Is the Olympus problem sensors?

CharlesB58 said:

CharlesB58 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.

Click to expand...

So Olympus haven't released a lower end 4/3 DSLR for quite some time, and they have officially said that all the lower end 4/3 DSLRs are not being continued, and somehow everything is fine - and all the fuss has been created by doom merchants and deluded fanboys fighting - I think not!

How am I contributing to rampant misunderstandings? By pointing out the self-evident fact that Olympus have used a 2 year old sensor in their new flagship camera, and that there has been no evidence in the last 2 years that Olympus have any other sensor available to them.

"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. " - I hope you weren't referring to me and I suggest you check my posting history. Yes I do not often post on this forum now, and I am one of the bulk Olympus users who often don't post on this forum. But you will see that this forum is the first I used when I signed up to Dpreview several years back. I have also continually had and used Olympus cameras for over 30 years.

I was trying to introduce some rationality into this discussion. Please explain what positive points your post makes mr forum policeman.

CharlesB58 said:

CharlesB58 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.

Click to expand...

On reflection I think you fundamentally misunderstand what I said and why. What I was saying is that the current situation is because Olympus are searching for a sensor solution that would allow them to introduce the next range of more advanced cameras. I was actually trying to say that it is not all doom and gloom, that Olympus hasn't betrayed you all.

As for the insinuation contained in your remark "Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference." - you clearly seem to think that I am gear freak who doesn't know how to take photographs. Please check out my Flickr Photostream.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9578475@N02/

Just a thought!

What is keeping Oly from contacting Kodak to make 4/3rds again? Their sensors made for a winning combination in the past.

I think there has been some misunderstanding about my point. It was not my intention to argue that it is all doom and gloom because Olympus is probably temporarily stuck without a good enough sensor to make more advanced cameras at the moment. Olympus have been here before, and a similar thing happened with the development of the E-3, which was itself repeatedly delayed. I suspect that then as now, that Olympus were looking for a good enough sensor to do the E-3 justice, and had to wait longer than they expected.

It is almost certain that Olympus will find a solution because they have been successful enough with m4/3 to see that there is a lot of commercial potential in this to make it worthwhile putting some effort into solving the problem. Olympus has no sensor manufacturing capability, but they simply need a partner with this capability, and who sees the commercial potential of these mirrorles systems. Whilst I mention mirrorless systems, as the 4/3 system uses the same sensor, any advanced sensor useful in m4/3, will allow the potential to bulid better 4/3 cameras.

Essentially I am saying that the hiatus in Olympus development of products in the last year or so, is I believe for want of a better sensor. Yes Olympus need to develop other technologies like the AF and EVF, but there is little point in putting a lot of effort into designing a high end camera that is meant to be commercially successful, if it only has the PEN sensor. That is because for a camera to be commercially successful now it has to tick all the right boxes on the specification i.e. resolution, drive rate, video features etc, to be this success. I don't believe that Olympus have any expectation of the E-5 being a runaway success, and its main function is a stop gap to maintain the commercial viability of the 4/3 lens range. Olympus does not have this lens range to maintain with m4/3 and it is all about selling cameras at the moment. So Olympus would not like to put out a high end m4/3 camera that is just a pale reflection of the capabilities of the GH2.

If Olympus does not manage to get more advanced Panasonic sensors they will have to get them elsewhere. There is no need for Olympus to necessarily get hold of a sensor that exactly matches or outguns the best sensor Panasonic has. It just has to offer attractive features or capabilities different to Panasonic. The problem as it stands is that within the m4/3 range, Panasonic have 2 levels of sensor, the lower level 12mp 720p 30 sensor, and the higher resolution multi-aspect ratio GH, full HD 1080 sensor. And Olympus only appears to have access to the lower level one. So by this very fact, any Olymmpus m4/3 camera is always going to look inferior to the higher level GH cameras, if it only has the lower level 12mp sensor. I only mention m4/3 because this is what is driving Panasonic's sensor development, and Olympus has aspirations here.

The 12mp PEN sensor looks limited compared to some competing systems, not because of the lower resolution - but because it appears to only allow slower drive rates, and only offers 720p 30 video i.e. not full HD (1080). It does not matter what sort of image quality Olympus manage to squeeze out of the 12mp sensor, because most of the buying consumers are not photo experts which would understand or appreciate this. So Olympus knows it has to get a sensor that supports more exciting specifications, if its next generation of cameras are going to be commercially successful. Many might think what do I care about Olympus being successful, I am not a fanboy, I just want to use my camera and take photos. Well the continuation, and any future development of the 4/3 system, entirely relies on its commercial success.

In other words I don't think that this is anything to do with Olympus wanting to abandon the 4/3 system, rather it is a temporary problem of them not having the right sensor at this point in time.

This new panny model with the multi-aspect sensor? I'm not up on panmy m4/3 model nos.

Well that sensor is slightly larger than your average 4/3rds sensor. It could be that it wouldn't physically fit in the pre-designed E-3 innards without big changes in what is a warmed over design.

In lieu of no other competing theories that fit, I'll go with that till I hear a better one.

Talking about Kodak Sensors.... I was just thinking... what's up with Kodak DSLR's and found this video on the kodak DSLR forum ... yes there is still one..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLRrgKdX72s

I hope Oly users dont feel this frustrated in the coming years...

OlyAmber said:

This new panny model with the multi-aspect sensor? I'm not up on panmy m4/3 model nos.

Well that sensor is slightly larger than your average 4/3rds sensor. It could be that it wouldn't physically fit in the pre-designed E-3 innards without big changes in what is a warmed over design.

In lieu of no other competing theories that fit, I'll go with that till I hear a better one.

Click to expand...

Yes I do know the GH is a slightly larger multi-aspect sensor, but it is at most a couple of mm larger. If all the sensor was used it might need a fractionally bigger mirror as well. It is true that the over-sized sensor does not conform to the 4/3 standard, but I think the whole idea of a universal system to be adapted by other manufacturers is now long dead, and so there is no need to rigidly adhere to this. Anyway, the m4/3 standard was changed to accommodate the large GH sensor.

The casting of the E-5 body must have changed a bit to accommodate the larger LCD, so I would have thought other parts could have been slightly changed.

ernman said:

Just a thought!

What is keeping Oly from contacting Kodak to make 4/3rds again? Their sensors made for a winning combination in the past.

Click to expand...

Well there was something a while ago on 4/3 rumors claiming that Kodak had promised Olympus a CCD sensor within 2 years that would outperform CMOS sensors. Kodak are still in the sensor making business and I am sure they would love a way into the booming mirrorless camera market. I think that if for whatever reason Olympus cannot get higher specification sensors from Panasonic then they will certainly be looking elsewhere. After all this is how the business works and Olympus said a while back that they were not tied to Panasonic sensors. Being as Kodak are one of the big manufacturers of sensors, it would not seem unlikely that at the very least Olympus had spoken to them, especially considering that Kodak was the biggest partner with Olympus in the formation of the 4/3 standard.

It's an odd size. Who else makes them except to a special order from Olympus?

Evidently, Olympus had a deal with Kodak, make them for us and we'll buy them off you. So they did and we saw a 5, then 8 and then a 10mp version. See, Kodak was advancing the chip with the market as per normal SOP.

But after the 8MP chip, Olympus wanted to go a different way with LiveView in bodies so they used a Panny chip for the 330.

The Europe-only E400 was the last kodak chipped body and it didn't have LV . Yet it's worldwide replacement, the E410 DID!!

Ergo, can I say the kodak chips wouldn't do LiveView or they didn't do it well? That if the 10mp kodak chip would have done LV, the 400 would have had it? As has every Olympus since the 410!

So since that time, all Olympus bodies have had LV so they've needed Panny NMOS sensors.

[My conspiracy theory regards the E400 was Kodak had built a chip that Oly didn't really want but was contracted to take, so they took the least amount they were obliged to. They then aimed them at 1 continent instead of having a messy supply chain worldwide where there wasn't enough bodies to meet demand.]

There is also the untold story of the E3 delay. There where whispers it was due to a iffy sensor... that they couldn't get a good enough chip. But this is rumour.

Another interesting link

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/supportdocs/4-3TypeImageSensors.pdf

I was replying to John Mason. No probs.

It may be a 'few mm' but if it doesn't fit in the E3 sensor holder, it doesn't fit full stop.

Recall, that's a complicated little area with the image stabilisation, the sswf and whatever runs the sensor.

I think they wouldn't need to touch the mirror as it alreay serves a bigger [than the sensor] viewfinder.

It is whatever is behind the SSWF that would need to be physically redesigned. Maybe Olympus designers baulked at the complexity?

Excerpted from the 43Rumors interview with Tester13 (the gent who hacked the GH1 for greatly enhanced performance):

OlyAmber said:

"43rumors: More disasters?

VK: GH2 sensor. It looks like they can’t make enough sensors. Look at AF100 and GH2 announcement. Both had been guarded against obtaining raw footage. They are afraid that final specs of sensor (due necessarily to produce them in big quantities) could differ.

Click to expand...

OlyAmber said:

43rumors: So we have another cause of disaster after price and lens….the limited sensor production.

VK: Limited sensor production can be extremely important. Same thing with GH1. Limited numbers of cameras in first months. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!

Click to expand...

OlyAmber said:

43rumors: Why didn’t they address the issue? It looks like they do everything possible to NOT sell cameras.

VK: They always want to be on edge, here are consequences of this. No one knows how economy will behave after January."

Click to expand...

Full interview is here: http://www.43rumors.com/tester13-the-gh2-is-the-best-but-also-disastrous-camera-for-video-shooters/#more-16420

Panasonic has become notorious in its mFT lines for announcing new cameras and then being months late in delivering them, and then only in a trickle. This being their MO, Oly would be wise to change horses, otherwise they will remain the bride left waiting at the altar at each new Panny sensor release.
--
Sailin' Steve

I personally would like that idea.

If you scale the D7000 16.2 MP sensor to 4/3 size, you get 9.9MP. I would be happy with that. I currently have 10MP and MP count is not my problem.

Joe

I think you are making far too many hypotheses, and contentions, which is bad science and can't be verified.

One at least is easy. Make a thought experiment and saddle the coming Oly micro with a GH2 sensor. Look now at the noise results of the GH2 at base ISO.

If they are the same of the E-5 sensor your theory, might have a chance, otherwise you must accept Mr. Watanabe's statement that he is happy to stay with 12 Mpx and concentrate on IQ, which is what Oly has indeed been doing.

Consider also that with Micro, especially with the compacts, nobody really cares about the pixel count, because many have big dSLR cameras, including FF, with huge pixel counts.

In a second camera all they care is about small size and IQ which is exactly Watanabe's point, and what Oly is delivering.

For P&Shooters it's even less of a problem.

So Oly can now sell its new wares to 100% of the market, instead of selling its traditional few percentages, where a bigger sensor might have given some advantage.

You are still thinking in dSLR-centric lingo, but that patient is dead and in the process of being buried.

End of Mpx wars, beginning of Highly mobile high IQ photography.

Mpx count inessential, unless noise can be reined back.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

OlyAmber said:

I was replying to John Mason. No probs.

It may be a 'few mm' but if it doesn't fit in the E3 sensor holder, it doesn't fit full stop.

Recall, that's a complicated little area with the image stabilisation, the sswf and whatever runs the sensor.

I think they wouldn't need to touch the mirror as it alreay serves a bigger [than the sensor] viewfinder.

It is whatever is behind the SSWF that would need to be physically redesigned. Maybe Olympus designers baulked at the complexity?

Click to expand...

Yes I am using threaded view, this is just out of habit. Olympus have had plenty of time to redesign this area, and as I said, whilst the main body shape remains very similar, the casting of the E-5 body looks to be different to accommodate other changes. Mind you I do agree that Olympus certainly used economy of effort in changing as little as possible. My only regret is that they didn't use this policy when designing the E-3, as my E-1 is still my favourite camera ever, although it only gets used occasionally now. I should have sold it, but I wouldn't like to part with it.

amalric said:

I think you are making far too many hypotheses, and contentions, which is bad science and can't be verified.

One at least is easy. Make a thought experiment and saddle the coming Oly micro with a GH2 sensor. Look now at the noise results of the GH2 at base ISO.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has a clue about noise at base ISO on the GH2 because Panasonic have been very careful about no samples. There are no production firmware cameras and so it is all unknown.

There were not too many hypotheses and I have listed several alternative explanations. The main premise of my argument was based on observations and not speculation. For the last 2 years Olympus have never used anything but the 12mp sensor. Secondly, camera manufacturers only tend to produce groundbreaking new camera designs, when they have a new sensor which supports more features. Both these are observations and not speculative hypotheses.

amalric said:

Mr. Watanabe's statement that he is happy to stay with 12 Mpx and concentrate on IQ, which is what Oly has indeed been doing.

Click to expand...

The only problem is that Akira Watanabe later denied say that in this interview later on. "AW: I have not said we will stop the pixel race nor stop at 12M"

http://www.lenstip.com/116.1-article-Interview_with_Akira_Watanabe_Manager_-_the_main_Olympus_E-P1_designer.html

amalric said:

Consider also that with Micro, especially with the compacts, nobody really cares about the pixel count, because many have big dSLR cameras, including FF, with huge pixel counts.

Click to expand...

Then why do the manufacturers of compacts keep producing compacts with ever higher pixel counts?

amalric said:

You are still thinking in dSLR-centric lingo, but that patient is dead and in the process of being buried.

Click to expand...

Now this Am, provided my biggest chuckle, because I love irony. You may not remember, but you had quite a spat with me a while back when I was saying m4/3 was the future. You kept calling me a futurologist, and said that m4/3 cameras were only for "Barbie Dolls" and suggested they were effeminate. I have not actually got a m4/3 camera yet, although I probably will in the next few months. I don't think it is at all demeaning for someone to change their position as it shows flexible thinking, and I have learned a great deal myself from being wrong and changing my views. So there is nothing personal in this, but I do love the delicious irony of you suggesting I am still thinking in "DSLR-centric lingo" when before you were suggesting I was a futorologist attempting to overthrow the 4/3 DSLR system. Honestly, I had nothing whatsoever with the recent mess Olympus has dug for itself.

Yes, I have changed opinion, and it was not easy to do.In fact I did change it when I went to a trade fair and actually tried a brand new E-PL1. Not only AF was perfectly acceptable, contrary to what had been said here and there, but it was further improved by a firmware upgrade. Also the VF-2 was a wonder. Resolution was also a considerable improvement over any other Oly camera.

Now this brings me back to the matter. If a sensor is noisy, and all High Pixel Density are either you find better denosinig algorithms or you loose resolution because of the denoising, even at base ISO. That is what happened between the 620 and the PL1: there was an increase in resolution without a change of sensor. And yet another one with the E-5.

I don't deny that there might be some progress in the future, who can, and that's why Watanabe statement was vaguely corrected, probably for marketing reasons. But it is an uphill struggle, because what you earn in Mpx, you often loose in photographic IQ. And what you earn at High ISO, you loose at low ISO.

Keep in mind that without changing the pixel density the Pens have earned one ISO stop over the 620, while the E-5 is believed to have earned two, while improving resolution. It is a vindication of Mr. Watanabe early statement.

I am very curious to know what will happen in 1Q 2011 when the alleged Micro semipro will be introduced if there is going to be a pixel increase. They might as well give it the E-5 Truepic V+ and stay at the old density. What is required from an Oly micro is a last increase in AF speed and new HG lenses that support it.

Mpx increase supporting more than 6400 ISO I find really a diminishing return if that means noisier 200-400 ISO.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

amalric said:

Yes, I have changed opinion, and it was not easy to do.In fact I did change it when I went to a trade fair and actually tried a brand new E-PL1. Not only AF was perfectly acceptable, contrary to what had been said here and there, but it was further improved by a firmware upgrade. Also the VF-2 was a wonder. Resolution was also a considerable improvement over any other Oly camera.

Now this brings me back to the matter. If a sensor is noisy, and all High Pixel Density are either you find better denosinig algorithms or you loose resolution because of the denoising, even at base ISO. That is what happened between the 620 and the PL1: there was an increase in resolution without a change of sensor. And yet another one with the E-5.

I don't deny that there might be some progress in the future, who can, and that's why Watanabe statement was vaguely corrected, probably for marketing reasons. But it is an uphill struggle, because what you earn in Mpx, you often loose in photographic IQ. And what you earn at High ISO, you loose at low ISO.

Keep in mind that without changing the pixel density the Pens have earned one ISO stop over the 620, while the E-5 is believed to have earned two, while improving resolution. It is a vindication of Mr. Watanabe early statement.

I am very curious to know what will happen in 1Q 2011 when the alleged Micro semipro will be introduced if there is going to be a pixel increase. They might as well give it the E-5 Truepic V+ and stay at the old density. What is required from an Oly micro is a last increase in AF speed and new HG lenses that support it.

Mpx increase supporting more than 6400 ISO I find really a diminishing return if that means noisier 200-400 ISO.

Am.

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with changing your views, and it is a lot more rational to do so on the basis of experience, than to dogmatically stick to something to defend one's ego.

I agree with a lot of your points. The PEN sensor is good enough for me image quality wise, but for commercial success Olympus has to appeal to a wider market with many things some may think of as gimmicks. In fact I am probably going to pick up one of the older EP-1s going cheap now and then get a GH2. I was hoping for an Olympus version as I prefer the IBIS of Olympus, and their approach.

IBIS is a mixed bag. It is reported not to work with video.

Some argue too that it is preventing Oly to adopt the GHx sensors. Also of course it is difficult to use with long teles.

Happily I prefer wides, and enjoy some MF lenses, so I have a preference for IBIS.

For the sake of product differentiation I hope that Oly won't adopt the GH factor, but will be more in the Leica/Contax style.

Many in the other forum equate Micro with rangefinder and claim for small primes.

But there is also a very different crowd that uses G cameras as dSLR substitutes. Happily there is room for everybody.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

SteB wrote in September 2010:

SteB said:

... After all this is how the business works and Olympus said a while back that they were not tied to Panasonic sensors....

Click to expand...

Probably Oly was already working with Sony sensors, which now cam out in the E-M5, 1.5 years later...