OM-D E-M5 II, smaller MFT sensor still outperforming 70D

[Aglet]

As for printing 24" x 36" prints from a crop camera, we just have different ideas about printing too

we must .. a matte 24x36" is not a big stretch for a 16MP bayer if well processed.

I've got 8 crop-body shots printed that size going up for public display and they all look mighty good.
4 from various Canons (40/60/7D), 4 from a d5100.
They don't suffer any in comparison right next to shots done with a 5D2 at that size.
The only shots that do stand out a bit are the ones from the d800/e. They're bigger and sharper. The one that looks the worst, IQ-wise, is from the 7D (overcast afternoon shot at 400mm). The 7D's shot has been highly abstracted so the noise, altho a problem, was massaged to suit the image.
40D's in 2nd last place for IQ but not much sharpness to be had in a snowstorm scene.

 

[JoFT]

It is very hard to compare these cameras. But I agree: the difference between µ43 and APS-C is pretty close... I like the format of µ43 and the great lenses which you can get...


I made a more detailed hands on comparison.... Due to my taste there are limitations in µ43. The images especially in low light are not as clear as from FF, but in APS-C it comes much closer.....



http://delightphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2015/1/full-frame---aps-c---43-which-format-to-choose (or if there is still and autochange from the admins on this page....


http://bit.ly/1yIg63r


What di you think about this...

 

[privatebydesign]

As for printing 24" x 36" prints from a crop camera, we just have different ideas about printing too

we must .. a matte 24x36" is not a big stretch for a 16MP bayer if well processed.

I've got 8 crop-body shots printed that size going up for public display and they all look mighty good.
4 from various Canons (40/60/7D), 4 from a d5100.
They don't suffer any in comparison right next to shots done with a 5D2 at that size.
The only shots that do stand out a bit are the ones from the d800/e. They're bigger and sharper. The one that looks the worst, IQ-wise, is from the 7D (overcast afternoon shot at 400mm). The 7D's shot has been highly abstracted so the noise, altho a problem, was massaged to suit the image.
40D's in 2nd last place for IQ but not much sharpness to be had in a snowstorm scene.

It can be done, heck you can make billboards from them, we just have different ideas on what quality printing is. I don't like taking 135 format over 20"x30" printed area as I think the quality drop off over that for most subjects and shooting/lighting situations is quite high. I have printed a portrait I took with 21MP 135 at 46"x31" printed area, that I extrapolated to 240ppi, that looked very good even close up, but that was with controlled lighting great contrast and the 100mm L Macro at f7.1.

I am a crisp detail kind of person and hate the smoothness oversized printing brings to the detail. I'd far rather a crisp 20"x30" print than an inevitably lower quality 24"x36", with regards prints people absolutely do not honour 'accepted' viewing distances!

 

[Aglet]

As for printing 24" x 36" prints from a crop camera, we just have different ideas about printing too

we must .. a matte 24x36" is not a big stretch for a 16MP bayer if well processed.

I've got 8 crop-body shots printed that size going up for public display and they all look mighty good.
4 from various Canons (40/60/7D), 4 from a d5100.
They don't suffer any in comparison right next to shots done with a 5D2 at that size.
The only shots that do stand out a bit are the ones from the d800/e. They're bigger and sharper. The one that looks the worst, IQ-wise, is from the 7D (overcast afternoon shot at 400mm). The 7D's shot has been highly abstracted so the noise, altho a problem, was massaged to suit the image.
40D's in 2nd last place for IQ but not much sharpness to be had in a snowstorm scene.

It can be done, heck you can make billboards from them, we just have different ideas on what quality printing is. I don't like taking 135 format over 20"x30" printed area as I think the quality drop off over that for most subjects and shooting/lighting situations is quite high. I have printed a portrait I took with 21MP 135 at 46"x31" printed area, that I extrapolated to 240ppi, that looked very good even close up, but that was with controlled lighting great contrast and the 100mm L Macro at f7.1.

I am a crisp detail kind of person and hate the smoothness oversized printing brings to the detail. I'd far rather a crisp 20"x30" print than an inevitably lower quality 24"x36", with regards prints people absolutely do not honour 'accepted' viewing distances!

I also like a very crisp image and that's why I'm pleasantly surprised that my secret PP sauce (OK, that sounds funny but I'm leaving it as-is) managed to take a 16MP image from an AA-filter-equipped camera, Nikon, mind you, so much less noise to deal with, and, despite the used of a less than fabulous superzoom lens, in moderate light, handheld, above base ISO, produced an image that size that looks GOOD. (I'm out of commas) The find detail available is much better than I expected at this size and the image has a surprising lot of "depth" with a nearly 3D look to it. These images are forest-scapes and there's a lot of fine detail, right down to the texture of mosses, tiny weeds, and little piles of pebbles along a stream.

and 24x36 impresses potential customers more than 20x30, especially if they have to put their glasses on to get a closer look at either. If this was on a fine textured semi or gloss paper, then the results might be a bit different but they look great with the surface texture I'm using.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes, as I keep saying, we have very different ideas on what quality printing is.