Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di..

>
> 10MP at 12x18 is approx. 200 dpi. That's not 300dpi, but should be sharp
> enough. If you want more resolution, there are 22 and 39MP Hasselblad
> medium format DLSRs (pricey and bulky however). The other option would
> be to do panorama stitching, for instance assembling an image out of
> four individual images.
>
> By the way, you'll need a sharp lens if you are planning to make huge
> enlargements. Not every DSLR lens will be good enough.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/




Hi Alfred,

What is the largest you can do blowups with the E330 and still have
excellent sharpness throughout the photo? Are you using good enough
lenses like the 11-22mm/50mm macro/50-200mm? I don't consider the
14-54mm on the same level as these others.

Just as a side note, I can blow up 16X20's with a Contax G system and
4000dpi Nikon V scanner with no problem on the 300dpi Frontier.
Actually, the larger I seem to enlarge these using this scanner the
better they look whereas the larger the enlargement from the same place
using their 1000-1500dpi scanner produces much less clear/sharp images
at 8X12 vs. the 4X6. I just don't see how I can get a sharp/clear
image with film that enlarges as much as I can do with the G
system/Nikon scanner than I would be able to do with say the E330 with
a 11-22mm or 50mm macro lens on it.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

> Hi,
>
> You seem to be trying to compare chalk to cheese.
>
> It should go without saying, that a 4000 DPI Scanner can produce better
> results than a 1500 DPI Scanner.
>
> I am assuming that both these scans were from 35mm Film, but your quaint
> grammar does not quite make that clear. If the 1500 DPI Scan was from a 6x4
> print, then that would make its poor quality even poorer.
>
> What you really seem to be asking is, "Can a 7.5 Mp DSLR produce as good a
> result as you can get by scanning a 35mm frame at 4000 DPI?"
>
> The answer to that is generally held to be "Yes it can".
>
> It may not produce the same PPI figures, but the resulting print can be as
> good, while some would say better.
>
> There is a lot more to Quality in Digital than just the PPI figures for the
> final file.
>
> You will note that I have said "Can" quite often, a lot depends on the
> quality of the equipment used and the skill of the user, in both the Film
> and the Digital workflows.
>
> Roy G

Hi Roy,

You got it right. Both film scanned at 1500 and then 4000, the 1500
printing up to 5X7 and still looking good, but starts degrading at
8X10ish size. The 4000 can give me a 16X20 and look as sharp as the
4X6 with the lower 1500dip setting...can actually look better since I
can post-process the image compared to getting it straight from the
machine but that's a mute point.

The question you answered was what I was asking regarding the
camera/lens setup of the digital vs. film and enlargements. I have
seen figures/tests by photozone who rate the Zuiko digital lenses much
better than the Canon 17-40L and 10-22L, but about equal to the 70-200L
with the Zuiko 50-200mm actually edging out the 70-200L series.

So I guess since there is much more familiarity with those that use
Canon stuff...the comparison can be:

1) Will the Canon 30D with the 70-200mm L series (their best 70-200mm
version) be able produce 16X20" prints that are clear/sharp/etc.?

2) More importantly, at what size of an enlargement can the Canon 30D
with 70-200mm L lens be printed to where one could not see a difference
between say a 6X6 Hassy or Rollei with Rollei or Schneider lenses?

Thanks Roy!
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

>
> But obviously a medium format camera will most likely deliver even more
> detail and a trained eye will probably spot the difference.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

So it will take a "trained" eye to spot the differences. We're talking
about people that have been looking at photos all their lives and make
it a business/living/hobby to speculate the differences seen on
print...or if one of the same scene is taken with the digital and the
MF, will anyone that is good at seeing
information/color/detail/sharpness be able to "easily" say which was
taken by which (say the digital's colors and everything else matched
that of the "film look" to leave things up to other aspects of the
photo for the viewer to determine which was produced by which
setup)...at a certain enlargement of course.

The reason I ask this question is because I plan to do enlargements
only to 16X20" and MAYBE a very best one in a blue moon shot to 18X24",
with the "majority" of enlargements around the 8X10"/12X16" range. I
know MF and LF are based on the ability to enlarge to massive sizes,
but I don't need poster sized images, yet at the same time, I don't
want to see my 12X16's being blown away by MF images which would make
having a digital system that cannot rival MF at 12X16" useless.

Just to give a decent idea...My images from the Contax SLR were not
nearly as sharp as those with the G system. They had a lack of
transparency and a lack of absolute sharpness. The difference is so
apparent it makes no sense to use Contax SLR stuff as something like
Nikon/Minolta/etc. for a lot cheaper can do about the same if I was to
shoot the film SLR.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Progressiveabsolution" <progressiveabsolution.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > 1) Will the Canon 30D with the 70-200mm L series (their best 70-200mm
> > version) be able produce 16X20" prints that are clear/sharp/etc.?
>
> Hmm. All the comparisons I've seen point to the 8MP dSLRs being very close
> to 35mm in terms of detail captured and what the prints look like.
>
> But for 16x20, I'd use 6x7. My experience with (ISO 100 and 160) film is
> that it looks very nice at 7x or 8x, and really mushy and/or grainy at 13x.
> Since 16x20 is a 17x enlargement, I'd not even think about making a 16x20
> from 35mm. That's not a photograph, that's a poster. You can make nice
> posters of any size you like from any film size (or pixel count) you happen
> to have. But they're not photographs.

Even in lowly magazine shots, medium format film reproduced there
"looks" better than
any DSLR shots I've seen. Part of it is how film treats light/dark
interfaces, they are clear and sharp while digital shots are either
oversharpened or look "tattered" due to
the pixel-bleeding effect in the light areas. Tree branches against a
bright sky are a dead giveaway when looking at a shot, you can tell
it's digital or not.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

"Progressiveabsolution" <progressiveabsolution.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158430565.874968.171010@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

1) Will the Canon 30D with the 70-200mm L series (their best 70-200mm
version) be able produce 16X20" prints that are clear/sharp/etc.?

2) More importantly, at what size of an enlargement can the Canon 30D
with 70-200mm L lens be printed to where one could not see a difference
between say a 6X6 Hassy or Rollei with Rollei or Schneider lenses?

Hi.

I am not a Canon user, so I don't know, but I would estimate.

Question 1. 30D, Probably Yes for 20x16, but Yes for16x12. Canon 5D,
Yes to 20 x 16 and larger.

Question 2. Probably at nothing above 10x8, but again you are comparing
chalk to cheese. Just look at the price differences.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

"Progressiveabsolution" <progressiveabsolution.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158442882.174730.82830@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> 10MP at 12x18 is approx. 200 dpi. That's not 300dpi, but should be sharp
>> enough. If you want more resolution, there are 22 and 39MP Hasselblad
>> medium format DLSRs (pricey and bulky however). The other option would
>> be to do panorama stitching, for instance assembling an image out of
>> four individual images.
>>
>> By the way, you'll need a sharp lens if you are planning to make huge
>> enlargements. Not every DSLR lens will be good enough.
>> --
>>
>> Alfred Molon
>> ------------------------------
>> Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>> Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
>
>
>
>
> Hi Alfred,
>
> What is the largest you can do blowups with the E330 and still have
> excellent sharpness throughout the photo? Are you using good enough
> lenses like the 11-22mm/50mm macro/50-200mm? I don't consider the
> 14-54mm on the same level as these others.
>
> Just as a side note, I can blow up 16X20's with a Contax G system and
> 4000dpi Nikon V scanner with no problem on the 300dpi Frontier.
> Actually, the larger I seem to enlarge these using this scanner the
> better they look whereas the larger the enlargement from the same place
> using their 1000-1500dpi scanner produces much less clear/sharp images
> at 8X12 vs. the 4X6. I just don't see how I can get a sharp/clear
> image with film that enlarges as much as I can do with the G
> system/Nikon scanner than I would be able to do with say the E330 with
> a 11-22mm or 50mm macro lens on it.
>
Hi,

You seem to be trying to compare chalk to cheese.

It should go without saying, that a 4000 DPI Scanner can produce better
results than a 1500 DPI Scanner.

I am assuming that both these scans were from 35mm Film, but your quaint
grammar does not quite make that clear. If the 1500 DPI Scan was from a 6x4
print, then that would make its poor quality even poorer.

What you really seem to be asking is, "Can a 7.5 Mp DSLR produce as good a
result as you can get by scanning a 35mm frame at 4000 DPI?"

The answer to that is generally held to be "Yes it can".

It may not produce the same PPI figures, but the resulting print can be as
good, while some would say better.

There is a lot more to Quality in Digital than just the PPI figures for the
final file.

You will note that I have said "Can" quite often, a lot depends on the
quality of the equipment used and the skill of the user, in both the Film
and the Digital workflows.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

"Progressiveabsolution" <progressiveabsolution RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 1) Will the Canon 30D with the 70-200mm L series (their best 70-200mm
> version) be able produce 16X20" prints that are clear/sharp/etc.?

Hmm. All the comparisons I've seen point to the 8MP dSLRs being very close
to 35mm in terms of detail captured and what the prints look like.

But for 16x20, I'd use 6x7. My experience with (ISO 100 and 160) film is
that it looks very nice at 7x or 8x, and really mushy and/or grainy at 13x.
Since 16x20 is a 17x enlargement, I'd not even think about making a 16x20
from 35mm. That's not a photograph, that's a poster. You can make nice
posters of any size you like from any film size (or pixel count) you happen
to have. But they're not photographs.

(Yes, I'm being an elitist snob. But you asked<g>.)

> 2) More importantly, at what size of an enlargement can the Canon 30D
> with 70-200mm L lens be printed to where one could not see a difference
> between say a 6X6 Hassy or Rollei with Rollei or Schneider lenses?

If you use an Epson R800, R1800, or 2400 to print (and you drum scan your
Rollei/Hassy shots), you will be able to see the difference at A4. Those
printers can easily render up to 360 ppi of detail, and the 30D only
provides 290 ppi at A4.

This is under the assumption that people will put their noses on your
prints. Which is what happens when I hand A4 prints to people. (In
comparison, the 5D is 350 ppi at A4, and you won't see any difference. In
Epson inkjet prints, anyway.)

(Also parenthetically, at 13x19 on the wall, people may walk up to your
prints, but I'd think that nose prints would be rare. But I have heard of
people getting prints back from galleries with nose prints.)

From experience, and various pages on the web, 645 (or 6x6 cropped to
rectangular) and 12.7MP are also quite similar in terms of detail captured
and quality of prints.

Life is a bit more complicated with the 10MP cameras, since they are clearly
edging out 35mm, but not quite coming up to 645 quality.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

In article <1158430565.874968.171010.TakeThisOut@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
Progressiveabsolution says...
> I have see the tests on the two Olympus zooms, both that go into wide
> lens territory. The 11-22mm tests better than the 7-14mm, but not by
> much. Which lens is sharper at its best performing apertures?

I heard that the 7-14 is very good. Where did you see the test?

> A question about digital and medium format. If one has a solid
> 8mp-10mp DSLR, what will be the primary differences seen in the photo
> when printed up to 12X18", but "typically" at largest, 8X12"? I do
> have a very discriminating eye, but at the same time, I don't care to
> count the blades of grass in a picture. I am more into the ability for
> the image to be rendered sharp with color how I like it to look, and
> being able to hold its sharpness levels when blown up. For example,
> architecture and shots of bridges/various buildings from around the
> world/etc. where you see a LOT of fine lines and information...the goal
> is "impression" and whether the digital can render a blowup with the
> same "integrity/power" where lines stay sharp and give off a great
> impression or a sense of effortlessness of that which has been
> captured. I have read a lot about people saying it takes an 8X10" to
> see differences, but then I read that it takes a 12X18" to see the
> differences. Trying to gain a better sense of when/where you see the
> differences (coming from an analytical eye that can clearly see
> differences). I ask this question simply because I do not feel there
> is any point to having an MF setup if I do not enlarge past 12X18".

10MP at 12x18 is approx. 200 dpi. That's not 300dpi, but should be sharp
enough. If you want more resolution, there are 22 and 39MP Hasselblad
medium format DLSRs (pricey and bulky however). The other option would
be to do panorama stitching, for instance assembling an image out of
four individual images.

By the way, you'll need a sharp lens if you are planning to make huge
enlargements. Not every DSLR lens will be good enough.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

In article <1158442882.174730.82830 DeleteThis @k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Progressiveabsolution says...

> What is the largest you can do blowups with the E330 and still have
> excellent sharpness throughout the photo? Are you using good enough
> lenses like the 11-22mm/50mm macro/50-200mm? I don't consider the
> 14-54mm on the same level as these others.

Haven't tried the E330, but I made once a 40x57cm (= 16x23 inches) print
of a photo taken with an Olympus 8080 (8 MP, this camera has a very
sharp lens). The print came out sharp without noticeable blur.

A double page spread print done with photo taken with an Olympus 5050
(5MP, lens is less sharp than the one of the 8080) came out surprisingly
well, with no noticeable unsharpness despite the relatively big
enlargement.

But obviously a medium format camera will most likely deliver even more
detail and a trained eye will probably spot the difference.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
> >
> > But obviously a medium format camera will most likely deliver even more
> > detail and a trained eye will probably spot the difference.
> > --
> >
> > Alfred Molon
>
> So it will take a "trained" eye to spot the differences. We're talking
> about people that have been looking at photos all their lives and make
> it a business/living/hobby to speculate the differences seen on
> print...or if one of the same scene is taken with the digital and the
> MF, will anyone that is good at seeing
> information/color/detail/sharpness be able to "easily" say which was
> taken by which (say the digital's colors and everything else matched
> that of the "film look" to leave things up to other aspects of the
> photo for the viewer to determine which was produced by which
> setup)...at a certain enlargement of course.
>

1. Even a non-trained eye can appreciate the impact of Medium Format
slide projected at the same size vs. a 35mm slide! I have taken photo
workshops at the local community college, and each of us had
opportunity to show 3 slides after an outting. I distinctly remember
the Oooh's and Aaaah' that came from my fellow workshop attendees
mouths when the first of my slides were shown on the projector screen!

2. MedFormat is not merely about resolution per se, it is about the
fact that the larger film area permits the same portion of the subject
to be captured with many many more 'color dye clouds' (or B&W film
grains) than smaller format film, so it can capture far better tonality
than the smaller film. While the ll/mm resolution might not differ at
all, the tonality is better, aparting more impact to the photo.


> The reason I ask this question is because I plan to do enlargements
> only to 16X20" and MAYBE a very best one in a blue moon shot to 18X24",
> with the "majority" of enlargements around the 8X10"/12X16" range. I
> know MF and LF are based on the ability to enlarge to massive sizes,
> but I don't need poster sized images, yet at the same time, I don't
> want to see my 12X16's being blown away by MF images which would make
> having a digital system that cannot rival MF at 12X16" useless.

As I pointed out above, even getting FF 35mm to rival MedFormat is not
achieveable especially when enlargement is high. At 12x16, you are at
the hairy edge with 35mm in terms of grain being evident.

Let's analyze this...I have an 8Mpixel (not Olympus) camera with 3500
pixels across. I have a 1280 x 1024 19" LCD (15" across). When I
display using Corel Paintshop Pro at 150% (850 pixels across 15", or
56ppi) there is some pixellation. At 100% (1280 pixels across 15", or
85ppi), things look fine on LCD.

If you are trying to take 3500 pixels and span 20" length, that is 175
ppi. Depending upon viewing distance, and the individual observer's
visual acuity, that may not be enough in the print! So use of bicubic
interpolation (to bump up pixel count in 10% increments) could be quite
advantageous in getting your pixel-per-inch count higher. It won't, of
course, improve resolution of the image, with it will reduce evidence
of pixellation.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
> The question you answered was what I was asking regarding the
> camera/lens setup of the digital vs. film and enlargements. I have
> seen figures/tests by photozone who rate the Zuiko digital lenses much
> better than the Canon 17-40L and 10-22L, but about equal to the 70-200L
> with the Zuiko 50-200mm actually edging out the 70-200L series.


Have another look at photozone.de! In MTF...

for the Zuiko:
at 11mm f/4 center 1744, edge 1580
at 22mm f/5.6 center 1659, edge 1510

for the Canon 10-22:
at 10mm f/5.6 center 2003, edge 1527
at 22mm f/5.6 center 2011, edge 1595

Notice the very dramatic difference in the center, although slight
difference at the edge. Even the Nikon advocate, Ken Rockwell, is
saying he would buy a Canon body merely to be able to use the Canon
10-22!
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Rich" <rander3127.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >> "Progressiveabsolution" <progressiveabsolution.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Will the Canon 30D with the 70-200mm L series (their best 70-200mm
> >> > version) be able produce 16X20" prints that are clear/sharp/etc.?
> >>
> >> Hmm. All the comparisons I've seen point to the 8MP dSLRs being very
> >> close
> >> to 35mm in terms of detail captured and what the prints look like.
> >>
> >> But for 16x20, I'd use 6x7. My experience with (ISO 100 and 160) film is
> >> that it looks very nice at 7x or 8x, and really mushy and/or grainy at
> >> 13x.
> >> Since 16x20 is a 17x enlargement, I'd not even think about making a 16x20
> >> from 35mm. That's not a photograph, that's a poster. You can make nice
> >> posters of any size you like from any film size (or pixel count) you
> >> happen
> >> to have. But they're not photographs.
> >
> > Even in lowly magazine shots, medium format film reproduced there
> > "looks" better than
> > any DSLR shots I've seen. Part of it is how film treats light/dark
> > interfaces, they are clear and sharp while digital shots are either
> > oversharpened or look "tattered" due to
> > the pixel-bleeding effect in the light areas. Tree branches against a
> > bright sky are a dead giveaway when looking at a shot, you can tell
> > it's digital or not.
>
> I think that used to be true, back in the bad old 6MP days<g>, but with
> 12.7MP, things have changed. Also, some of it is experience and taste in
> postprocessing.
>
> With the bimonthly landscape magazine here, I used to be able to tell 35mm
> from MF, and MF from LF at a glance. Some of that was that the photographers
> are competent, so each would be targeting images with levels of detail
> appropriate for the format. But they've begun to print some digital images,
> and they're looking very good. It's an A4 magazine, so the largest images
> are A3 double-page spreads.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Unless they do a direct comparison, it's hard to know for sure, but my
gut reaction to most med format images in mags is "Wow, is that good."
Tonality, sharpness (without a hint of "halo") resolution and in some
cases colour seem to really indicate medium format. But, I'll have to
keep looking too.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di.. 

"Rich" <rander3127.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Progressiveabsolution" <progressiveabsolution.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > 1) Will the Canon 30D with the 70-200mm L series (their best 70-200mm
>> > version) be able produce 16X20" prints that are clear/sharp/etc.?
>>
>> Hmm. All the comparisons I've seen point to the 8MP dSLRs being very
>> close
>> to 35mm in terms of detail captured and what the prints look like.
>>
>> But for 16x20, I'd use 6x7. My experience with (ISO 100 and 160) film is
>> that it looks very nice at 7x or 8x, and really mushy and/or grainy at
>> 13x.
>> Since 16x20 is a 17x enlargement, I'd not even think about making a 16x20
>> from 35mm. That's not a photograph, that's a poster. You can make nice
>> posters of any size you like from any film size (or pixel count) you
>> happen
>> to have. But they're not photographs.
>
> Even in lowly magazine shots, medium format film reproduced there
> "looks" better than
> any DSLR shots I've seen. Part of it is how film treats light/dark
> interfaces, they are clear and sharp while digital shots are either
> oversharpened or look "tattered" due to
> the pixel-bleeding effect in the light areas. Tree branches against a
> bright sky are a dead giveaway when looking at a shot, you can tell
> it's digital or not.

I think that used to be true, back in the bad old 6MP days<g>, but with
12.7MP, things have changed. Also, some of it is experience and taste in
postprocessing.

With the bimonthly landscape magazine here, I used to be able to tell 35mm
from MF, and MF from LF at a glance. Some of that was that the photographers
are competent, so each would be targeting images with levels of detail
appropriate for the format. But they've begun to print some digital images,
and they're looking very good. It's an A4 magazine, so the largest images
are A3 double-page spreads.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus 11-22mm vs. 7-14mm and some questions regarding di..