Following on from the previous post, lets look at another factor

Be realistic about your (and everyone’s) output needs

Be careful what you think you know here. The internet is full of opinions about image quality* but here a few things to ponder;

Almost no one prints to the maximum size their camera can accomodate and if they did, most of their demons would disappear. A well realised print, taken with any camera capable of reaching the medium’s maximum resolution, has worked well enough since the 19th century.

Pixel peeping does not translate into image quality directly. Image quality comes from strong vision, translated with equally strong, but sensitively applied technique, into a realisation of that vision. Technical considerations have always been lurking in the background, but have never stopped us before, so how is it we are so easily convinced that older is no good and newer/bigger is necessary?

If your work is only going to make a screen, you will likely down size it, to protect it from pirating, or at best only need to match a 2 or 4k screen (about 8 mega pixels).

I remember a pro once telling me, his editor demanded he shoot with at least 24MP for his magazine (at the time the Nikon and Canon flag ships only boasted about 16). He said he would comply, but continued to shoot with his 20mp 5DII and 10mp 40D, with no after effects. He even admitted to down sizing many files without anyone complaining.

The reality is, only a very few photographers, with specific high-res applications actually need the top end of high resolution cameras, but the majority of these sell to people who feel they need the bragging rights. A more important measure is the quality of the image hitting the sensor. Reduced noise, dynamic range, lens contrast, judicious sharpening, accurate focus combined with depth of field control and enough (shutter) speed to control movement blur are all important to image quality, always. Mega pixels are only important to commercial or fine art printers.

That is why top tier sports and journalism cameras only pack 20mp even now, because for a working pro, getting a good shot “in the can” is vastly more important than maximum possible output..

M43 has advantages that in most cases out weight it’s disadvantages. The small sensor is (all things being equal), going to be noisier, but with a 2x reach and depth of field advantage and generally more efficient stabilisers, you can usually regain the 2 ISO short fall and often with smaller, cheaper gear.

My 75mm f1.8 (150mm f1.8 eq) is one of the best lenses I have ever owned, allowing me to shoot indoor basketball at ISO 4-800. Matched to my EM1 mk2 it handles indoor sports (a tough assignment) very well. Would a D5 Nikon and 70-200 f2.8 be better? Yes it likely would, for three times the price, weight and size. Ironically the resolution would be roughly the same.

If you ask yourself honestly how big and how often you want large file potential, the answer is likely well within your current or even past camera’s potential.

I once shot a full morning of lens comparison images between an Olympus EM5 and Fuji XE-1. Only after I got into the virtual darkroom did I realise the Fuji had been set to small JPEG for some images (vs RAW on the Oly) I used for ebay. I did not notice this at all on a 29” screen until I went to pixel peep and images only jumped up about half again. The files were beautiful, just small. I remember thinking how nice it would be to shoot small JPEG’s for a blog or website, without any consideration needed for big prints.

*Reviewers like DPreview can show you the micro differences between camera “A” and “B”, but you need to be take into account here that when the best quality print is needed, most images come down to a balance of original file and good post processing, which can easily increase size, sharpness and impact, making the differences between various cameras irrelevant. As an example, look at some good works done using the Nikon D700 or Canon 5D mk1 full frame cameras. Then compare these to the RX100 Sony 1” sensor compact camera. Does the clear resolution difference make any of the work produced on one of Canon or Nikon’s most loved pro cameras less relevant?