Comparing Apples with Oranges (aka, Canon and Olympus)

[Skygod44]

I don't know why, but I was perusing some old photos I'd uploaded to POTN and FoP over the years, and then beyond the images themselves, noticing the EXIF data, I was reminded that due to a wrist injury I'd switched camera systems.

It had taken a while to be convinced I was making the right decision.
And selling & replacing all my Canon gear had taken quite a determined spirit.
But if I show you two of my Canon bodies compared with the first Olympus camera I bought - the E-P5 in 2014 - you can easily understand the lack of pressure on my wrist was highly appreciated.


Now, to the crux...
I was watching a podcast on PetaPixel last week, and one presenter was bemoaning how OM-Systems isn't trying to squeeze even more pixels onto it's micro 4/3 sensors.
If I remember right, he said he wouldn't even consider buying a camera without at least a 35MP sensor "these days".
As if it's the megapixel count that matters.

So, looking at my latest Olympus E-P7 Micro 4/3, 22MP (20MP usable) with my long-gone EOS 6D full-frame 20MP at 60% in the following posted images, using similar focal length lenses, what can you really see?

 

[Skygod44]

First, the EOS 6D


Now, the E-P7


Both shot in not ideal lighting, by the way.

To me, the main issue was that the 6D missed focus!
Oh, and my son was such a cutie...
...he's now an annoying 13 year-old!

In the bottom shot, my daughter on the right, and her best friend are perfectly in focus.

I have two, calibrated monitors at home which I'm looking at now.
And I'm not seeing anything "unpleasing" about either image.
Of course, there are emotional attachments for me which is why I can forgive the missed focus from the EOS 6D, but to claim that 35MP is a bare minimum just seems at odds with reality.

My original EOS 30D with its 8.2MP APS-C sensor took great photos.

I will, later this year replace my Olympus OM-D E-M5 mk2 with an OM Systems OM-3, (22MP) because my Oly is on its last legs.
But it's clearly other factors (focusing accuracy, speed, processing hardware/engine, etc.) which come into play...and not sensor size, anymore.

Your thoughts,
Simon

 

[paddler4]

The images as displayed here are 1.4 megapixels, so they don't tell us anything about the difference between 20 and 35.

I currently shoot an R6 II, which is 24 MPX. I would rather be up around 30, like my old 5D IV, but only because I print large and sometimes have to crop a lot. For posting on the web, the extra MPX are of no value. Even printing at 17 x 22 (roughly A2), however, unless you crop a lot, the differences are not big .With a Canon printer, native resolution for a 17 x 22 print is 33.7 MPX (more for Epson), but printing software does a pretty good job of modest increases in resolution.

Given the small size of the sensor, image quality would probably go down if they crammed more megapixels in. That's what happened when Fuji went to the X-T5: the smaller photosite size more than ate up the improvements in sensor design over the intervening years.

I gave very serious consideration to an OM-1 rather than the R6 and still am not certain I made the best choice my purposes. In my opinion, the 4 MPX difference isn't very important, particularly because the 4 x 3 aspect ratio often requires less cropping than the 3 x 2. What persuaded me not to go with MFT was primarily the weaker low-light performance and the fact that it's a 12-bit rather than 14-bit capture. Also, the AF tracking, while good on the OM-1 I, wasn't up to the level of the R6 II.

The real plus of the OM-1 IMHO isn't the smaller body size. It's not that much lighter, and I prefer the ergonomics of a slightly larger body. The real plus of the OM-1 for me would have been the much smaller size and particularly the lower weight of the lenses. At my age, the weight of the FF lenses seems to increase every year, so at some point, I may bite the bullet and move to a smaller sensor.

Dan

 

[Skygod44]

The images as displayed here are 1.4 megapixels, so they don't tell us anything about the difference between 20 and 35.

I currently shoot an R6 II, which is 24 MPX. I would rather be up around 30, like my old 5D IV, but only because I print large and sometimes have to crop a lot. For posting on the web, the extra MPX are of no value. Even printing at 17 x 22 (roughly A2), however, unless you crop a lot, the differences are not big .With a Canon printer, native resolution for a 17 x 22 print is 33.7 MPX (more for Epson), but printing software does a pretty good job of modest increases in resolution.

Given the small size of the sensor, image quality would probably go down if they crammed more megapixels in. That's what happened when Fuji went to the X-T5: the smaller photosite size more than ate up the improvements in sensor design over the intervening years.

I gave very serious consideration to an OM-1 rather than the R6 and still am not certain I made the best choice my purposes. In my opinion, the 4 MPX difference isn't very important, particularly because the 4 x 3 aspect ratio often requires less cropping than the 3 x 2. What persuaded me not to go with MFT was primarily the weaker low-light performance and the fact that it's a 12-bit rather than 14-bit capture. Also, the AF tracking, while good on the OM-1 I, wasn't up to the level of the R6 II.

The real plus of the OM-1 IMHO isn't the smaller body size. It's not that much lighter, and I prefer the ergonomics of a slightly larger body. The real plus of the OM-1 for me would have been the much smaller size and particularly the lower weight of the lenses. At my age, the weight of the FF lenses seems to increase every year, so at some point, I may bite the bullet and move to a smaller sensor.

Dan

Thanks for your thoughts, Dan

I expect that by the time your body tells you enough is enough, you'll be completely happy moving to a smaller sensor.

Oh, and upload limitations from almost all websites is another factor, don't you think?

Why have native 50MP, when online you're going to down-rez to 1?

I also moved away from doing any pro work, a few years ago. So another thought was, "Why chase more and more mega pixels, when no one is paying me (well, only rarely) to crop to get the perfect shot?"

Anyway...
I'll leave it there for now, as I want to get off my arse and go out food shopping, and photo/video shooting.


Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[paddler4]

Oh, and upload limitations from almost all websites is another factor, don't you think?

We agree. That was one of my points. I think the Brits say "horses for courses." For people who mostly display online or on a monitor, the extra MPX is a net negative, in my opinion. Gets you larger files with at best no benefit, and in some cases some harm, like reduced dynamic range. That's why I hope OM doesn't go much above 20, if at all.

However, I'm in a different group: I print a lot, and I sometimes print large. That's where MPX does help, although at my max size, A2 or 17 x 22, anything over 30 MPX is pretty much a waste.

Still, it's all tradeoffs, and with increasing age, that tradeoff changes.

 

[Skygod44]

We agree. That was one of my points. I think the Brits say "horses for courses." For people who mostly display online or on a monitor, the extra MPX is a net negative, in my opinion. Gets you larger files with at best no benefit, and in some cases some harm, like reduced dynamic range. That's why I hope OM doesn't go much above 20, if at all.

However, I'm in a different group: I print a lot, and I sometimes print large. That's where MPX does help, although at my max size, A2 or 17 x 22, anything over 30 MPX is pretty much a waste.

Still, it's all tradeoffs, and with increasing age, that tradeoff changes.

Thanks for the clarification...
Yes, I can see where more megapixels could help - don't get me wrong - but as is often the case with my threads, I enjoy thinking out loud, and then hearing how the community reacts.


I also wonder how far the high-res options in cameras (esp. OM Systems) + AI cleanup software will go?

Even my almost dead OM-D E-M5 mk2 can shoot a 40MP jpg and 64MP RAW file on a tripod.
I'm pretty sure the new OM-3 surpasses that handheld

The problem has always been motion within the frame, for example people moving, or leaves blowing in the wind...
...I wonder if AI High Res will appear soon, fixing those problems?

All very interesting for the future, I think.

But it's time to feed the cats their breakfast...

Catch you soon,
Simon

 

[Nick5]

I never get the limiting 17x22 paper size… it should be 17x25.

 

[paddler4]

I never get the limiting 17x22 paper size… it should be 17x25.

I think it should be A2. It's nuts that we still use the old English system. Bad enough to have 12 inches per foot and 3 feet per yard, but doing things with fractions instead of decimals makes for a lot of work and errors.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Nick5]

My friends called me after they saw this skit on SNL months ago as I always use Metric to tick them off. My navigation, weather apps in Kilometers and Celsius. And of course Military Time on all of my “Clocks”

 

[Nick5]

Name the three countries that are not on the Metric System?

 

[Nick5]

And why 24” and 36” wide printers. Should be 25” and 37”

 

[Skygod44]

I'll admit I had to look it up, but I'm really surprised by the "overview" result.

Name the three countries that are not on the Metric System?

"The United States, Liberia, and Myanmar are the only countries that don't have mandatory metric laws. However, the metric system is used in many parts of these countries, and the United States in particular uses the metric system in science and industry."

At first, I wrongly assumed the UK and USA...
...and was thinking Madagascar, or Tasmania. That kind of intriguing place.

Great question

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[Nick5]

When I was in 5th Grade in 1974 we learned the Metric system as the US was going to convert in time for the 1980 Olympics in Lake Placid following the lead as the Canadians were in the midst of leading to the 76 Olympic Games in Montreal.
America leads and then again has its Head up its…..

 

[Kuma5]

As for the tool/camera, so long as you are pleased with your results. I grew tired slugging heavy 35mm sized rigs with fast zooms. That is why the EOS M6 was enjoyed so much. (gave me close enough to the 5D-III.) If I do find the motivation again I am looking at the finderless EOS R50V. I'm not pursuing photography as an income stream so the mentality for gear is completely different now. These small rigs are easily carried.

 

[saraspics]

When I switched back to interchangeable lens cameras in 2010, the first M43 cameras had just been released and I jumped on the bandwagon, never looking back. For me the weight and bulk were the decision-making factors, as most of my photography takes place during vacations or day trips and I am either on my bike or on foot. My camera (currently either the OM Systems OM5 or my older Panny G81) with the 14-140 lens fits nicely in my purse or bike handlebar bag and doesn't break my back when carrying it around.

One thing I've always appreciated about the Panasonic cameras is the rapid reaction time from turn-on to first focus - the OM is not quite so quick to react. And while the superzoom lens may not be as tack-sharp as one of the pro lenses available, its range suits my sort of photography quite well and I find the results more than adequate.

 

[Skygod44]

When I switched back to interchangeable lens cameras in 2010, the first M43 cameras had just been released and I jumped on the bandwagon, never looking back. For me the weight and bulk were the decision-making factors, as most of my photography takes place during vacations or day trips and I am either on my bike or on foot. My camera (currently either the OM Systems OM5 or my older Panny G81) with the 14-140 lens fits nicely in my purse or bike handlebar bag and doesn't break my back when carrying it around.

One thing I've always appreciated about the Panasonic cameras is the rapid reaction time from turn-on to first focus - the OM is not quite so quick to react. And while the superzoom lens may not be as tack-sharp as one of the pro lenses available, its range suits my sort of photography quite well and I find the results more than adequate.

Thanks for your thoughts and experiences, Sara.

It's interesting to me that the Panasonic fires up quicker than the Olly. I didn't know that...
I wonder if the OM3 has a quick wake up/start up option...?
If-and-when I get a new body, I'll look into that first.

Catch you in the threads,
Simon