Is the Olympus problem sensors?

Plainly Olympus users are not happy, and it is difficult to understand what is going on with Olympus.

I think it is time to re-evaluate the whole situation. People are talking about Olympus abandoning 4/3 to concentrate on m4/3. However, Olympus m4/3 cameras appear to be undergoing the same R&D drought that 4/3 DSLRs are suffering. The last slew of cameras Olympus released that contained fairly new technology were the E-30, E-620, and E-P1 - all of them appearing in around an 8 month period. Since the E-P1 Olympus has produced no really new camera technology. The question is why?

The answer seems quite simple - sensors! You would have thought that Olympus would put there most advanced sensor in the E-5, but instead it appears to have the same 12mp sensor that first appeared 2 years ago.

Sensors are the achilles heel of the 4/3 system. Because no other cameras share the 4/3 sensor dimensions, there is a lack of off-the-peg alternatives, such as there are with APS-C. So for instance Pentax could switch from Samsung to Sony sensors with the K-7/K-5. Whereas Olympus either has to commission someone to design a 4/3 sensor, or rely on what Panasonic produces. For whatever reason Panasonic does not seem to be making its more advanced GH sensors available to Olympus.

The sensor is key to the development of a new camera. The Sony A55, Nikon D7000, and Pentax K-5, which are proving so attractive to many on this forum - are all due to the availability of the same sensor. Even a giant like Nikon cannot build a more advanced camera, until they get the sensor.

Without a more advanced sensor, there is little point in Olympus releasing more advanced cameras because they would always look inferior in specification to Panasonic cameras like the GH2. The 12mp sensor appears to be limited to 720p 30 video, which is always going to look inferior compared to full 1080 HD video - specification wise.

Olympus has shown itself very adapt at making the most of sensors that become available to them. The 12mp sensor resulted in the E-30, E-620 and EP-1 in a short period of time. With the E-5, Olympus have coaxed a bit more out of it. However, I think the E-5 was just a stop gap, Olympus making the most of what it had available to it, and proving it hadn't given up making cameras.

Whilst Olympus may talk about developing m4/3, where is the fruit of this R&D? They haven't produced a significantly different m4/3 camera since the E-P1. This is a crucial time for EVIL systems, with new competitors appearing. So now is the time for Olympus to make their mark, yet all we get is vague possibilities of new cameras in the future. Panasonic are updating all their m4/3 cameras, but not Olympus.

So I think that possibly Olympus are not disrespecting their customers as many seem to think. Probably Olympus are in a difficult position. They want to release new cameras, but know there would be little point until they get the right sensor. If the Panasonic GH2 sensor had been available to Olympus, you would have thought they would have delayed the E-5 to implement it. An E-5 with the GH2 sensor, and its full HD video capability would have meant the E-5 would have been seen very differently.

in a sense you are right, but not perhaps in the way in which you think. The senors themselves are not so very far from the technology used elsewhere. You can see this in evaluations were the sensors are shooting images at the same DoF, and here were the D700 and G1 are used in just such an experiment

http://www.seriouscompacts.blogspot.com/2008/12/panasonic-g1-nikon-d700-iso-shootout.html

If the technology where that far off, this would never work out

So i think the problem is really the sensor area, which is the smallest SLR sensor available. This holds its e/v 0.56 stop below Canon APSC, and 0.73 stops from Sony/Nikon APSC

if you wanted to compete with APSC on noise at higher ISO, the answer is obvious, increase the sensor size.

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

Rriley said:

in a sense you are right, but not perhaps in the way in which you think. The senors themselves are not so very far from the technology used elsewhere. You can see this in evaluations were the sensors are shooting images at the same DoF, and here were the D700 and G1 are used in just such an experiment

http://www.seriouscompacts.blogspot.com/2008/12/panasonic-g1-nikon-d700-iso-shootout.html

If the technology where that far off, this would never work out

So i think the problem is really the sensor area, which is the smallest SLR sensor available. This holds its e/v 0.56 stop below Canon APSC, and 0.73 stops from Sony/Nikon APSC

if you wanted to compete with APSC on noise at higher ISO, the answer is obvious, increase the sensor size.

Click to expand...

I think you are talking about sensor performance image quality wise, where I was talking more from the perspective of a commercially successful camera. Also I own both a Canon DSLR (APS-C) system and an Olympus 4/3 system.

My point was not about sensor surface areas, DR, high ISO noise etc. There are advantages and disadvantages to bigger and smaller sensors. Personally I don't find 4/3 in anyway limiting.

However, the appeal a camera has to the consumer is more to do with headline grabbing specifications, than it is about sensor performance. The reason cameras like the Sony A55, Nikon D7000 and K-5 are grabbing so much attention, even on this forum, is their headline specifications, and not their sensor performance, which has not been thoroughly tested yet. What enabled these headline grabbing specifications is a sensor that allowed high drive rates and full HD video. Without this sensor, these cameras would not have been made.

Camera manufacturers make cameras for commercial profit, and not praise from some enthusiasts. Olympus are only going to produce cameras if it is commercially profitable for them. The E-5 in itself is itself unlikely to be a commercial success, and Olympus appear aware of this. However, it has a commercial purpose in that it helps the 4/3 lens system to continue as a commercially viable option, as the sale of these lenses is profitable, and their design costs are in the past. However, at the moment there is little point in Olympus releasing cameras in the big selling lower end, when their basic specifications would appear to be inferior to competing products.

I think the E-5 will probably be an excellent camera. However, it is unlikely to have much appeal to consumers, given that it has a feature set that would not have caused much excitement over 2 years ago. Olympus' m4/3 cameras also seem lacklustre in specification compared to the new Panasonic m4/3 cameras. This is all because Olympus is using an old sensor, which in todays camera market is fairly low resolution, and it has a very basic video mode, and this sensor only appears to support quite slow drive rates - the E-5 5fps being its fastest implementation.

So I believe that Olympus is being held back from releasing new cameras by a lack of advanced sensors. However, this is not a matter of sensor image performance, but headline grabbing features such as resolution, drive rate, and HD video features.

My essential point is this. It is my belief that Olympus appears not to be keeping up, and abandonding the 4/3 system - not for the reasons given - that it is concentrating on m4/3 - but because it has not had the sensor that would allow it to release the next generation of cameras. Newer 4/3 sensors have been developed as the GH2 shows, the problem being that they don't appear to be available to Olympus.

... is to boost the lens' brightness. They already have the f/2.0 zooms, which give 1 stop advantage over equivalent lenses from other system. However, the sensor is almost 2 stops behind (ISO 800 looks like ISO 6400 on Nikon's) so unless they can bridge this gap they'll always play the chasing game.

GH1 sensor almost closed that gap. If only we have a sensor that good in our Olympus' cameras...

SteB said:

I think you are talking about sensor performance image quality wise, where I was talking more from the perspective of a commercially successful camera. Also I own both a Canon DSLR (APS-C) system and an Olympus 4/3 system.

My point was not about sensor surface areas, DR, high ISO noise etc. There are advantages and disadvantages to bigger and smaller sensors. Personally I don't find 4/3 in anyway limiting.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

The problem is sourcing a good and afforadble sensor and Olympus product development has been effectively marginalised because of the adoption of the 4/3 format. It'd be a totally different scenario had Olympus chosen the APS-C size from the start.

Simon Cowell said:

Simon Cowell said:

I think you are talking about sensor performance image quality wise, where I was talking more from the perspective of a commercially successful camera. Also I own both a Canon DSLR (APS-C) system and an Olympus 4/3 system.

My point was not about sensor surface areas, DR, high ISO noise etc. There are advantages and disadvantages to bigger and smaller sensors. Personally I don't find 4/3 in anyway limiting.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

The problem is sourcing a good and afforadble sensor and Olympus product development has been effectively marginalised because of the adoption of the 4/3 format. It'd be a totally different scenario had Olympus chosen the APS-C size from the start.

Click to expand...

Whilst the APS-C sensor may be the de facto standard for smaller sensored DSLRs, I think that this is only a development that could be seen with hindsight. The 4/3 standard was laid down in the very early days of DSLRs. Whilst the E-1 was announced in June 2003, it must have been developed long before this, and the 4/3 system must have been conceived well before this date - possibly 2-3 years earlier. At this point in time there was not the booming DSLR market there is now, and little indication that APS-C would become such a standard.

This historical legacy has left Olympus with a bit of a problem. APS-C sensors are produced by a number of manufacturers, and the high sales of these sensors mean that the manufacturers put more into R&D. So Olympus is very limited where they can get new sensors. If Olympus did use APS-C they could just have got the new Sony sensor that has enabled the D7000, K-5 and A55 - and created their own camera with these groundbreaking specifications. But they are forced to rely on Panasonic, which appears to be the only manufacturer at the moment making 4/3 sensors. Panasonic self-evidently has a much more advanced sensor in the GH2, but they don't appear to have made it available to Olympus.

Yes it is easy to see with hindsight that APS-C would have made it much easier for Olympus. However, in 2000, or whenever the 4/3 standard was laid down, this would not have been at all clear. If Olympus made their own sensors it would not matter, but unfortunately they don't.

And only use a smaller image circle within it? Wouldn't it give them the square (or circular) sensor others have talked about?

I can see the logic of this argument. What I would like to know is does Olympus have any other realistic source of sensors? If not what is to stop Panasonic from ensuring that from here onwards Olympus is always a generation behind with the sensors it is using? Since the volume of sensors Panny sells to Olympus is probably not crucial to its overall business what is to stop it from effectively putting Olympus right out of the 4/3 and micro 4/3 market? I am not very knowledgeable about these things but from first principles what people are saying makes it sound as though Panny has basically got Olympus by the balls. Or have I missed something?

Olympus should actually drive their own sensor development. I hope micro4/3 profits would allow them to.
--
Cheers,
Arvee
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/johnarvee/popular-interesting/

Brent Lossing said:

And only use a smaller image circle within it? Wouldn't it give them the square (or circular) sensor others have talked about?

Click to expand...

The APS-C sensor is not massively bigger than 4/3, and the Canon sensor is less than 2mm bigger in height. In addition, the Panasonic multi-aspect sensor in the GH cameras is wider than the 4/3 standard. So it does appear that it may be possible to use an over-sized sensor in a 4/3 camera.

The image circle of 4/3 lenses is limited by a baffle at the rear of the lens, but the image circle coverage is bound to be a bit bigger than 4/3, so it may cover a larger area of the APS-C sensor. Also the new APS-C sensors have pixel densities as high or higher than some 4/3 sensors.

Perhaps some of the more technically minded might comment on this possibility.

I think when they designed the E-system they thought that the sensor industry would be booming and they'd have supplies from different vendors albeit this turned out not to be the case.

... it would make a bad impression from a marketing point of view i.e. use the same sensor but have less resolution than competitors.

Plus, the cost issue although it's impossible to know about that.

rookfarn said:

I can see the logic of this argument. What I would like to know is does Olympus have any other realistic source of sensors? If not what is to stop Panasonic from ensuring that from here onwards Olympus is always a generation behind with the sensors it is using?

Click to expand...

Nothing.

rookfarn said:

Since the volume of sensors Panny sells to Olympus is probably not crucial to its overall business what is to stop it from effectively putting Olympus right out of the 4/3 and micro 4/3 market?

Click to expand...

Nothing again.

rookfarn said:

I am not very knowledgeable about these things but from first principles what people are saying makes it sound as though Panny has basically got Olympus by the balls.

Click to expand...

We can't say for sure but it seems to be this way.

rookfarn said:

I can see the logic of this argument. What I would like to know is does Olympus have any other realistic source of sensors? If not what is to stop Panasonic from ensuring that from here onwards Olympus is always a generation behind with the sensors it is using? Since the volume of sensors Panny sells to Olympus is probably not crucial to its overall business what is to stop it from effectively putting Olympus right out of the 4/3 and micro 4/3 market? I am not very knowledgeable about these things but from first principles what people are saying makes it sound as though Panny has basically got Olympus by the balls. Or have I missed something?

Click to expand...

It is difficult to tell if Panasonic does have commercially predatory intentions towards Olympus, but they have certainly got Olympus by the short and curlies. I think that most people, and possibly Olympus, assumed that Panasonic would make all its 4/3 sensors available to Olympus. Self-evidently this has not happened. The hiatus in Olympus releasing new cameras says to me that this is not a situation Olympus had planned for. In effect, Panasonic have made Olympus entirely reliant on their sensors, and this gives them huge leverage over Olympus. They can hamstring Olympus m4/3 cameras and make sure as you say that they are always behind Panasonic.

All this sensor dealing seems to be very secret, and other manufacturers often refuse to say where they got their sensors from. There is a bit of controversy at the moment with the sensors in the D7000 and D3100, with Thom Hogan claiming they are Nikon made, Nikon hinting at that, and Dpreview implying they are the Sony sensors.

SteB said:

The answer seems quite simple - sensors! You would have thought that Olympus would put there most advanced sensor in the E-5, but instead it appears to have the same 12mp sensor that first appeared 2 years ago.

Click to expand...

I think that the sensor in the E5 is not really the same as in the pens etc. There is allways more, the siliconpart, the signal paths, the converters, the processors (3x!in E5) the algorithm. The algoritm used in the E5 is a further development from the one in the pens and the E30/620. It is developped parallel to the 12MP sensor in 3 years time. I think they where not ready to use it in an other sensor. But the results in resolution, in colorresolution too, are very very good. Partly better than a FF 12 MP Nikon. With the right lens ( hg or shg) the resolution get to one pixel! Demoiré is also fantastic. At this moment this sensor is tecnically ready for competition I think. But Olymarketing...are they?

just for grins

1. What if Olympus was not prevented from using the new Panasonic sensor but compared the available sensors for them and decided to go with the 12mp sensor with the larger photosites?

That's the most hopeful analysis.

2. The other issue may simply be cost. The 12mp sensor is available at less cost.

That's a midling analysis

3. Then we have the assumption of this thread that Panasonic is becoming predatory with Olympus by restricting Olympus from getting it's best sensors.

That's the least hopeful analysis.

To see if 1 or 2 or 3 is correct we'll have to see real test reports. Even though the 12mp sensor is 'old', the sensor itself just collects photons. Canon did a real redesign on their sensor for the 7d, but Panasonic just seems to have shrunk it's photosites to join the megapixel race. The engine and amps that connect to the sensor can improve the sensors real life behavior. From what I'm seeing in the sample posts, the 12 mp sensor as implemented in the E5 looks to give about 2 stops improvement over the E3. We'll know for sure when real objective tests are done. But at this point I'm not convinced number 3 is what is driving the choice of the 12 mp sensor in the new E5.
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

dingenus said:

SteB said:

The answer seems quite simple - sensors! You would have thought that Olympus would put there most advanced sensor in the E-5, but instead it appears to have the same 12mp sensor that first appeared 2 years ago.

Click to expand...

I think that the sensor in the E5 is not really the same as in the pens etc. There is allways more, the siliconpart, the signal paths, the converters, the processors (3x!in E5) the algorithm. The algoritm used in the E5 is a further development from the one in the pens and the E30/620. It is developped parallel to the 12MP sensor in 3 years time. I think they where not ready to use it in an other sensor. But the results in resolution, in colorresolution too, are very very good. Partly better than a FF 12 MP Nikon. With the right lens ( hg or shg) the resolution get to one pixel! Demoiré is also fantastic. At this moment this sensor is tecnically ready for competition I think. But Olymarketing...are they?

Click to expand...

One things for sure, we will probably never know the answers, because the camera manufacturers are very secretive about these things. There is always a lot of debate about whether these are basically the same sensor, but with different processing and implementation, or whether the improved image quality is due to an improved sensor. Nowhere is this clearer than with Nikon's use of Sony sensors, with the Nikon imaging quite different from the Sony implementation. Nikon always like to say that the sensor has been made to their specification, others insist it is all down to different image processing by Nikon.

I do like the idea of a thinner low pass filter and electronic processing to remove moire. However, I see very little to suggest that the 12mp sensor is a redesign or a different sensor, not least of all because Olympus have actually said that it was the PEN sensor. The relatively slow drive rate of the E-5 and the limited and not full HD video, appears to be due to the limitations of the chip. If it was such a re-design, I would have thought these issues would have been addressed. Both drive rate and the video implementation are very much headline features in new DSLRs.

John Mason said:

just for grins

1. What if Olympus was not prevented from using the new Panasonic sensor but compared the available sensors for them and decided to go with the 12mp sensor with the larger photosites?

That's the most hopeful analysis.

2. The other issue may simply be cost. The 12mp sensor is available at less cost.

That's a midling analysis

3. Then we have the assumption of this thread that Panasonic is becoming predatory with Olympus by restricting Olympus from getting it's best sensors.

That's the least hopeful analysis.

To see if 1 or 2 or 3 is correct we'll have to see real test reports. Even though the 12mp sensor is 'old', the sensor itself just collects photons. Canon did a real redesign on their sensor for the 7d, but Panasonic just seems to have shrunk it's photosites to join the megapixel race. The engine and amps that connect to the sensor can improve the sensors real life behavior. From what I'm seeing in the sample posts, the 12 mp sensor as implemented in the E5 looks to give about 2 stops improvement over the E3. We'll know for sure when real objective tests are done. But at this point I'm not convinced number 3 is what is driving the choice of the 12 mp sensor in the new E5.
--

Click to expand...

You make some good points and it's always good not to get bogged down with what will always be speculation - because there is little chance Olympus or Panasonic will tell us any of this.

Yes I do agree there are a number of possibilities other than Panasonic just refusing to give Olympus the GH sensors. Panasonic may have been charging too much, or they may have other conditions attached, that may make them unattractive to Olympus. It may also be possible that Olympus does not have enough video expertise to take advantage of the GH sensors, or they may not want to buy licences for AVCHD.

However, I think that Olympus would have much preferred to announce an E-5 with headline grabbing features. What are the features that really grabbed the attention with the D7000 and K-5. It was the high drive rate of these cameras (6fps and 7fps) and their full HD video implementations that have fired up people's enthusiasm. The GH2 sensor would have enabled the E-5 to have these headline grabbing features. If Olympus can wring so much out of the PEN sensor, I am sure that they could have got even more out of the GH2 sensor. So my best guess is that Olympus would have loved the the GH2 sensor, and there has to be a pretty big obstacle to why Olympus could not use it.

SteB said:

Plainly Olympus users are not happy, and it is difficult to understand what is going on with Olympus.

Click to expand...

Actually, what is plain is that a smattering of very outspoken critics-a number of whom have scarcely posted prior to the E-5 announcement, if at all-have launched repeated threads to kick the dead horse.

Then there is a smattering of people who take a fanboyish approach to declaring that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Olympus or the E5

Then there is another group that tries to take a balanced approach-and mostly want to just enjoy taking photos, btw.

And probably the vast bulk of Olympus users aren't even reading or posting on this forum.

For those who actually understand that Olympus is a business that seeks to make a profit off of a market that includes a lot more people than a few "enthusiasts" -a percentage of whom appear to care more about comparing features on a spec sheet than actually enjoying making images-what Olympus is doing is quite clear and logical.

So, let's not contribute to the already rampant misunderstandings by making unqualified generalizations such as the above, ok? Thanks.
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

If Olympus had released a 4/3 format camera with a larger sensor surface area (APS-C or APS-H equivalent) I think they would have had a winning system. The E-3 is way too big for what it is. Set it next to a K-7 and it looks like monster.

Olympus makes really good high quality gear, they just don't have the resources to compete with the other companies.
--
Contax 645, Canon 5D, Olympus E-3 (sold), Playing with a K-7