PDA

View Full Version : Alternative to E-M10 with more pixels


rayton
7th November 2015, 06:37 PM
Whilst I am happy with my OM-D E-M10 I would like to have more pixels/larger file size of 50Mb minimum. The E-M10 produces files just under 50Mb and I realise I could upsize but I am aiming for the best quality I can get. Is there an alternative mirrorless body that would take my existing lenses?

alfbranch
7th November 2015, 06:48 PM
Why the pixel craving?

Zuiko
7th November 2015, 07:06 PM
Blimey, you must have very large walls in your house! :D

If you really must have more pixels the Panasonic GX8 has 20mp, currently the most available on a m4/3 sensor. Personally I think that 16mp is the sweet spot for the format, if we keep going higher eventually we'll be shooting fast primes wide open all the time because stopping down even a little will cause diffraction. I'd like to see future sensors remain at 16mp, with improvements to high ISO performance and dynamic range. :)

benvendetta
7th November 2015, 07:08 PM
Whilst I am happy with my OM-D E-M10 I would like to have more pixels/larger file size of 50Mb minimum. The E-M10 produces files just under 50Mb and I realise I could upsize but I am aiming for the best quality I can get. Is there an alternative mirrorless body that would take my existing lenses?

It won't make you a better photographer. 16mp is enough for most people.

rayton
7th November 2015, 07:46 PM
I submit shots to a picture library who specify a minimum of 50Mb file size without upsizing. This is to cover the possibility of reproduction to large print sizes, even posters in the commercial world. I agree more pixels don't make a better photographer but size matters for my outlets.

PeterBirder
7th November 2015, 08:04 PM
What benefits do you think more pixels/ bigger file sizes will give you?

If you are viewing your images on a monitor display a typical 1920 X 1080 widescreen monitor only displays about 2 mp. Larger files just increase the need for storage and bandwidth for transmission. The whole point of the JPEG format is that it compresses date (lossily) to reduce file size.

The only way (as John hints:)) to display at a higher resolution is by printing and 16 mp will enable you to produce prints more than large enough for domestic use. The "megapixel race" comes from the marketing people who want to convince you that their 2X product will enable you to take "better" pictures than a competitors 1X product.

Did you see the video in this post http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40044 ?

Regards.*chr


Sorry you made your last post while I was typing.

PeterBirder
7th November 2015, 08:33 PM
Do you really mean Mb (Mega bits) or MB (Mega Bytes).

My E-M 10 MkII produces around 7 MB OOC JPEGs when set to "Large Fine" compression but would be 10.8MB if set to "Large Superfine". If you use the raw files and convert in a programme like Dxo Optics Pro (which I use) or Lightroom you will get 17/20MB files. As Dxo hasn't yet been updated to handle MkII raw files I've been using OOC JPEGs and doing basic adjustments (shadows/highlights, micro contrast etc. ) and still get 17/19MB files after this.

Regards.*chr

rayton
7th November 2015, 09:11 PM
I mean MB Peter in the processed image. I can get around 47MB from a RAW processed in Lightroom to a TIFF without cropping. I accept that 47MB would upsize to 50MB without significant loss of quality but the library I use want contributors to use cameras that produce the required file sizes without upsizing. Until recently they specified DSLRs only but have moved to Mirrorless being OK. I would also like the extra pixels on the sensor to allow cropping when necessary. Around 20 megapixel would do it and I have looked at the Panasonic GX8 mentioned by John above but believe it will not accept my current lenses.

PeterBirder
7th November 2015, 09:46 PM
I mean MB Peter in the processed image. I can get around 47MB from a RAW processed in Lightroom to a TIFF without cropping. I accept that 47MB would upsize to 50MB without significant loss of quality but the library I use want contributors to use cameras that produce the required file sizes without upsizing. Until recently they specified DSLRs only but have moved to Mirrorless being OK. I would also like the extra pixels on the sensor to allow cropping when necessary. Around 20 megapixel would do it and I have looked at the Panasonic GX8 mentioned by John above but believe it will not accept my current lenses.

The GX8 is a micro four thirds standard camera and will use any micro four thirds lenses made by Olympus, Panasonic, Tamron, Sigma, or Kowa.
See here; http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/body.html

Regards.*chr

rayton
7th November 2015, 10:12 PM
Thanks Peter. That would meet the requirement but on DPReview I saw this: "The original 14-45mm kit zoom and 100-300m will not be compatible" (both of which I have) see: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9485436827/the-big-beast-hands-on-with-the-panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx8?slide=2

Zuiko
7th November 2015, 10:44 PM
Thanks Peter. That would meet the requirement but on DPReview I saw this: "The original 14-45mm kit zoom and 100-300m will not be compatible" (both of which I have) see: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9485436827/the-big-beast-hands-on-with-the-panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx8?slide=2

I've just looked at the link and it appears that the two lenses you have are not compatible with the new Panasonic in body image stabilisation featured in the GX8. Presumably you can turn this feature off and just use the IS built into the lenses. In all other respects the lenses should be compatible with the camera.

alfbranch
8th November 2015, 12:20 AM
I submit shots to a picture library who specify a minimum of 50Mb file size without upsizing. This is to cover the possibility of reproduction to large print sizes, even posters in the commercial world. I agree more pixels don't make a better photographer but size matters for my outlets.

Go back and check on this as I have seen this before and I think you have this wrong as many top proffessional cameras by the likes Canon and Nikon do not meet the requirement as you read them.

Your camera can produce files that are just great.

OlyPaul
8th November 2015, 10:47 AM
Supply it as a 16 bit tiff file and it will easily meet the requirments.;)

By the way I find the way the size wanted keeps increasing amusing, they were quite happy to accept 34mb files for all purpouses not long ago.

rayton
8th November 2015, 11:14 AM
Thanks for all the replies. First - Zuiko, John, I mis-read the review and agree the body IS could be turned off. Will have a look at the body at a local dealer.
Alfbranch - I have been a contributor to the library for the past 25 years, from my medium format film days, so I know their requirements. Cameras of 18mp plus will be OK. I agree the E-10 can produce great images, depending on the photographer.
OlyPaul - Yes 16 bit files would certainly be above 50MB but the library specify 8 bit. The file size requirements vary depending on which library is being supplied. Generally I have seen requirements reducing over recent years.
Regards and thanks again for all the comments.
Ray

pdk42
8th November 2015, 11:19 AM
Why not just up-res the files to the required level? I doubt it would make any difference in the world of reality vs perceived requirements. I was looking at some images from the Sony A7s yesterday and although it's only 12Mp, the results are gorgeous.

rayton
8th November 2015, 11:34 AM
Yes I might try up-res providing I haven't cropped much. However the library can check on the camera used and what has been done during processing, say in Photoshop etc.
Ray

Graham_of_Rainham
8th November 2015, 12:10 PM
Ultimately the resolution of the produced image need only be as fine as is needed for the distance it will be viewed at.

The vinyl banner and hording printers use very low resolution for outside and only up the resolution where people will get close and look at the detail.

I think this (http://the-print-guide.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/image-resolution-for-printing-lpi-vs.html) is quite a helpful guide.

rayton
8th November 2015, 12:21 PM
Thanks Graham for the link to an interesting article. Unfortunately a picture library can't forecast how images will be used or viewed and so specify high res.
Ray

David M
8th November 2015, 02:06 PM
Given that rates have been in free fall for a couple of decades makes you think agencies keep increasing their requirements so it costs contributors more to make less.

rayton
8th November 2015, 02:55 PM
David I agree that rates of commission have been in free fall but it seems to me that agencies have been reducing their technical requirements gradually inline with developments in technology. eg. the library in question has recently agreed to accept images from mirrorless system cameras rather than just DSLRs. Another library has reduced the acceptable minimum file size from 24MB to 17MB and will also accept iPhone images in a special category. Big changes all round in the digital revolution!

Zuiko
8th November 2015, 04:39 PM
David I agree that rates of commission have been in free fall but it seems to me that agencies have been reducing their technical requirements gradually inline with developments in technology. eg. the library in question has recently agreed to accept images from mirrorless system cameras rather than just DSLRs. Another library has reduced the acceptable minimum file size from 24MB to 17MB and will also accept iPhone images in a special category. Big changes all round in the digital revolution!

It seems strange that the agency in question has until recently declined to accept images that have not been taken on a DSLR. Putting aside any partisan feelings for Micro Four Thirds, it is almost unbelievable that they would not accept images taken with the Fuji XT, Sony Alpha or Leica digital M ranges, some of which are full frame. It also seems strange that they persist with a 50mb minimum file size when, as you say, another library has reduced their minimum requirement from 24mb to 17mb. Let's hope the library concerned is able to justify their arrogance by making high volume sales for their contributors and paying good rates. :rolleyes:

rayton
8th November 2015, 06:56 PM
John it was a puzzling policy for that library. I guess they want to promote themselves as having high quality images but I agree that could be achieved from the cameras you mention. The 50MB minimum is more understandable when they are pitching for the top end of the market. Re high volume sales and paying good rates - if only!

Ricoh
8th November 2015, 09:14 PM
Whoever it is who's specifying 50MB minimum simply does not understand the deeper issues. It has been said often enough already, extra pixels does not mean improved picture quality, unless your talking about a 6x4 sensor and need to print to mount on the gable end of someone's house.
I 'shoot' with M4/3 and 24 MP full frame and I cant tell the difference on my monitor. Ok the full frame has better dynamic range and I'm able to use successfully at higher ISO, but the agency should have made it clear what they wanted or expected. Controlled in the right experienced hands, 16M is more than adequate.

Zuiko
8th November 2015, 09:18 PM
Re high volume sales and paying good rates - if only!

There was a fair smattering of sarcasm all over my keyboard when I typed that sentence! I suspect that David M might have something to say on the matter! :D

Zuiko
8th November 2015, 09:23 PM
Whoever it is who's specifying 50MB minimum simply does not understand the deeper issues. It has been said often enough already, extra pixels does not mean improved picture quality, unless your talking about a 6x4 sensor and need to print to mount on the gable end of someone's house.
I 'shoot' with M4/3 and 24 MP full frame and I cant tell the difference on my monitor. Ok the full frame has better dynamic range and I'm able to use successfully at higher ISO, but the agency should have made it clear what they wanted or expected. Controlled in the right experienced hands, 16M is more than adequate.

I guess it is the prerogative of the library to specify whatever criteria they choose, even if it makes no sense. :confused:

David M
8th November 2015, 10:29 PM
There was a fair smattering of sarcasm all over my keyboard when I typed that sentence! I suspect that David M might have something to say on the matter! :D

My attitude these days is if editors/clients expect to pay peanuts they can deal with monkeys.

Zuiko
9th November 2015, 12:02 AM
My attitude these days is if editors/clients expect to pay peanuts they can deal with monkeys.

They seem quite happy to do that because the modern perception is that even monkeys can take good photographs providing their cameras have enough megapixels. :rolleyes:

David M
9th November 2015, 12:43 AM
I don't know if you got a sitcom called 'Just Shoot Me' over there. One episode was about the magazine photographer being up for an award for a photo taken at a circus. It turned out the photo was.taken by a chimp that had grabbed a camera during the shoot.

Zuiko
9th November 2015, 12:52 AM
I don't know if you got a sitcom called 'Just Shoot Me' over there. One episode was about the magazine photographer being up for an award for a photo taken at a circus. It turned out the photo was.taken by a chimp that had grabbed a camera during the shoot.

I don't think we have that over here, I have certainly never heard of it but it sounds hilarious. Wasn't there a real-life case of a wildlife photographer who handed his camera to some type of ape, which succeeded in taking a rather unique selfie? I seem to remember that there was some discussion about who actually owned the copyright to the photograph. :D

Ross the fiddler
9th November 2015, 04:31 AM
They seem quite happy to do that because the modern perception is that even monkeys can take good photographs providing their cameras have enough megapixels. :rolleyes:

Did you say monkey? :eek:

http://www.happilyunmarried.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/cover11.jpg

http://www.russiangap.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/chimp-with-camera.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/36/4a/f3/364af371ed0d8fb666c873ec1eb3145d.jpg http://www.sowerbyandluff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/monkeywithcamera.jpg

:D :D :D :D *chr

Zuiko
9th November 2015, 08:26 AM
Nice one, Ross! Do you think they say "bananas" instead of "cheese?" :D

Ross the fiddler
9th November 2015, 09:39 AM
Nice one, Ross! Do you think they say "bananas" instead of "cheese?" :D

Of course! *yes :D

Wee man
9th November 2015, 09:40 AM
Brings a new meaning to chimping?

OlyPaul
9th November 2015, 09:48 AM
Yes I might try up-res providing I haven't cropped much. However the library can check on the camera used and what has been done during processing, say in Photoshop etc.
Ray
This image was taken with a E-M5mk2 a few days ago and was upsized but to all intent it was taken on a Nikon D5200 today, where there's a will.;)

http://www.pbase.com/paulsilkphotography/image/161808865/original.jpg

Zuiko
9th November 2015, 10:15 AM
This image was taken with a E-M5mk2 a few days ago and was upsized but to all intent it was taken on a Nikon D5200 today, where there's a will.;)

http://www.pbase.com/paulsilkphotography/image/161808865/original.jpg

Surely you haven't been faking EXIF - that's nearly as bad as a girl friend faking...., well, let's not go there! :eek:

BTW that shot obviously wasn't taken on a Nikon - it's far too sharp! :D