the 2.0 litre model? Your budget might allow for the 1.6 with luxury trim and features or the 2.0 basic model. You have to decide, based on your type of driving, whether extra power or improved comfort and better features are more important to you.

Both engines will cruise happily at 70mph, although the 2.0 litre will reach that speed a little quicker. The E-3 produces lovely 16x12 prints, bigger than that I don't know - I've never tried. However, it's fair to assume that beyond this size the E-30 would hold an increasing advantage, although we're not talking huge margins here.

In terms of resolution, for my landscapes I'd do better, in theory, to use my Pen E-PL1 instead of my E-3, but I don't. ;)

1st April 2011, 08:45 AM
In real world shooting I found that the difference in resolving power between the E-30 and E-3 was marginal, but the extra pixels of the E-30 made details easier to pixel-peep! The E-5 has more contrast in fine details, which does make detail stand out more.


PS nobody has commented on the article on FTU yet - I wonder if they suspect it's an April Fools! :D (it isn't!)

1st April 2011, 09:02 AM
In relative "Car Terms" I am still with my Mini Countryman CMT909A ! It travels well; gives great MPG returns on fuel; has the "Estate/Telephoto" capacity and yet a MACRO footprint (for easy parking)!

E1 ! and I am so glad that Olympus 4/3 lenses are compat with E5 as maybe I shall buy an E5 next year ....

BUT strangely my E20P for MACRO - I often wonder if I could get an E1 Power & Drive Train upgrade (as it is s o p a i n f u l l y s l o w :)

My Friendly smiling Frog is E20P MACRO + Telecon Wide - Ian why is it such a good image from this old camera?

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/WFrog3.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/31357)