Friday, March 6, 2009 at 09:13AM



Car in late day spring fog • click to embiggenHoly s**t. I never thought that I would live to see the day when anyone in the tech sector say "enough is enough".

However, lo and behold, none other than Akira Watanabe, leader of Olympus' SLR planning department, has declared:

Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough for covering most applications most customers need ... We have no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System ... We don't think 20 megapixels is necessary for everybody. If a customer wants more than 12 megapixels, he should go to the full-frame models.

Instead, Watanab said Olympus will focus on other characteristics such as dynamic range, color reproduction, and a better ISO range for low-light shooting.

Halle-f**king-lujah!!!!

Something along the order of sanity reigns at Olympus. That's more than enough to make me want to go out and buy into the Olympus system ... no ... wait a minute ... I already have 3 Oly bodies (2 of which have been donated to the Cinemascapist cause) and 4 Oly lenses. Wow. I just knew that my visionary decision to go Olympus when I moved into the dslr ranks was a good one.

All of that said, here's the thing about my current Oly body - a 10mp E3. As most of you know, I have been regularly making 24×24 inch prints from the 10mp files made with that camera. The prints are no-excuses-needed stunningly very nice. IMO, based on 40 years experience in the picturing business, is that they rival, in look and quality, prints made from 2 1/4 (120) film based cameras. Maybe, just maybe, a tad better in some respects.

What they are not is that they are not the pinnacle of absolute sharpness that is possible from APS-sized sensor cameras. However, I don't see this as a deficiency because, when viewed at a proper distance - the distance from which a viewer can see and get the whole picture - or even at a closer distance that is outside of pixel-peeping range, the prints are way more than sharp enough.

That is to say (and not damning with faint praise) that the prints are very sharp - just not as sharp as the current state of the art for non full-frame sensors.

BUT, here's the most important thing - the look and feel of the prints is ideally suited to visually complimenting / supporting what I am trying to say with my pictures.

Here's how I look at it - I think of my Oly as my medium format camera (as judged by traditional analog photography standards). I think of my Pentax K20D as my 4×5-8×10ish view camera (as judged by traditional analog photography standards). If I were to own a FF sensor camera, I would probably have to think of it as something beyond being able to be judged by traditional analog photography standards. Each of these "formats" (all of which are delivered in traditional analog 35mm camera bodies) deliver different-from-one-another look and feel prints.

To my eyes and my sensibilities, each sensor format when printed at 13"×19" and larger presents a different enough visual impression that it can effect an astute viewer's perception - visual and intellectual / emotional - of a picture.

Without getting too in-depth, I look at the difference this way - the smaller sensor format's visual footprint suits the making of pictures that are more "spontaneous" or "casual" in nature or, at least, where the intent is for them to appear to be so. The larger sensor format's look and feel is more suited to making pictures that are more "formal" in nature - pictures that are or appear to be more "studied" in both their making and their meaning(s).

In actual picture terms, think of it as the difference between, as an example, the landscape pictures of the Landscapist and those of Ansel Adams. Or, as the difference between the tableuax vivants pictures of the Cinemascapist and those of Gregory Crewdson .

IMO, the point that the pixel-peeper idiots miss is that, sure enough, sensor size matters - each delivers a different look and feel in pretty much the same manner as different film format cameras did/do - but, choosing to use one sensor format or another should be a matter of using those those differences as determined by what you are trying to express, not whether one sensor format or another is better based on tech specs.

At times, bigger is better, more dynamic range is better, more sharpness is better, and so on. But, at other times, it simply isn't so. IMO, the choice of which way to go all depends on using the tool that gets the results you want/need in order to say what you want to say.

That's the reason that commercial photogs, especially those in the cosmetics world, who need pictures of eyelashes, hair, skin, etc. to be smooth as silk and sharp as a tack, won't even touch a FF-sensor 20mp+ Nikon / Canon / Sony camera. The look and feel they need can only be had by using medium format 40mp+ cameras.

BTW & FYI, one more reason I applaud this 12mp limit idea is that everything I use to process and print 10-14mp picture files - my computer (AKA, my image processing power), my RAM, my hard drive space for storage, my memory cards, etc. - is currently operating at peak efficiency. If I were to move to the next level of mp files (20mp and up), everything would have to change. And, of course, all of those changes would come at great expense and, I would guarantee, at great aggravation as well.

So, kudos to Olympus for putting on the brakes. And I'll be acquiring one of their 12mp bodies soon enough.