MFT I don't get it . . .

Started Jan 29, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
reinish Regular Member • Posts: 127
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
1

So sensors will be higher, so shutter will be bigger, so also heavier, so to keep same shutter speed and reaction times it must travel faster, heavier and faster means a lot more inertia , so lot more fan for shutershokofeels to explore in to 3200 % zoomed pixels and debate in 1234567890th discussion thread about "SS and meaning of life, in theory and practice" . for rest of folk I see only unnecessary problems in that, for wellbeing of those 0,0...1 who wants to shoot 1:1 but don't want to crop later to square from 3:4 using only best central part of lens circle

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Choice is good.

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

If they made the sensor 1:1 then a lot more people would be asking why as they would have to crop to get a different ratio.

Just buy a GX7 and use 1:1   You get an 11.5mp image 3424 x 3424 large jpeg...still a lot more pixels than the cameras a lot of people are using.....and then you can change to any of the other formats.

One thing, would using 1:1 mean that some smaller format lenses might work on m4/3 cameras???

 neil holmes's gear list:neil holmes's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Sony Alpha 7S Pentax K-x Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS +8 more
revio Senior Member • Posts: 1,438
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .

VertigonA380 wrote:

Thanks for the reply Sean, yes I did mean square where the image reaches the edges of the circle. I don't know why there would be more noise thought, it's only a small extension of the existing sensor size.

Well....noise is already a slight bit worse than on fex APS-C sensors, and also if a smaller area would be used the lenses would have to be made a small, still notable, percentage sharper just in order to stay at today´s IQ.

It´s all about making the best compromise that would also be useful during a foreseeable timeline. With today´s IQ from m4/3 as a system, and counting on its probable improvement froim a few years development from now on, it will be a system that sits pretty well in a place where IQ versus cost/size etc is very close to what most amateurs, and a few pros to that, can happily live with, and also be very satisfied with.

-- hide signature --

Aim & Frame

 revio's gear list:revio's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-620 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 +4 more
VertigonA380 OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,133
Re: Maybe what you don't get

Thanks for your reply but really it doesn't sound plausible with Canon and Nikon making very cheap APS-C sensors, most now 24MP and under $500. The whole mirror geometry argument isn't plausible either since the APS-C sensor is taller again. I don't think adding a number of extra photosites is much of an issue, for any sensor maker. I mean Sony can sell you an entire 36MP camera for just over $2000 and Nikon can sell you a FF 24MP camera for $1600 (D610). So to go to 1:1 we are talking about a few strips of photosites.

VertigonA380 OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,133
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .

I don't know what significant problems exactly, I mean they are getting 8fps out of APS-C cameras, good performance at higher ISO's etc. Processing engines even in FF cameras are pushing out more than this, I mean what significant problems exactly?

VertigonA380 OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,133
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .

Like I said you could have the option to trim the image circle, I mean if you can delete an image in camera why can't you delete part of it. Surely when you pick a lower resolution image, either photosites get turned off or part of an image is deleted.

VertigonA380 OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,133
Re: Choice is good.

neil holmes wrote:

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

If they made the sensor 1:1 then a lot more people would be asking why as they would have to crop to get a different ratio.

Just buy a GX7 and use 1:1 You get an 11.5mp image 3424 x 3424 large jpeg...still a lot more pixels than the cameras a lot of people are using.....and then you can change to any of the other formats.

One thing, would using 1:1 mean that some smaller format lenses might work on m4/3 cameras???

Interesting will the GX7 push out a 1:1 RAW file? That's the whole point, going to 1:1 shouldn't mean any increase in lens size, I mean the square inside the image circle could accommodate 1:1.

VertigonA380 OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,133
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .

revio wrote:

VertigonA380 wrote:

Thanks for the reply Sean, yes I did mean square where the image reaches the edges of the circle. I don't know why there would be more noise thought, it's only a small extension of the existing sensor size.

Well....noise is already a slight bit worse than on fex APS-C sensors, and also if a smaller area would be used the lenses would have to be made a small, still notable, percentage sharper just in order to stay at today´s IQ.

It´s all about making the best compromise that would also be useful during a foreseeable timeline. With today´s IQ from m4/3 as a system, and counting on its probable improvement froim a few years development from now on, it will be a system that sits pretty well in a place where IQ versus cost/size etc is very close to what most amateurs, and a few pros to that, can happily live with, and also be very satisfied with.

-- hide signature --

Aim & Frame

Going to 1:1 means using a bigger area of the sensor, marginally but still bigger than the 4:3 format, in layman's terms 4:4.

Art_P
Art_P Veteran Member • Posts: 9,870
Well, the solution of course...
1

Since you know how easy it is to do, design and build your own camera system

-- hide signature --

Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

 Art_P's gear list:Art_P's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +2 more
Gregm61 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,517
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
1

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U1_ZEL0ehkE

-- hide signature --

"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights

 Gregm61's gear list:Gregm61's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Leica M9 Leica M (Typ 262) Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +21 more
mchnz Contributing Member • Posts: 570
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
2

VertigonA380 wrote:

I don't know what significant problems exactly, I mean they are getting 8fps out of APS-C cameras, good performance at higher ISO's etc. Processing engines even in FF cameras are pushing out more than this, I mean what significant problems exactly?

Potential problems:

  • Making chips at higher failure rates costs you or your customers more money (and your products are already pretty expensive compared to the competition).
  • When you go to your sensor manufacturer and ask for something weird, they're going to make you pay for it (and they may also be your competition).
  • Your engineers may not know how to make a system that can obtain and deal with more sensor data and keep the cost and performance as they were before.  Your engineers have only just in the past two years gotten anything like the performance of your rivals - so they're obviously been struggling.
  • You've been evolving a system in a particular way for years, and it will cost you big bucks to make a radical change in your software and hardware (and you're not making a profit to start with).
  • Your management will only tolerate a certain amount of risk - it's easier to sell building on what you did last year (you don't have a Steve Jobs at the top).
  • Many of your customers don't care about this (so it doesn't make it up the priority list - putting engineers on better video out ranks it).
 mchnz's gear list:mchnz's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II
John Kubler Regular Member • Posts: 291
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .

The GH2 has an oversized 18.3 megapixel sensor and allows the selection of the following ratios:

4608 x 3456 (15.9 MP, 4:3),
4752 x 3168 (15.1 MP, 3:2),
4976 x 2800 (13.9 MP, 16:9),
3456 x 3456 (11.9 MP, 1:1).

The 4:3 ratio yields the largest sensor area, while the 1:1 ratio the smallest.

-- hide signature --

JMK

 John Kubler's gear list:John Kubler's gear list
Olympus E-3 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 +16 more
thk0 Regular Member • Posts: 155
I crop nearly every photo
2

Its the first thing I do and by far the most important part of my pp.

It seems ridiculous in this day and age not to give us the entire image circle to work with. Users can set their JPEG cropping preference in the camera. Raw should contain the entire circle.

THK

 thk0's gear list:thk0's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +1 more
thk0 Regular Member • Posts: 155
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .

mchnz wrote:

VertigonA380 wrote:

I don't know what significant problems exactly, I mean they are getting 8fps out of APS-C cameras, good performance at higher ISO's etc. Processing engines even in FF cameras are pushing out more than this, I mean what significant problems exactly?

Potential problems:

  • Making chips at higher failure rates costs you or your customers more money (and your products are already pretty expensive compared to the competition).
  • When you go to your sensor manufacturer and ask for something weird, they're going to make you pay for it (and they may also be your competition).
  • Your engineers may not know how to make a system that can obtain and deal with more sensor data and keep the cost and performance as they were before. Your engineers have only just in the past two years gotten anything like the performance of your rivals - so they're obviously been struggling.
  • You've been evolving a system in a particular way for years, and it will cost you big bucks to make a radical change in your software and hardware (and you're not making a profit to start with).
  • Your management will only tolerate a certain amount of risk - it's easier to sell building on what you did last year (you don't have a Steve Jobs at the top).
  • Many of your customers don't care about this (so it doesn't make it up the priority list - putting engineers on better video out ranks it).

All nonsense in my opinion. It would be trivial to put a sensor behind the entire image circle. The sensor size would not be that huge. The costs are minimal. By your argument they should be putting tiny point and shoot sensors in m43 cameras.

 thk0's gear list:thk0's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +1 more
Sean Nelson
Sean Nelson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,802
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .

John Kubler wrote:

The GH2 has an oversized 18.3 megapixel sensor ... the 4:3 ratio yields the largest sensor area, while the 1:1 ratio the smallest.

Just to be clear, the reason for that is that the GH1/2 sensor doesn't cover the full image circle provided by the lens.   If you built a sensor large enough to contain the complete image circle then the 1:1 aspect ratio would cover the largest area compared to any other rectangular crop.

The big issue with that is that you'd be paying more for coverage that (for most people) would rarely be used.

John Kubler Regular Member • Posts: 291
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .

I agree. The GH1/GH2 sensor is/was anise compromise.

-- hide signature --

JMK

 John Kubler's gear list:John Kubler's gear list
Olympus E-3 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 +16 more
mchnz Contributing Member • Posts: 570
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
1

thk0 wrote:

mchnz wrote:

VertigonA380 wrote:

I don't know what significant problems exactly, I mean they are getting 8fps out of APS-C cameras, good performance at higher ISO's etc. Processing engines even in FF cameras are pushing out more than this, I mean what significant problems exactly?

Potential problems:

  • Making chips at higher failure rates costs you or your customers more money (and your products are already pretty expensive compared to the competition).
  • When you go to your sensor manufacturer and ask for something weird, they're going to make you pay for it (and they may also be your competition).
  • Your engineers may not know how to make a system that can obtain and deal with more sensor data and keep the cost and performance as they were before. Your engineers have only just in the past two years gotten anything like the performance of your rivals - so they're obviously been struggling.
  • You've been evolving a system in a particular way for years, and it will cost you big bucks to make a radical change in your software and hardware (and you're not making a profit to start with).
  • Your management will only tolerate a certain amount of risk - it's easier to sell building on what you did last year (you don't have a Steve Jobs at the top).
  • Many of your customers don't care about this (so it doesn't make it up the priority list - putting engineers on better video out ranks it).

All nonsense in my opinion. It would be trivial to put a sensor behind the entire image circle. The sensor size would not be that huge. The costs are minimal. By your argument they should be putting tiny point and shoot sensors in m43 cameras.

If it's all nonsense, why isn't it here?

Would no one in a camera company have thought of the idea?

Or did they just not feel like delivering what you ask?

Is it a conspiracy to keep us on the upgrade trail?

I don't understand your leap into putting compact sensors - I'm not saying they put in the cheapest chips, I'm saying they put in the chips they can afford/obtain, deliver on time, and still make their target margin.

Was catching up to their rival's sensors also trivial? They just didn't feel like doing it until recently?

Plus, as others have pointed out, not only the sensor changes, but also the shutter, IS, viewfinder, ...

At the end of the day you have to decide on what features are in or out and how much it will cost - otherwise all cameras would be Homer Simpson cameras with fold out beverage holders.

 mchnz's gear list:mchnz's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II
benarden Contributing Member • Posts: 573
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .

honeyiscool wrote:

Because most pictures aren't square, and do you really want to throw away 43% of the sensor when shooting video?

I crop extensively, even with Zoom lenses. A square sensor would just be a waste .

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Re: Choice is good.

VertigonA380 wrote:

neil holmes wrote:

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

If they made the sensor 1:1 then a lot more people would be asking why as they would have to crop to get a different ratio.

Just buy a GX7 and use 1:1 You get an 11.5mp image 3424 x 3424 large jpeg...still a lot more pixels than the cameras a lot of people are using.....and then you can change to any of the other formats.

One thing, would using 1:1 mean that some smaller format lenses might work on m4/3 cameras???

Interesting will the GX7 push out a 1:1 RAW file? That's the whole point, going to 1:1 shouldn't mean any increase in lens size, I mean the square inside the image circle could accommodate 1:1.

Yes raw as well (and raw plus jpeg).    I shoot jpegs.

You can have large (11.5mp), medium (6mp) and small (3mp) in 1:1.

 neil holmes's gear list:neil holmes's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Sony Alpha 7S Pentax K-x Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS +8 more
webrunner5
webrunner5 Senior Member • Posts: 1,110
Re: Choice is good.

Unless you are shooting CD covers it would pretty much be a waste of time.

 webrunner5's gear list:webrunner5's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-50mm F3.8-5.6 Mega OIS +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads