I understand, but with the newer software and hardware, and more megapixels there would be equal or lower performance?

I'm looking at the two sony A7alpha RIII and RIV cameras. The R4 has a sensor size of: 35.7 x 23.8 mm (surface area 849.66mm2), and the RIII 35.9 x 24 mm (861.6 mm2). The R4 has 61MP, the R3 42.4MP. The The R4 pixel density is 7.18 MP/cm2, that of the R3 is 4.94 MP/cm². The pixel area of the R4 is 13.91 µm² and that of the R3 is 20.25 µm².

Besides the higher pixel count, the A7R IV has an updated hybrid AF system comprising 567 on-sensor phase-detection AF points as well as 425 contrast-detect points, covering 74% of the image frame. It also has human and animal real-time eye (detection) AF, and features continuous shooting at up 10 fps, with full AF/AE tracking for bursts up to 7, Yet DXOMark has given an overall rating to the III of 100 and the IV of 99. This may be nitpicking, but does an older system out perform a newer one because of the reduced pixel count with resulting larger pixel area and lower pixel density. I'm assuming these factors allow each larger pixel to gather more light in th R3 and this ofsets the increased number of pixels present in the R4. Is that the case?

Was this done on the enlarger or while the print was developing, or in the stop bath?

So you shot the negative with the enlarger onto the print paper, and then a flash of white light? That makes the whites black and vice versa?

Anyone remember how negative prints were created using BW film an enlarger and a darkroom?

Thanks, it seems like a remarkable camera. Question the small 20mp sensor? Resolution. Any shots?

Has anyone had any exposure to the new olympus camera? Does anyone here use the OMD EM1 Mar II? What is your opinion of this system. Seems they kept the same 20mp sensor, but added alot of bells and whistles. Wondering what people think to the micro 4/3rds system of olympus in reference to resolution, usability etc....

My Olympus M.Zuiko ED 12-40 f2.8 PRO is the most versatile lens in my armamentaria. It is sharp, short, light, and pretty fast. Using on my EM1 MarkII gives me great versatility, options and above all satisfaction.

If you really want to get down and dirty into the minute details of the OM-D E-M1 try Darrell Young's book "Mastering the Olympus Om-D E-M1 Mark II. It is perhaps the most comprehensive reference on the imaging system and is over 500 pages long. He begins with camera setup and controls, proceeds to in detail explain the screen displays, buttons, shooting menus, recording and playback menus. Must read for the new Olympus student.

I am thinking of getting a full frame mirrorless camera and have narrowed it down to these two. I hear great things about both, and have longed to own a Nikon for years. Any recommendations? I presently have an Olympus system so none of my glass would be usable.

I think technology is the great equalizer. For those of us who love photography and looking at still pictures as an art, but know we have neither the funds or talent to aspire to be Ansel Adams, technology allows us to at least sit in the room in a back seat and dream. Are we better now because of technology? For the masses I'd say yes, because technology allows me to produce images I would have never been able to produce with a simple SLR camera. That being said...... the talented few........Ansel Adams, Dorthea Lange, Gordon Parkes etc.........would produce breathtaking images regardless of their equipment. Genius just is.

I looked at the diagram in the guide to sensor size and pixel size. Resolution increases as pixel size dropsand light collection is directly proportional to sensor size. Is there a sweet spot where you get maximum number of pixels with maximum size on a sensor?

Great explaination. Makes sense to me.

Is diffraction the most important issue in reference to image quality here then?

Seems reasonable